Re: Is Ethane a dangerous greenhouse gas ?
kdt...@earthlink.net
> chemist wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 6:06 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >> chemist wrote:
> >>> I will bet that Roger Coppock's progeny cannot demonstrate
> >>> that Ethane is a dangerous greenhouse gas using
> >>> a greenhouse gas experiment of their choice.
> >>> It warms at the same rate as air in the experiment
> >>> that "proves" CO2 is a GHG and:
> >>> it melts as much Ice as air in the the the that "proves"
> >>> that Methane is a GHG.
> >> Firstly, ethane is a greenhouse gas. This can be determined by examining
> >> its IR spectrum. You can look up the spectrum or read about it in the
> >> literature. You are a chemist, aren't you?
>
> >> Secondly, what do you mean by dangerous? The gas itself or its
> >> presence in the atmosphere? At a concentration of less than 1ppb it can
> >> hardly be considered dangerous.
>
> > You daft bat . If it cannot be demonstrated to be greenhouse gas
> > by experimental means then no other gas can be either.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/696f9970acb4d5b6/20aced60602f09fa?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F696f9970acb4d5b6%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_20aced60602f09fa
'> Try looking up the definition of a greenhouse gas:
>
'"A gas, such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane,
'> chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
that
'> absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation"
>
'> You are a chemist, aren't you?
>
You cannot demonstrate that the 'greenhouse gases' inordinately absorb
infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is pure energy which can be
quantified according to hv. Your theoretical interpretaion of the dark
spectroscopic bands cannot stand up to actual scientific
investigation.
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.
If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10
feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.
If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
This is because the gas molecules all absorb infrared and emit
infrared. The dark spectroscopic bands are not absorption bands, but
bands at which the CO2 does not radiate. The gas molecules absorb
radiant energy and emit this energy in the continuous spectrum of the
infrared.
This is also proved by the CO2 laser. The dark bands of CO2 force the
emissions at the bands at which CO2 is supposedly 'transparent', near
10um. Any laser only uses the parrallel mirrors to augment the
frequencies which the lasing substance absorbs and emits.
All molecules, such as liquids and solids have bands in their infrared
spectrum, but all substances reach the same temperature in cavity
oven, demonstrating that overal absorption and emission is not
dependent upon the substance. This is the primary theorem from
Kirchoff, 1859, which began the proper school of theory culminating
with Planck and Einstein, who clearly defined radiation energy as
packets or photons.
Since the gas molecules of O2 and N2 are absorbing and radiating at
these frequencies, they do not produce the dark bands. But the small
amounts of CO2 defeat the production of these frequencies. Since
generally the gas molecules absorb a photon and then radiate the
energy near to the energy of the absorbed photon, the production of
the frequenies is defeated. This causes the experimental fact of no
effect upon temperature of the gases because the energy is simply
radiated at other frequencies.
To define CO2 and other gases as you do, you therefore must
differentiate these gases to those you claim to not be greenhouse
gases such as N2 and O2.
In your theory you claim non-greenhouse gases only exchange energy by
conduction or collision of the molecules. These energies are clearly
defined by Boltzman by kT, and RT. kT is the average energy of a
molecule. RT is the total energy of the molecules in 1 mole of gas due
to their motions and collisions.
It is not difficult to prove that N2 transfers far more energy to
solid surfaces than can be accounted for by mere collisions.
The concept of 'greenhouse gases' was dropped by modern chemistry in
the early 20th century due to proper experimental techniques and lack
of experimental data to confirm the postulate. It was revived in the
1960's by theoretical scientists, still with no direct laboaratory
evidence.
Someday this simple proof of the fallacy of this cocept will be the
DEATH NELL of the greenie movement.and the so called 'scientists' of
theoretical physics who have no connection with experimental reality
in their use of such words as 'greenhouse' gases and 'infrared
radiation', 'energy' or 'temperature'.
The movement to control GHG's according to the theory that these gases
are to cause drastic changes in climate can be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, to be clear CRIMINAL FRAUD.
KD
The AGWBunnies
Beating their little drum for their holy war against modern society,,,
They keep going,,, and going,,,
Timothy Casey
news:d57d1c91-df12-489d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
>If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
>clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
>ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
>increased ENERGY.
>
>If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
>are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
>the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10
>feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
>TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.
>
>If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
>meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
>EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
.
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem to get
are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given the range of
error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and fibbery seem to be a
major focus as well.
.
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to indicate that
what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all the computer-modeling
spam. Can you point me at a reference to who did that spectral experiment
you mention and first remembered to check the temperature as the composition
changed?
.
Thanks in advance...
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prim...@timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
I M @ good guy
Can you be more specific, would spectra show
what you want, I don't think spectra shows quantity
or rate of energy transfer.
Careful with Kd wording, he sometimes omits
the confidence factor.
As far as GHGs go, I think an experiment with
just plastic sheet that is transparent to all LWIR bands
could be used in a long hallway to determine how
much absorption and emission each gas or gas
mixture is capable of.
Dry nitrogen is readily available, as is CO2,
and water vapor is easy to make. and very accurate
thermal addition to a gas is easy to measure using
electric resistance heat input.
If a gas emits and absorbs as claimed, the
gas in one compartment warmed, should warm
the same gas in another compartment in the
hallway.
A result greater than in the middle troposphere
should be expected because the hallway will almost
certainly be warmer than the atmosphere.
I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
like this have not been done, the classroom demos
are not scientific at all.
I also wonder about the claim of how much
the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
then a square meter air column would have to
radiate that much.
Things like this are what makes skeptics
skeptical, even handling of the UHI should be
more appropriate, there is essentially no UHI
when it rains quite a bit, but in most cities in
moderate zones there is at least 3 degrees
UHI on a dry day.
3 degrees would make a big change
in the data since most stations used are in
cities or airports.
And it is discouraging that more definite
information is not available, it seems satellite
data always shows cooler temperatures than
the surface stations.
Bill Ward
> "kdt...@yahoo.com" <kdt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:d57d1c91-df12-489d-807e-
add16a...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
You may want to try searching for "photoacoustic CO2 analysis", or "non-
dispersive IR gas detection".
There are commercially successful gas detectors that work by detecting
the small changes in pressure that occur when a sample absorbs a chopped
beam of IR.
Here's a paper on a CO2 detector using the 1.5u line:
<http://www.if.pwr.wroc.pl/~optappl/pdf/2008/no2/optappl_3802p341.pdf>
Figure 1 on pg 343 has a schematic diagram. It would be hard to deny
that CO2 absorbs IR, since the resulting heat is what causes the pressure
changes.
Timothy Casey
news:304td5ph1kkqb3g3u...@4ax.com...
I'm looking for experiments measuring temperature variation in response to
compositional changes conducted in the presence of constant total incident
radiation.
.
So far, KD's description is the closest fit to what I'm looking for - but
without a citation I've got no idea who, when or how the work was
undertaken.
Timothy Casey
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:c7qdnev2E_uTMkPX...@giganews.com...
It would be hard to deny that CO2 absorbs IR, since we are yet to discover a
material from which a perfect white-body can be made. Not quite what I'm
looking for, but thanks anyway.
.
I'm after published documentation of experiments measuring
_temperature_variation_ (not pressure, not thermal radiation) in response to
radiation.
.
So far, KD's description is the closest fit to what I'm looking for - but
without a citation I've got no idea who, when or how the work was
undertaken.
Timothy Casey
news:304td5ph1kkqb3g3u...@4ax.com...
> I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
> like this have not been done, the classroom demos
> are not scientific at all.
That shoots my lit survey down in flames before I even get to the juicy
bits. Are you sure nobody's published anything here?
.
> I also wonder about the claim of how much
> the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
> meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
> then a square meter air column would have to
> radiate that much.
A square metre of surface gets a lot more from thermal contact conductance
between air and surface I think. The Wood experiment demonstrated this in
1909.
.
> Things like this are what makes skeptics
> skeptical, even handling of the UHI should be
> more appropriate, there is essentially no UHI
> when it rains quite a bit, but in most cities in
> moderate zones there is at least 3 degrees
> UHI on a dry day.
> 3 degrees would make a big change
> in the data since most stations used are in
> cities or airports.
Methinks UHI follows an inflected hyperbola between two parallel
asymptotes - something _like_ (not equal to) the arc tan function. You have
the natural mean at the base, and the maximum potential temperature if every
square centimetre of the planet was urbanised up top. The problem with
fitting the curve is that even in terms of reading error, the range of error
exceeds the instrumental record's mean variation over the last 130 years. In
other words, that means the instrumental variation is not statistically
significant. In English, this makes the instrumental variation 0. So why
bother trying to get an inferred satellite equivalent temperature from data
that still has an error of plus or minus half a degree Kelvin without the
urban contamination and Stevenson screen siting errors?
.
The satellite margin of error is much less, not relying on apes to divide
millimetre graduations, and the trends are, in this case, of statistical
significance. Extrapolating this curve backwards would be interesting but
UHI corrected instrument readings would be an invalid estimate given the
degree (or rather, half degree) of error.
.
Sea surface and marine sediment isotopic studies are a good solid bet.
Unless there is documented evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable
to assume that, being diurnal, evaporative cooling at sea is cancelled out
by condensation warming. Overall trends in satellite and isotope studies
correspond, so this is probably the better basis for correction of UHI prior
to the satellite record.
.
> And it is discouraging that more definite
> information is not available, it seems satellite
> data always shows cooler temperatures than
> the surface stations.
Well, the atmosphere is cooler than the concrete, which is why Stevenson
screens are supposed to be situated two metres above lawn turf (and isolated
from exhaust and building heat). It would be interesting to compare the
degree and distribution of geographic variations in the satellite data with
that of the instrumental record - as this is where I'd expect to see the
true nature of the human touch.
.
Why trust a person do a computer's job, eh?
I M @ good guy
<sixth-pri...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>news:304td5ph1kkqb3g3u...@4ax.com...
>[SNIP]
>> I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
>> like this have not been done, the classroom demos
>> are not scientific at all.
>.
>That shoots my lit survey down in flames before I even get to the juicy
>bits. Are you sure nobody's published anything here?
There isn't much in the way of science posted
here, this is a discussion group, with a lot of speculation.
>.
>> I also wonder about the claim of how much
>> the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
>> meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
>> then a square meter air column would have to
>> radiate that much.
>.
>A square metre of surface gets a lot more from thermal contact conductance
>between air and surface I think. The Wood experiment demonstrated this in
>1909.
Well, on clear nights, the surface (not the air near
the surface directly) is being cooled at a rapid rate, that
is the reason for frost and dew.
How this radiational cooling is handled in the
computer models, I don't know.
My contention is that UHI is mostly due to dry
surfaces and the loss of evaporative cooling in cities
and airports, the area immediately close by the recorder
may not be the only factor, the air all over a city or an
airport may be warmer because of loss of evaporation
from vegetation and surfaces.
My car has a pretty good outdoor digital thermometer,
and if I just drive through a grove of trees on a hot day in
the city, the temperature drops 4 degrees F.
Timothy Casey
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
Drop the incident radiation, and what gets dumped out into the tropopause
isn't coming back until tomorrow - but when we measure atmospheric temps. we
use the combination of thermometer glass and stevenson screen to exclude, as
much as practical, radiant heat.
.
> How this radiational cooling is handled in the
> computer models, I don't know.
.
> My contention is that UHI is mostly due to dry
> surfaces and the loss of evaporative cooling in cities
> and airports, the area immediately close by the recorder
> may not be the only factor, the air all over a city or an
> airport may be warmer because of loss of evaporation
> from vegetation and surfaces.
>
> My car has a pretty good outdoor digital thermometer,
> and if I just drive through a grove of trees on a hot day in
> the city, the temperature drops 4 degrees F.
I agree that vegetation has an important effect on climate. White (1994,
"After the Greening: The Browning of Australia") is an eye-opener.
kdt...@earthlink.net
num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
The point here is that burden of proof is upon those who are plying
the concept of 'greenhouse gases'. Look in older chemistry books.
There is no mention of such a property, although this idea was around
since the 1860's or so with Tyndell.
Chemistry only says that CO2 is a normal gas at lower temperatures and
pressures, has a heat capacity ~9/2 R,@cp, and deviates from the
perfect gas law at higher pressures due to it's greater molecular
diameter, which begins to affect mean free path at high pressures.
NO property at all of inordinate retention of infrared radiation
energy which would surely cause higher temperatures at equilibrium,
and could be EASILY FORMALLY DOCUMENTED. If this property existed, it
would be very valuable such as in double pained glass.
The real fact here is that no one has direct experimental data which
is formally documented as scientific work used to be.
It used to be that documentation was required so that others could
recreate the analysis, and NO ONE was just expected to accept
conclusions or postulates without the outline of methodology by which
the conclusions and PROOF of facts were attained.
The fact is that no one here can submit actual scientific
documentation of the property of greenhouse gases. This concept and
the relative values of this property are entirely derived by invlaid
theoretical rendering from spectroscopic readings. No valid evidence
that these spectroscopic bands affect temperature at all.
Because the facts are the facts, analysis can PROVE this property does
not exist. Regardless of the widely held beliefs and superstitions of
the theoretical scientists.
This is simply a case of the fashionable admiration of the emperors
clothes, and superstitious beliefs from the 19th century from before
Planck and Einstein, when these theoreticians also beleived the sun
was composed of burning coal.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
> > news:d57d1c91-df12-489d-807e-
>
> add16adb4...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Screw you Bill ward. You are a subterfuege for the greenie weenies.
You refer to this Gdamn detector and you cannot point to actual
scientific documentation of the property? Because you have none, and
are promoting a fraud with your reference to these detectors.
Your attempt to prove the property of greenhouse gases in this
INDIRECT, INVALID AND NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS, puts you and the weenies
with their petulant eduction in supposed 'physics', as equally
culpable with the greenie weenies.
You cannot define science, or submit science to back up a damn thing
you say. If the carbon tax goes through, you and your creed will be
held partially responsible for the serious crime of this fraud.
Stick your little detectors up your ass and get a reading, greenie
weenie sucker.
Your reference to these is fraud, if you cannot submit a formal
scientific documentation of full analysis of variables which shows the
CO2 to have inordinate absorption of infrared.
Also, it can be proved that you are mathematically inept, it you
cannot quantify the energy of a gas by RT and it's heat capacity, in
relation to the actual energy which can be contained and transfered by
the gas.
There is no validity to your ideas on heat and energy. The relative
values of energy of heat capacity of water and air is about 3200 for
volume, meaning the heat for 1degC of 1cc of water can raise the
temperature for 1cc of air by about 3200degC. This means your beliefs
from classical science of waves and energy are entirely false.
You are only supporting the fraud of AGW with your fraudulent
theoretical rendering. This fact is duly noted, retard.
KD
Martin Brown
He doesn't want answers. He much prefers to wallow in wilful ignorance.
>
> Screw you Bill ward. You are a subterfuege for the greenie weenies.
> You refer to this Gdamn detector and you cannot point to actual
> scientific documentation of the property? Because you have none, and
> are promoting a fraud with your reference to these detectors.
Bill is exactly right. You asked for proof and you were given it, but
you are too dumb to appreciate the answer. Typical wingnut behaviour.
PV = nRT
Fixed amount of gas in a rigid fixed cavity. Energy absorbed causes
change in temperature and the pressure changes. It allows very sensitive
measurements of CO2 based on the energy absorbed by the gas.
A presentation on one of the most sensitive devices is online at:
http://www.icavs.info/downloads/corfu2007/contributed/Vesa_Koskinen.pdf
>
> Your attempt to prove the property of greenhouse gases in this
> INDIRECT, INVALID AND NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS, puts you and the weenies
> with their petulant eduction in supposed 'physics', as equally
> culpable with the greenie weenies.
You are a pathological liar that cannot distinguish your crazy right
wing fantasies from reality. Nature is the final arbiter.
> You are only supporting the fraud of AGW with your fraudulent
> theoretical rendering. This fact is duly noted, retard.
>
> KD
Note for others. KDeathRage is a well known NetKook.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bill Ward
Well, KD, what are you going to tell 20 years worth of happy, repeat
customers for NDIR CO2 detectors? Google "NDIR CO2" and take your pick.
For example, here's an excerpt from an app note by Airflow:
"The IAQ920 measures carbon dioxide concentration by relying on one of
the natural properties of CO2 molecules: CO2 molecules absorb light at a
specific wavelength of 4.26 μm. This wavelength is in the infrared (IR)
range. High concentrations of CO2 molecules absorb more light than low
concentrations. This technique is called non-dispersive infrared (NDIR)
detection."
That's also true for 15u, but the gas would need to be chilled to about
200K (-73C) to read it.
> Stick your little detectors up your ass and get a reading, greenie
> weenie sucker.
>
> Your reference to these is fraud, if you cannot submit a formal
> scientific documentation of full analysis of variables which shows the
> CO2 to have inordinate absorption of infrared.
Is successful commercial application proof enough?
<http://www.tsi.com/en-1033/models/3976/iaq920.aspx>
There are also a number of patents, but they don't really prove much.
> Also, it can be proved that you are mathematically inept, it you cannot
> quantify the energy of a gas by RT and it's heat capacity, in relation
> to the actual energy which can be contained and transfered by the gas.
>
> There is no validity to your ideas on heat and energy. The relative
> values of energy of heat capacity of water and air is about 3200 for
> volume, meaning the heat for 1degC of 1cc of water can raise the
> temperature for 1cc of air by about 3200degC. This means your beliefs
> from classical science of waves and energy are entirely false.
>
> You are only supporting the fraud of AGW with your fraudulent
> theoretical rendering. This fact is duly noted, retard.
You need to pay more attention to my posts.
And calm down. Your eccentric rants aren't helping show anyone how we
know AGW is a fraud - they just raise questions about your stability.
Bill Ward
Thanks for the link. It's a very clear presentation, accessible to just
about everyone.
kdt...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> Bill is exactly right. You asked for proof and you were given it, but
> you are too dumb to appreciate the answer. Typical wingnut behaviour.
>
> PV = nRT
>
> Fixed amount of gas in a rigid fixed cavity. Energy absorbed causes
> change in temperature and the pressure changes. It allows very sensitive
> measurements of CO2 based on the energy absorbed by the gas.
>
You are still using an exibit to develop conclusions. You are using
terms which you cannot define. A proper documentation would separate
the elements, such as the container substance, the pressure of the
gases, general or specified radiation frequencies, to show that indeed
it were the CO2 doing what you say. Likewise you must define infrared
radiation energy and the term of 'absorption'.
You cannot support your conclusions and use of terms this simply. You
have no right for denigration of those who do not accept your non-
supported conclusion.
You do not understand what the scientific method is and only refer the
facts which support your false conclusions.
Your promotion of your exhibit and stated conclusion in a courtroom
could be proved to be intent to commit fraud. You assholes sure should
face this fact as someday you will encounter this real fact of law.
You are clinically insane to simply ignore me when I repeat this over
and over. I wish you the best in hell for what you want to do to real
people's lives with your flaky assed scientific theory.
The fact is that your explanation does not work it you simply take CO2
and encase it in glass and irradiate the container with infrared. In
the Tyndell hoax exhibit, you must irradiate the container with
visible light where it is absorbed on solids within the CO2 and
converted to infrared. These leaves many possibilities as to why the
CO2 warms faster and does not mimic the infrared from earth's
temperatures. Very high energy infrareds are produced like this which
are near to the visible which have nothing to do with earth radiation.
Also, if a larger chamber is used, it which general infrared radiation
similar to earth temperature radiation is passed through gases,
addition of very little CO2 does cause the dark bands of the CO2 to
appear, within about 3 meters. Yet the appearance of these bands does
not have any effect upon temperature whatsoever. This proves that the
dogmatic assumption that the dark bands of CO2 are 'absorption' bands
to be false.
Atomic gases do have absorption bands. But the absorption spectra
which ARE actually absorption bands, are only in the same frequencies
as the principle series of the gases. Sharp and diffuse spectra do not
appear in absorption bands, although these are very important in
emission spectra. To use the term, 'absorption' spectra in regards to
the infrared, is false. All gases absorb infrared beyond 1-2 um.
Gases under pressure all emit the same continous spectra in the
infrared AND VISIBLE.
More facts you must ignore in order to achieve your false conclusion
from your FRAUDULENT EXHIBIT.
CO2 is a larger, heavier molecule than O2 and N2. CO2 weighs 44 grams
per mole, O2 weighs 32, and N2 weighs 28. CO2 has a higher heat
capacity than air. O2 and N2 have heat capacity about the same, ~5/2 R
@cv, 7/2 R @cp
CO2 has the heat capacity of ~7/2 R @cv, ~9/2 R @cp.
Without careful anlaysis, there could be many reasons that it can be
detected other than your stated conclusion.
Your stated conclusion says directly that O2 and N2 do not absorb
infrared. This can also be proved utterly false with proper
applcaction of scientifc method, but of which you are entirely
disinterested in your narcissistic enjoyment of your conclusions and
dogma about the dangers of CO2 to the environment and the controls you
must impose upon innocent people.
If containers of CO2, O2 and N2 are warmed in a general manner, the
CO2 reaches final temperature of equilibrium slower than O2 and N2.
This is because a greater amount of energy for the heat capacity is
absorbed by the CO2 for each deg of temperature rise.
If CO2 is encased in glass and irradiated with normal infrared, there
is no indication that the CO2 is absorbing more energy than other
gases. But you will not present this fact since it does not support
the false conclusion which you are seeking. Yet you still allow the
grade schoolers to use the Tyndell hoax exhibit and to believe the
false conclusions.
Of course greater energy added to a gas increases temperature and
pressure according to PV = nRT. This is because the total energy of
the mole in regards to the momentum of the molecules which causes the
pressure, is increased, meaning the average velocity of the molecules
is increased and the relative kinetic energy of each molecule is
increased, according to 1/2mv^2.
As a gas is heated and it expands, the 'work' energy of the expansion
is R for each value of T. Extropolated to absolute zero gives the
total energy of the mole to be RT. If the total energy of the mole is
RT, than the average energy of each molecule is kT. This is from
Boltzman.
This energy absorbed into the kinetic energy of the molecules is the
first part of the heat capacity. Also there is the energy in the
elasticity of the collisions which is 1/2 R.
Any and all monatomic gases have the heat capacites of 3/2 R and 5/2
R, regardless of their mass. More complex molecules absorb energy into
their rotations. A rotating body has three axis of spin. Each of these
axis is capable of absorbing 1 value of R in the kinetic energy of
their motions.
In the balanced diatoms, only 2 axis of spin are involved. Thus the
heat capacity of 5/2 R and 7/2 R.
1 value of R for linear kinetic energy. 1/2 value of R for the
elasticity of the collisions, 1 value of R for 2 axis of spin. And
when allowd to expand, 1 value of R for the energy required to expand
against the initial pressure. This energy is actually transferred to
the environment. To compress the gas back to original volume, requires
application of this energy, although it is then dissapated as heat.
The second law of thermodynamics must always hold.
This is why balanced symmetrical diatoms have nearly the same heat
capacity. Unbalanced diatoms each have unique heat capacity according
to their unique properties of spin. Monatomic gases have exactly the
same heat capacity.
CO2 has heavier molecules attached to a center lighter molecule of
carbon. But it is still symmetrical and thus has the heat capacity
which is one value of R greater than O2 and N2. All three axis of spin
in absorbed kinetic energy for the motion of the mass.
So what is the pressure inside the detector?
There are many reasons that the CO2 could be detected. You only assume
and dictate the reason you wish which supports your predeterminded
conclusions. You are not presenting science here,
In actuality, O2 and N2 absorb energy as they warm according to their
heat capacity. Does this energy only come from collisions with the CO2
or the sides of the container?
If N2 and O2 are 'transparent' to infrared, which you believe, and
therefore only absorb or transfer energy by collisions, how can air
transfer energy to water by conduction when the relative heat capacity
for volume is about 3200?
How about for steel? Steel even has a much higher density per cc. If
you had any mathematics, you would see that it is IMPOSSIBLE for gases
to conduct energy to solids in trasfering temperature. The gases are
absorbing and emitting infrared energy, which is the means that they
transfer heat energy to solids. Very simply proved fact, which also
proves the fact of contemporary theory to be INVALID AND INEPT.
How many collisions per sq centimeter from the air molecules in which
all of the energy of the gas molecule is transfered to the steel must
occur to transfer the energy of the steel's heat capacity?
You have no answer for this question at all. You only have
superstitions and theory which is not confirmed, and thus you will
ignore this very basic, important and definable question, as you
pursue your fraudulent exhibitions and statement of conclusions.
You have no theoretical basis for how gases can transmit energy to
solids or liquids, since you insist that some gases which are not
greenhouse gases, are transparent and non-reactive to infrared.
How does the sun shine? It is almost all hydrogen gas. The sun's
spectrum is a continuous spectrum throughout the ultraviolet, visible
and infrared and emits about 41% of it's energy in the infrard. But
you claim the hydrogen gas to be transparent to infrared. The hydrogen
gas is absorbing and emitting the continuous spectrum of the infrared.
There is no possiblity that the hydrogen molecules are radiating
according only to their motions which is clearly defined by kT.
Gases under pressure emit continuous spectrum in the visible. Only
rarified gases emit the descreet emission spectra. A fact the assholes
of contemporary physics must ignore as they seek to retain Bohr's
model of specified absorption of energy.
'> Note for others. KDeathRage is a well known NetKook.
Thanks for demonstrating the method that theoretical science is
actually done in schools and modern science. By denigration of any who
may wish to be objective or may question your false theory. This has
gone on since Einstein deposed the classical schools of theory, which
you idiots are only reviving, of waves through the aether, and the
brats of the overgrown schoolyard still dominate theoretical science.
Einstein developed the modern theory of electromagnetic radiation, in
which radiation is packets of energy or photons, and defined the
energy of radiation with the photoelectric effect.
You have absoutely no quantification for the energy of radiation or
the energy absorbed by gases according PV= nRT
KD
The AGWBunnies,
Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society,
They keep going,,, and going,,
kdt...@earthlink.net
'> >> Figure 1 on pg 343 has a schematic diagram. It would be hard to
deny
'>> that CO2 absorbs IR, since the resulting heat is what causes the
'> >> pressure changes
I still do not understand why you are such a cheerleader for the
concept of greenhouse gases, for which there is absolutely no
scientific support.
I am not able to download your cite. But I am sure that the pertinent
facts I would like to find are omitted as is the nature of
contemporary theoretical science.
Here is the quote from greeniweenieology which seems to be the only
scientific theory they need. ""CO2 absorbs IR,"""
So what the hell does this mean?
Pertinent facts of your detector exhibit must be analyzed if you are
to claim that this is proof of the mantra of greenieweenism, the
sacred religion to take back the promised land of cooler climates from
the infidels.
So you say that when CO2 enters the detector, it absorbs infrared
radiation energy, causing a spike in temperature and pressure which
can be detected. I have no doubt the CO2 is detected. But the
theoretical reason for this you present is entirely bogus.
But to analyze this we need the facts such as,,, if the detector has
CO2 at a maintained level, does the temperature in the apparatus stay
at a higher level than without CO2? You claim a very sensitive
detector. So with CO2 absorbing IR, it must note that the temperature
is always higher with more CO2 within the detector?
Does the temperature and pressure remain at a higher level after the
initial reaction?
The fact is that all the gas molecules are absorbing and emitting in
the continuous spectrum of the infrared. When the CO2 enters the
detector, it inhibits transmission in the bands which are NON-
RADIATIVE bands of it's spectrum. To irradiate the gases with
particular frequencies of CO2 dark bands, can augment this effect.
The molecules generally emit photons near the energy of the photons
the absorb. The statistical curve of Planck's radiation law is
maintained, generally, and at thermal equilibrium. Changing states are
changing states and are not final state or thermal equilibrium, which
is indicated by unchanging temperature.
This causes a momentary retention of energy, but immediately, the
energy is radiated in other frequencies. Probably around the 10um
bands which the CO2 laser radiates, and which the parallel mirrors
augment of the natural affinity of the lasing substance. Or perhaps
the very low frequencies.
For whatever reason that CO2 does not radiate at it's bands (which
include many many frequencies which have peaks at 2.7, 4.2, and 15um),
this does not mean that it 'absorbs' at these bands and other
molecules do not. For some reason, at these frequencies with CO2,
emission of radiation is interrupted and the energy is radiated at
OTHER frequencies, no inordinate absorption or retention of energy
occurs, which ALL LABORATORY EVIDENCE INDICATES.
So what does PV = nRT mean? This refers to the final state. If
pressure temperature or volume is changed, the final state is
according to these proportions in which pressure and volume are an
inverse proportion and both are a direct proportion to temperature.
When a gas is compressed, it goes to a higher temperature. But the
final temperature is in no way dependent upon pressure or volume, or
you could compress gas and take it home to heat your house.
But it seems this concept of 'final state' and thermal equilibrium, is
dismissed from contemporary theory, since no support of the theory of
greenhouse gases is achieved with these most basic concepts.
In your detector, what happens at final state? Is pressure and
temperature higher? I doubt it. In no other laboratory investigation
does the presence of CO2 affect final state.
There are probably many properties of CO2 which can be effective in a
detector.
An initial effect upon the radiational balance could be expected, as
the continual absorption and emission of the frequencies between the
molecules is interrupted, affected and changed. Overal absorption and
emission does not change.
You guys are way too hung up on your concept from Neils Bohr of
absorption in particular energy levels or quantums. This does not
apply at all to infrared, and your entire schools of theoretical
thought are bogus.
If CO2 does not affect final state, then it is not inordinately
absorbing IR.
The energy is simply radiated at other frequencies in it's attempt to
fulfill the natural equilibrium which is recognized in Planck's law
for distribution of energy according to frequency and Wiens Law for
frequency of highest intensity for temperature.
KD
The AGWBunnies,
Beating on their fake little drum for their holy war against modern
society,,
They keep going,,,, and going,,,,
Martin Brown
> On Oct 21, 2:31 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill is exactly right. You asked for proof and you were given it, but
>> you are too dumb to appreciate the answer. Typical wingnut behaviour.
>>
>> PV = nRT
>>
>> Fixed amount of gas in a rigid fixed cavity. Energy absorbed causes
>> change in temperature and the pressure changes. It allows very sensitive
>> measurements of CO2 based on the energy absorbed by the gas.
>>
>
> You are still using an exibit to develop conclusions. You are using
> terms which you cannot define. A proper documentation would separate
> the elements, such as the container substance, the pressure of the
> gases, general or specified radiation frequencies, to show that indeed
> it were the CO2 doing what you say. Likewise you must define infrared
> radiation energy and the term of 'absorption'.
>
> You cannot support your conclusions and use of terms this simply. You
> have no right for denigration of those who do not accept your non-
> supported conclusion.
ROFL. If ever proof were needed that we are dealing here with a rabid
paranoid delusional nutcase this brain dump is clear evidence.
[snip long incoherent wingnut drooling]
> '> Note for others. KDeathRage is a well known NetKook.
I understated the extent of his sheer lunacy.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
There are *no* questions remaining about the mental stability of
KDeathRage he is totally demented and beyond utterly clueless. On a more
positive note his contributions make other deniers look like Kooks too.
I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you do
not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing as opposed
to the usual politicos who cite the various Exxon sponsored lying and
half truth dittohead misinformation and fakery sites.
Nature will be the final arbiter in this debate and we will not have all
that long to wait - perhaps a few decades before it becomes undeniable.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:00:31 -0700, kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> You are only supporting the fraud of AGW with your fraudulent
>>> theoretical rendering. This fact is duly noted, retard.
>>
>> You need to pay more attention to my posts.
>>
>> And calm down. Your eccentric rants aren't helping show anyone how we
>> know AGW is a fraud - they just raise questions about your stability.
>
> There are *no* questions remaining about the mental stability of
> KDeathRage he is totally demented and beyond utterly clueless. On a more
> positive note his contributions make other deniers look like Kooks too.
>
> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you do
> not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing
When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be
plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has convinced me
there is no significant link between CO2 and surface T.
The main points are:
1) The ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
But the CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years, indicating temperature
drives CO2.
2) The climate models require significant positive feedback from water
vapor before they show scary enough results to get political attention,
yet both personal experience and recent research indicate water provides
a negative feedback in the climate system. To me, the current
sensitivity estimates of 0.25K to 0.75K per doubling of CO2 seem
consistent with the evidence.
3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly the
cooling trend since 1998.
4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
"signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be found.
4) Weather is a canonical example of chaos. Climate is derived by low-
passing weather datasets, so climate must also be chaotic. Chaotic
behavior is impossible to predict past the measurement error horizon.
This fact seems to escape many researchers, who keep trying anyway.
5) Much of the research involved has apparently been decidedly
unscientific and biased toward finding AGW no matter what. Briffa,
Hansen and Mann come immediately to mind.
> as opposed
> to the usual politicos who cite the various Exxon sponsored lying and
> half truth dittohead misinformation and fakery sites.
6) Many of the "arguments" favoring AGW involve only ad hominem attacks,
with no scientific content. That's what initially raised my suspicions.
What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface temperatures?
Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
> Nature will be the final arbiter in this debate and we will not have all
> that long to wait - perhaps a few decades before it becomes undeniable.
Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
5) "Much of the research involved has apparently been decidedly
unscientific and biased toward finding AGW no matter what. Briffa,
Hansen and Mann come immediately to mind.
attacks,
with no scientific content. That's what initially raised my
suspicions."
How do 5 & 6, go together, maybe there is a flaw in that logic.....
I M @ good guy
In the meantime, enjoy the snow.
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> There are *no* questions remaining about the mental stability of
> KDeathRage he is totally demented and beyond utterly clueless. On a more
> positive note his contributions make other deniers look like Kooks too.
>
You cannot deny certain facts I present. Such as the fact that
monatomic gases have exactly the same molar heat capacity, or 3/2 R
and 5/2 R, symmetrical diatoms have nearly the same heat capacity, 5/2
R and 7/2 R, that non-symetrical diatoms each have unique heat
capacity according to their unique characteristics of spin, and that
CO2 has heat capacity about 1 value of R greater than that of the
symetrical diatoms, 7/2 R and 9/2.
Any reasonable person can see that this is nearly PROOF that the heat
capacity is almost entirely the kinetic energy which is absorbed by
the motions of the molecules,,,
The linear motions and velocities, the elasticity of the collisions,
and the kinetic energy required for the molecules to have the motion
of their spin.
Also, you must admit that I am correct in that one of the most
important points of all thermodynamics is the concept of thermodynamic
equilibrium. This equilibrium is signified by unchanging temperature.
This is achieved when the radiated energy from a body, or gas, is
equivalent to the radiation energy the body is recieving.
Energy in = energy out, = unchanging temperature or equilibrium.
Radiation energy is composed of photons or discreet packets of energy
which travel at c, 2.99E10 cm/s
Radiation is not converted to energy. Radiation is pure energy. Refer
Albert Einstein, 'The light quantum hypothesis'. In this paper,
Einstein showed that the electrons in photovaltic cells are only
liberated if the energy of the light is greater than the ionization
potential according to Planck's constant times frequency, hv.
The number of electrons liberated is due to the intensity of the
light. The energy of the momentum of the liberated electrons is due to
the energy of the photons.
In basic physics, Stefan's Law is one of the most important laws. This
denotes a specific amount of energy radiated from each sq centimeter
of surface area, and thus denotes the total radiated energy which
increases as a fourth power to temperature.
This law is abided in any analysis of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Although the petulant and invalid rhetoric to which the greenieweenies
subscribe and avoids such important points of physics.
And the fact remains, which all of your writing of insults only
confirms, YOU HAVE NO LABORATORY DATA AND THERFORE NO SCIENCE
WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEF AND SUPERSTITION THAT CO2 ABSORBS
INFRARED RADIATION INORDINATLEY.
Your insults are entirely meaningless unless you submit reference here
to such formal documentation. Otherwise you are herby PROVED mentally
insane and nothing but a threat to the well being of the citizens of
the United States. A fact which shall one day become very apparent to
all of us.
Otherwise eat every one of your own words, and all those I may throw
at such stupid, dogmatic idiots who at some point will be held liable
for their false science and attacks upon the US people with their
false scaremongering of CO2 caused global warming.
NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR PROPAGANDA,,,
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL HANG YOU SOMEDAY,,,
NYLON OR HEMP, LITTLE COCKSUCKING ASSHOLES
HAHAHHAHAHhahahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahHHAHAHAHAhahahha
Ignore me or call me what you want, it will not change these basic
FACTS.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHHAHAHAHa
hahhahahahahaha
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
>
> ROFL. If ever proof were needed that we are dealing here with a rabid
> paranoid delusional nutcase this brain dump is clear evidence.
>
> [snip long incoherent wingnut drooling]
>
> > '> Note for others. KDeathRage is a well known NetKook.
>
> I understated the extent of his sheer lunacy.
>
> Regards,
Look Martin, very little of what I stated in my rant is of my own
interpretation. Here I have nearly literaly quoted from the works of
Max Born, on the kinetic theory of gases, Not his quantification of
the heat capacity as I have reiterated according to kinetic energy of
the spis of the molecules in values of R.
This is somewhere available for free online.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Atomic-Physics/Max-Born/e/9780486659848/?itm=1
""Nobel Laureate's lucid treatment of kinetic theory of gases.....'''
And from another easily available book, by Linius Pauling, also a
Noble Lareate, from the 50's. Notice that in Pauling's book, NOWHERE
is the term, 'greenhouse gas' mentioned. Only at points does he refer
to the dark bands as 'absorption bands', but attempts no
quantification whatsoever.
This book is almost two books. The theoretical interpretation and
theory, and the simple chemistry. One can ignore the theory.
Pauling clearly had a vast and encompassing knowledge of chemistry and
it's teaching. I wonder why he never heard of the term 'greenhouse
gas', which according to your rendition of physics and chemistry, is
the most important Gdamn idea of science, and the only one the greenie
weenies need to know or have any interest in whatsoever.
Refer also his treatment of the kinetic theory of gases.
About the only thing which is my interpretation in my post, is the
idea the the 1/2 of the 3/2 of the heat capacity of monatomic and
other gases, is the elasticity of the collisions.
Notice clearly he states the work energy of the expansion of 1 mole of
gas is R, thus RT is extropolated to absolute zero, and if one divides
RT by the number of molecules in a mole, one has the average energy of
the individual molecule, kT. Average energy x number of molecules =
TOTAL energy of the mole.
This value of R, is also directly proportional to the increase of
pressure with increasing temperature.
This energy is the kinetic energy of the root mean velocity of the
molecules, and therefore the 'average' velocity is an inverse square
of the mass of the molecule.
The main principle of the kinetic theory of gases, is that heavier
molecules have lower mean velocity, lighter molecules have higher mean
velocity, and therefore have the same kinetic energy at the same
temperature, according to 1/2mv^2.
With partial pressures, no differentiation is given to gases at normal
temperatures and pressures, just the molar percentage of the gas, or
the percentage of the volume the gas would occupy by itself.
The concept of 'greenhouse gases' was discarded by modern chemistry,
and only revived in the 60's by purely theoretical thinkers.
There still is no laboratory science whatsoever to support this false
idea of 'greenhouse gases', from classical physics from before
Einstein.
Max Born was a contemporary of Einstein and Planck. When Heisenberg
left college, Heisenberg's influential academic daddy got him a job
working for Max Born. He certainly was in contact with all the
important points of the development of modern physics.
If you wish to insult Born for also for ignoring Arwheenieass's
concept of 'greenhouse gases', you have that right. Nowhere will you
find reference to your 'holy' understanding of the nature of gases.
That idiot that hates right wingers while he loves his little personal
image of a Baron or Count, (aristocrat), seems to think he can promote
his lie that this concept has always been a part of theoretical
science. Why does that dweeb hate himself so much???
Read em and weep, dogmatic, repetitive fool.
While you are at it, you should do some research into what the term,
'science', means.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhHAHAHhahah
KD
The AGWBunnies,
Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society,,
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you do
>> not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing
>
> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be
> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has convinced me
> there is no significant link between CO2 and surface T.
There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead to
higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And this holds whether the initial
forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the Earth's
orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* because of
additional CO2 emitted. And warming always increases the atmospheric
concentration of water vapour which is also a potent GHG.
>
> The main points are:
>
> 1) The ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> But the CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years, indicating temperature
> drives CO2.
True enough. But it is smoke and mirrors misdirection. In the past
changes in the net amount amount of solar energy received were amplified
by the CO2/H2O feedback mechanism. That doesn't mean that if you add
more CO2 to the atmosphere that the temperature will not rise.
*We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it is
possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is taking on
the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not CO2 coming out
of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are still a net sink of
the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a result. That will not hold
true forever the Southern Oceans are beginning to saturate.
>
> 2) The climate models require significant positive feedback from water
> vapor before they show scary enough results to get political attention,
And there is good evidence that such feedback exists. Attempts to show
that there is a negative feedback along the lines of Lindzens iris
hypothesis have not so far shown any convincing results. I'd like to
think there was some merit in his ideas.
> yet both personal experience and recent research indicate water provides
> a negative feedback in the climate system. To me, the current
> sensitivity estimates of 0.25K to 0.75K per doubling of CO2 seem
> consistent with the evidence.
It could well be higher than that only time will tell. There are now
successful UK commercial wineries as far north as Leeds - about where
the Romans were just about able to make cheap plonk two millenia ago.
And parts of the French Champagne region are getting too warm for the
right grapes.
>
> 3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly the
> cooling trend since 1998.
The cooling trend since 1998 is a statistical trick used by denialists
who deliberate pick the highest point as their baseline year. 2005 was
pretty warm too and if you look over the entire dataset it is still an
upward trend with noise and periodic components. There are plenty of
other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean currents
that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>
> 4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
> "signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be found.
However, the poles are warming at least as fast as they predict and the
glaciers are declining even faster than the models predict.
>
> 4) Weather is a canonical example of chaos. Climate is derived by low-
> passing weather datasets, so climate must also be chaotic. Chaotic
> behavior is impossible to predict past the measurement error horizon.
> This fact seems to escape many researchers, who keep trying anyway.
Chaotic also means that for small perturbations it will orbit happily
around a local attractor but if sufficiently provoked the climate system
will snap over to another attractor relatively quickly.
It still remains true that if you alter the Earths effective albedo then
it will change the climate. You may not be able to predict exactly how.
The UK could be unlucky and revert to much colder weather characteristic
of its 53N latitude if the Atlantic Conveyor stalled in an on average
warmer world.
>
> 5) Much of the research involved has apparently been decidedly
> unscientific and biased toward finding AGW no matter what. Briffa,
> Hansen and Mann come immediately to mind.
This is basically untrue. But you are entitled to your opinion. And you
should look *very* carefully at the bedfellows you have chosen...
Exxon sponsored denialists who work for various flavours of ultra right
wing free market US think tanks. Idso, Seitz etc are all models of
probity and did a really great job at preventing people from learning
the truth about smoking tobacco.
>
>> as opposed
>> to the usual politicos who cite the various Exxon sponsored lying and
>> half truth dittohead misinformation and fakery sites.
>
> 6) Many of the "arguments" favoring AGW involve only ad hominem attacks,
> with no scientific content. That's what initially raised my suspicions.
Actually pointing out that the credentials of some of the more prominent
exponents of AGW denialism who were previously employed to do *exactly*
the same thing for big tobacco is a fair point. Their expertise is in
sowing doubt in the public mind so that the real scientific evidence is
ignored. And make no mistake they are well funded and bloody good at it.
>
> What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface temperatures?
Conservation of energy and consideration of the rate of heat loss from
the planet.
>
> Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
In a quick hand waving version. CO2 (or any other GHG) makes the
atmosphere opaque to certain bands of long wave radiation. The net
effect is that the surface of last scattering in those bands is moved
higher up into the atmosphere where due to the lapse rate it is cooler
and so less total energy can escape. Energy balance does the rest.
Even most sceptical scientists do not deny that without including GHG
forcing after about 1970 it becomes impossible to balance the Earths
energy budget. You cannot gratuitously make the sun brighter as there is
satellite monitoring over the relevant period.
You can see the same on the sun with the narrowband H-alpha emissions
sat above the brilliant photosphere
>
>> Nature will be the final arbiter in this debate and we will not have all
>> that long to wait - perhaps a few decades before it becomes undeniable.
>
> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence of
serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my position.
Incidentally I don't favour going beyond taking the various no-regrets
energy saving measures at this stage. Largely because I expect far too
much cheating. There were much better public awareness Save-It energy
campaigns during the Opec induced acute oil shortage in the 1970's.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you do
>>> not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing
>>
>> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be
>> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has convinced
>> me there is no significant link between CO2 and surface T.
>
> There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead to
> higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
That's the link between T and CO2 shown in the ice core data.
> And this holds whether the initial
> forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the Earth's
> orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* because of
> additional CO2 emitted.
You are assuming a link between CO2 and T that's not shown in the data.
Your logic is thus circular.
> And warming always increases the atmospheric
> concentration of water vapour which is also a potent GHG.
And a state-changing feedback mechanism.
>> The main points are:
>>
>> 1) The ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
>> But the CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years, indicating temperature
>> drives CO2.
>
> True enough. But it is smoke and mirrors misdirection. In the past
> changes in the net amount amount of solar energy received were amplified
> by the CO2/H2O feedback mechanism.
You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and that
there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
> That doesn't mean that if you add
> more CO2 to the atmosphere that the temperature will not rise.
The ice core evidence shows that CO2 remains at peak values for 800 years
after T begins to fall. You need to explain both sides of the cycle, not
just the rising edge.
> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it is
> possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is taking on
> the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not CO2 coming out
> of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are still a net sink of
> the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a result. That will not hold
> true forever the Southern Oceans are beginning to saturate.
The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for hundreds
of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of
equilibrium would be established.
AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the
fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came from
"fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2 equilibrium, and
some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>> 2) The climate models require significant positive feedback from water
>> vapor before they show scary enough results to get political attention,
>
> And there is good evidence that such feedback exists. Attempts to show
> that there is a negative feedback along the lines of Lindzens iris
> hypothesis have not so far shown any convincing results. I'd like to
> think there was some merit in his ideas.
Good. Read and enjoy:
<http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf>
There's an ongoing thread in alt.global-warming.
>> yet both personal experience and recent research indicate water
>> provides a negative feedback in the climate system. To me, the current
>> sensitivity estimates of 0.25K to 0.75K per doubling of CO2 seem
>> consistent with the evidence.
>
> It could well be higher than that only time will tell.
Not unless there is significant positive feedback, which Lindzen's paper
pretty much rules out.
> There are now
> successful UK commercial wineries as far north as Leeds - about where
> the Romans were just about able to make cheap plonk two millenia ago.
> And parts of the French Champagne region are getting too warm for the
> right grapes.
>>
>> 3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly the
>> cooling trend since 1998.
>
> The cooling trend since 1998 is a statistical trick used by denialists
> who deliberate pick the highest point as their baseline year. 2005 was
> pretty warm too and if you look over the entire dataset it is still an
> upward trend with noise and periodic components.
You can trace it back to the recovery from the last glaciation. Why
should warming be significant and cooling just be noise?
> There are plenty of
> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean currents
> that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>>
>> 4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
>> "signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be
>> found.
>
> However, the poles are warming at least as fast as they predict and the
> glaciers are declining even faster than the models predict.
The hot spot was suggested by AGWers as proof, when they thought it was
there. Now that it's shown not to be there, it's absence is ignored.
That's additional evidence the models are wrong. If you have enough
models, and you can select which to use after the fact, you can "prove"
just about anything. There's a recent thread concerning which of the
models are right - there can be only one.
>> 4) Weather is a canonical example of chaos. Climate is derived by
>> low- passing weather datasets, so climate must also be chaotic.
>> Chaotic behavior is impossible to predict past the measurement error
>> horizon. This fact seems to escape many researchers, who keep trying
>> anyway.
>
> Chaotic also means that for small perturbations it will orbit happily
> around a local attractor but if sufficiently provoked the climate system
> will snap over to another attractor relatively quickly.
Chaotic behavior can never exactly repeat a state or sequence.
> It still remains true that if you alter the Earths effective albedo then
> it will change the climate. You may not be able to predict exactly
> how.
>
> The UK could be unlucky and revert to much colder weather characteristic
> of its 53N latitude if the Atlantic Conveyor stalled in an on average
> warmer world.
There are a lot of things that "could" happen, and even more that won't.
The current focus seems to be on those that can scare people into giving
up their freedom.
>> 5) Much of the research involved has apparently been decidedly
>> unscientific and biased toward finding AGW no matter what. Briffa,
>> Hansen and Mann come immediately to mind.
>
> This is basically untrue. But you are entitled to your opinion. And you
> should look *very* carefully at the bedfellows you have chosen...
I look at their work.
> Exxon sponsored denialists who work for various flavours of ultra right
> wing free market US think tanks. Idso, Seitz etc are all models of
> probity and did a really great job at preventing people from learning
> the truth about smoking tobacco.
>>
>>> as opposed
>>> to the usual politicos who cite the various Exxon sponsored lying and
>>> half truth dittohead misinformation and fakery sites.
>>
>> 6) Many of the "arguments" favoring AGW involve only ad hominem
>> attacks, with no scientific content. That's what initially raised my
>> suspicions.
>
> Actually pointing out that the credentials of some of the more prominent
> exponents of AGW denialism who were previously employed to do *exactly*
> the same thing for big tobacco is a fair point. Their expertise is in
> sowing doubt in the public mind so that the real scientific evidence is
> ignored. And make no mistake they are well funded and bloody good at it.
Ad hominem attacks are never valid. They are merely an admission you
can't answer the opposition's arguments.
>> What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface temperatures?
>
> Conservation of energy and consideration of the rate of heat loss from
> the planet.
>>
>> Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
>
> In a quick hand waving version. CO2 (or any other GHG) makes the
> atmosphere opaque to certain bands of long wave radiation. The net
> effect is that the surface of last scattering in those bands is moved
> higher up into the atmosphere where due to the lapse rate it is cooler
> and so less total energy can escape. Energy balance does the rest.
Close enough. Without positive feedback, how much effect on temperature
do you think doubling CO2 would cause?
> Even most sceptical scientists do not deny that without including GHG
> forcing after about 1970 it becomes impossible to balance the Earths
> energy budget.
Can you explain how that could even be possible? Models will do whatever
you program them to do. Discrepancy can only exist in the logic or the
measurements.
> You cannot gratuitously make the sun brighter as there is
> satellite monitoring over the relevant period.
>
> You can see the same on the sun with the narrowband H-alpha emissions
> sat above the brilliant photosphere
>
>>> Nature will be the final arbiter in this debate and we will not have
>>> all that long to wait - perhaps a few decades before it becomes
>>> undeniable.
>>
>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>
> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence of
> serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my position.
You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly influencing
temperature? Is that because you can't think of anything else?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Not unless there is significant positive feedback, which Lindzen's
paper pretty much rules out."
nope, their study only included the tropics...
kdt...@earthlink.net
On Oct 27, 8:24 am, Baron_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kent Deatherage <kdth...@earthlink.net> writhed in denials:
>
>
>> --And when nobody agrees with you, you throw childish tantrums..
You should never underestimate your enemy.
What you take as tantrums, is pure, burning white hatred.
I point out valid science, taken directly from valid scientists, and
you creeps ignore this. Actual hatred only comes from concern for
other people. Something you demented little minds know nothing about.
The fact is that you have no valid science to support your theory that
CO2 absorbs IR inordinately and causes effect upon temperature and
climate.
The fact is that your false thesis can be directly proved invalid. So
while you have been content intimidate others, lie, and to discredit
me and therefore attempt to ignore and dismiss my statements, and
while those who are uneducated may believe you, such as the
politicians who will be betting their lives on your veracity, I have
been proceeding to the goal of outlining the means to prove you wrong
and in the commision of specific crimes for which you will eventually
be held accountable.
A example is here. Bill Ward and Martin, as their ONLY reference to
scientific evidence, point to a CO2 detector in which they claim the
presence of CO2 causes retention of energy which increases the
temperature and thus the pressure which is detected by a sensor. They
both claim, and bet their very existence, that this is a valid proof
of the contention that CO2 inordinately absorbs infrared radiation.
But they can submit no formal documentation of this.
They have no actual scientific basis for a damn thing they say. If for
profit, or if for mere narcissism, their enjoyment of their false
beliefs and superstition will be exposed, and then where willl they
be?
This depends upon how many other people's lives are affected by the
fraud of their theoretical science.
The fact is that this falls under the anlysis of partial pressures.
All valuable scientific data shows CO2 to be a normal gas. Thus the
partial pressure, or the pressure that CO2 contributes in a mixture of
gases, is no different than any other normal gas. The percentage of
the CO2 is the percentage of the pressure which CO2 contributes. Or if
the volume area in which the combination of gases is contained were
only occupied by the CO2, this is the pressure the CO2 contributes.
You can show no laboratory data that CO2 is not a normal gas, at
ordinary temperatures and pressures. If indeed the detector showed
that CO2 absorbed infrared which causes it to induce a higher pressure
in the container, this could easily be demonstrated in formal
analysis. The fact that formal analysis cannot be presented very
nearly proves the case of this fraud, but of course formal proof of
this fraud will be forthcoming.
Irradiation of CO2 with very specific frequencies in close containment
may cause a momentary reaction which can be detected. But this does
not prove the thesis that CO2 in a general environment with general
and normal radiation, absorbs or retains infrared beyond that of any
normal gas.
The fact that you have no scientific support for this statement at
this time proves this fact. If your contention were true, you could
submit actual evidence. But you have no actual evidence or science, so
you have only SUPERSTITION. The fact that many fools are able to see
and enjoy the emperor's clothes, means very little to actual SCIENCE.
The fact is that average velocity of the molecules of a gas, whether
in combination or alone, is inversely proportional to the square root
of the molecular weight. This describes CO2. At common temperature,
CO2 has common pressure, because the molecule has the same average
kinetic energy as any other normal gas.
Your inability to show otherwise with careful scientific
documentation, only means that you are vunerable to severe
repercusions when your theory is actually contended in valid courts,
and the wrath and HATRED of people is devoted to the idiots who call
themselves scientists and will not leave ordinary people alone.
In the meantime, I guess Obama can continue to enjoy the lies he is
being told by his scientifc advisors. Perhaps he is consious of his
plans to defer his criminal liability to these advisors for the lies
he is accepting. In the meantime, the truth has a way of working it's
way into clear view in the light of day.
Good luck in hell,,
HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahahahaha
KD
Darwin123
> On Oct 12, 3:54 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
> This is because the gas molecules all absorb infrared and emit
> infrared. The dark spectroscopic bands are not absorption bands, but
> bands at which the CO2 does not radiate. The gas molecules absorb
> radiant energy and emit this energy in the continuous spectrum of the
> infrared.
Your conclusion is wrong because you did not include all the
facts. However, all these problems come from the fact that you really
don't know what "temperature" means. A low temperature does not mean a
small amount of energy. When we say "heat energy," we are talking
about energy that has been randomized in direction and frequency and
phase. If the energy isn't randomized, it doesn't count in the
temperature. I'll break down your error into two parts.
1) The radiation that is absorbed has a propagation direction that is
determined by the source of radiation. However, the radiation that is
emitted leaves in a random direction.
It is the randomization of direction that traps the
radiation, not the mere fact of being absorbed. Sunlight hits the
earth, and the earth turns it into radiation that has a net upward
flux. The Ir emitted from the earth is random, but the surface itself
prevents it from moving downward right away. It moves upward. If there
was no molecule to absorb the radiation energy, it would leave the
atmosphere. However, after being absorbed the radiation has a random
direction. Half the energy is moving down.
Suppose there was no Stokes shift. The radiation that moves in an
atmosphere wiht concentrated green house gases will be absorbed and
remitted many times times. It will move upward in a random walk. A
random walk is far from a straight line. It will proceed upward very
slowly. Basically, it takes forever to leave the earths atmosphere.
This type of process is basically embedded in all thermodynamic
equations.
2) The radiation that is emitted generally has a smaller frequency
than the radiation that is absorbed. This is called the Stokes shift.
This means that the emission process doesn't return a photon of
the same frequency. Not all the emitted energy goes into the emitted
photon. The emission process can create vibrational and rotational
energy in the molecule itself. So there is a probability that the
photon emitted will have a lower energy than the original photon. The
energy in the vibrating or rotating molecule is emitted later as a
smaller photon. So the absorption of one photon results in the
emission of a larger number of photons.
These randomization processes are embedded in the equations used
to model the flow of energy to and from the earth. They are embedded
in the thermodynamic definitions of heat.
The emission process in the atmosphere is almost all spontaneous.
There is stimulated emission in the atmosphere, but this doesn't
result in lasing. The atmosphere has a really low Q-value. It doesn't
select for specific directions and frequencies. However, I have to
leave that for your next rebuttal.
>
> This is also proved by the CO2 laser. The dark bands of CO2 force the
> emissions at the bands at which CO2 is supposedly 'transparent', near
> 10um. Any laser only uses the parrallel mirrors to augment the
> frequencies which the lasing substance absorbs and emits.
In a CO2 laser, for example, stimulated emission selectively
creates photons that are identical to the original photon. In
stimulated emission, the photon that is emitted moves in the same
direction as the photon that was absorbed.
The laser cavity selects for photons that are emitted in a very
specific direction. If there was no such selection, as is the case in
the atmosphere, radiation coming in in random directions would result
in radiation moving in random directions. In fact, radiation that
started out moving in a specific direction would end up totally
randomized.
Even in a laser, there is energy lost in spontaneous emission. If
the photon is emitted spontaneously, without stimulation by other
photons, the radiation comes out randomized in direction and
frequency.
If you placed a large amount of a greenhouse gas in a CO2
laser cavity, the laser would stop lasing. One would think, using your
argument, that a absorbing material in the cavity couldn't interfere
with the operation of the laser. However, absorpbing materials do
interfere with the operation of a laser. Since the
>
> All molecules, such as liquids and solids have bands in their infrared
> spectrum, but all substances reach the same temperature in cavity
> oven, demonstrating that overal absorption and emission is not
> dependent upon the substance. This is the primary theorem from
> Kirchoff, 1859, which began the proper school of theory culminating
> with Planck and Einstein, who clearly defined radiation energy as
> packets or photons.
I think you should remember the other name for "cavity oven."
"The cavity oven" you are talking about is a "black body." The
situation that you describe only exists when the inside of the oven is
colored black, or is so tightly sealed that light has to bounce around
many times. Basically, the albedo of the oven has to be close to zero.
The atmosphere without greenhouse gases is not a "cavity oven."
The albedo of the earth is not zero. If the greenouse theory is true,
then the green house gases make the atmosphere more like a cavity
oven. Then the radiation can sail into space without impediment.
However, this is not the case. If the earth had a zero albedo at
IR frequencies, it would be hot like Venus. Venus has a high albedo at
visible frequencies, but it has a very low albedo at IR frequencies
due to CO2.
Your assumption that earth is already like a "black body" is not
valid.
>
> Since the gas molecules of O2 and N2 are absorbing and radiating at
> these frequencies, they do not produce the dark bands. But the small
> amounts of CO2 defeat the production of these frequencies. Since
> generally the gas molecules absorb a photon and then radiate the
> energy near to the energy of the absorbed photon, the production of
> the frequenies is defeated. This causes the experimental fact of no
> effect upon temperature of the gases because the energy is simply
> radiated at other frequencies.
The emission "at other frequencies" probably constitutes a change
in temperature. I say "probably" since I don't know where you are
getting this information that there is no change in temperature. How
is that temperature being measured in the experiments that you are
talking about?
In my universe, temperature is measured using emission spectra.
One fits the emitted spectra to a black body curve. Shifts in
frequency are usually associated with shifts in temperature. That is,
if the system one is talking about is close to being a "cavity oven."
>
> To define CO2 and other gases as you do, you therefore must
> differentiate these gases to those you claim to not be greenhouse
> gases such as N2 and O2.
Yes you do. I thought the models did that.
>
> In your theory you claim non-greenhouse gases only exchange energy by
> conduction or collision of the molecules. These energies are clearly
> defined by Boltzman by kT, and RT. kT is the average energy of a
> molecule. RT is the total energy of the molecules in 1 mole of gas due
> to their motions and collisions.
Nongreenhouse gases also absorb and emit radiation.
However, their vibrational bands lie outside the black body spectral
region of the atmosphere. I don't know if one can ignore the
absorption of these gases, or if anyone does ignore them. However,
their vibrational spectra is far different than those of a greenhouse
gas.
>
> The concept of 'greenhouse gases' was dropped by modern chemistry in
> the early 20th century due to proper experimental techniques and lack
> of experimental data to confirm the postulate. It was revived in the
> 1960's by theoretical scientists, still with no direct laboaratory
> evidence.
I think the issue of experimental evidence is best addressed
by other people. However, what you have presented so far is a very
poor rebuttal that is itself highly theoretical.
>
> Someday this simple proof of the fallacy of this cocept will be the
> DEATH NELL of the greenie movement.and the so called 'scientists' of
> theoretical physics who have no connection with experimental reality
> in their use of such words as 'greenhouse' gases and 'infrared
> radiation', 'energy' or 'temperature'.
You have no understanding of thermodynamics or spectroscopy.
This has nothing to do with the "greenie" movement. The arguments that
you have presented are scientifically bogus, independent of the actual
state of the atmosphere. If you are getting your facts from an outside
source, then I advise you look into the qualifications of that source.
I am an experimental physicist, who has worked in the fields
of spectroscopy for some time. I do not have any direct experience
with the analysis of energy transfer in the atmosphere. However, I
have a really good understanding of "infrared radiation", "energy",
and "temperature".
>
> The movement to control GHG's according to the theory that these gases
> are to cause drastic changes in climate can be proved beyond a
> reasonable doubt, to be clear CRIMINAL FRAUD.
I do not know for sure whether these gases are going to
cause drastic changes in climate. I have heard good arguments on both
sides. I also know that many of these models. I am partially biased
toward the greenies. However, I am well aware that some of these guys
are not scientists. I am equally disgusted by hysterical rantings from
the grassroots.
Your hysterical ranting is not scientifi9c. Really and truly,
your arguments have no validity. You sound like the idiots you are
trying to rebut. Your case concerning "criminal fraud" uses
antitechnology polemic. Therefore, it would be thrown out by even the
most conservative physicist.
Given your polemic, it sounds like you would arrest anyone with a
knowledge of basic thermodynamics. It would help your case a lot if
you would read a few texts on spectroscopy and thermodynamics.
Just learning a little about "entropy" would help you express
yourself a lot better. Lets start with temperature and entropy being
state variables...
Last Post
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
>
>
>
> <sixth-prime-num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> >"kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> what you want, I don't think spectra shows quantity
> or rate of energy transfer.
>
> the confidence factor.
>
> As far as GHGs go, I think an experiment with
> just plastic sheet that is transparent to all LWIR bands
> could be used in a long hallway to determine how
> much absorption and emission each gas or gas
> mixture is capable of.
>
> Dry nitrogen is readily available, as is CO2,
> and water vapor is easy to make. and very accurate
> thermal addition to a gas is easy to measure using
> electric resistance heat input.
>
> If a gas emits and absorbs as claimed, the
> gas in one compartment warmed, should warm
> the same gas in another compartment in the
> hallway.
>
> A result greater than in the middle troposphere
> should be expected because the hallway will almost
> certainly be warmer than the atmosphere.
>
> I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
> like this have not been done, the classroom demos
> are not scientific at all.
>
> the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
> meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
> then a square meter air column would have to
> radiate that much.
>
> skeptical, even handling of the UHI should be
> more appropriate, there is essentially no UHI
> when it rains quite a bit, but in most cities in
> moderate zones there is at least 3 degrees
> UHI on a dry day.
> 3 degrees would make a big change
> in the data since most stations used are in
> cities or airports.
>
> information is not available, it seems satellite
> data always shows cooler temperatures than
> the surface stations.
•• In plain language CO2 and NO2 are transients
they piggy back on the H2O and return to earth
in precipitation, to be absorbed by plant life etc
and in the case of CO2 by photosynthesis forms
carbohydrates and releases O2 as a waste
product.
•• Since these gasses are transients and are blown
on the clouds by the winds they are difficult to
quantify. If you go out after a thunderstorm,
you might notice a very 'clean' smell. That is
partly ozone from the electricity and an
absence of CO2 which is absorbed by almost
anything green.
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Martin Brown
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you do
>>>> not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing
>>> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be
>>> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has convinced
>>> me there is no significant link between CO2 and surface T.
>> There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead to
>> higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
>
> That's the link between T and CO2 shown in the ice core data.
>
>> And this holds whether the initial
>> forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the Earth's
>> orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* because of
>> additional CO2 emitted.
>
> You are assuming a link between CO2 and T that's not shown in the data.
> Your logic is thus circular.
Not at all. Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere necessarily
blocks some outgoing long wave radiation from escaping and the planet
must warm slightly to compensate. The same technique of modifying IR
long wave emissivity is used in much less controversial devices like low
pressure sodium lamps and office block window glass.
The physics doesn't stop working just because Rush Limbaugh and Dubya do
not believe in it.
>
>> And warming always increases the atmospheric
>> concentration of water vapour which is also a potent GHG.
>
> And a state-changing feedback mechanism.
>
>>> The main points are:
>>>
>>> 1) The ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
>>> But the CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years, indicating temperature
>>> drives CO2.
>> True enough. But it is smoke and mirrors misdirection. In the past
>> changes in the net amount amount of solar energy received were amplified
>> by the CO2/H2O feedback mechanism.
>
> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and that
> there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
It isn't an unsupported assumption.
>
>> That doesn't mean that if you add
>> more CO2 to the atmosphere that the temperature will not rise.
>
> The ice core evidence shows that CO2 remains at peak values for 800 years
> after T begins to fall. You need to explain both sides of the cycle, not
> just the rising edge.
Oceans take a long time to cool. And the initial feedback is almost
certainly down to albedo from additional permanent ice coverage in an
ice age.
When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external
stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent.
>
>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it is
>> possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is taking on
>> the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not CO2 coming out
>> of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are still a net sink of
>> the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a result. That will not hold
>> true forever the Southern Oceans are beginning to saturate.
>
> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for hundreds
> of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of
> equilibrium would be established.
The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come from
organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes
preferentially. On a good day you can even tell for a particular fuel
whether it was predominantly from C3 or C4 photosynthesis. The method is
mainly used for detecting adulteration of wines with cane sugar.
Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in the
atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy who
started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both sides
of the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The answer is
very clear.
>
> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the
> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came from
> "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2 equilibrium, and
> some of it's old, and of biological origin.
But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
>
>>> 2) The climate models require significant positive feedback from water
>>> vapor before they show scary enough results to get political attention,
>> And there is good evidence that such feedback exists. Attempts to show
>> that there is a negative feedback along the lines of Lindzens iris
>> hypothesis have not so far shown any convincing results. I'd like to
>> think there was some merit in his ideas.
>
> Good. Read and enjoy:
>
> <http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf>
>
> There's an ongoing thread in alt.global-warming.
I would not trust anything on Roy Spencers site. However, their
observations and data reported are restricted to the tropics and it is
melting the polar ice caps that will get us into serious trouble.
>
>>> yet both personal experience and recent research indicate water
>>> provides a negative feedback in the climate system. To me, the current
>>> sensitivity estimates of 0.25K to 0.75K per doubling of CO2 seem
>>> consistent with the evidence.
>> It could well be higher than that only time will tell.
>
> Not unless there is significant positive feedback, which Lindzen's paper
> pretty much rules out.
It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the way
to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens
critiques are actually very useful in that regard.
>
>>> 3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly the
>>> cooling trend since 1998.
>> The cooling trend since 1998 is a statistical trick used by denialists
>> who deliberate pick the highest point as their baseline year. 2005 was
>> pretty warm too and if you look over the entire dataset it is still an
>> upward trend with noise and periodic components.
>
> You can trace it back to the recovery from the last glaciation. Why
> should warming be significant and cooling just be noise?
I am not saying that at all. I am just pointing out that the claim you
made is done by using a classic fraudulent pollsters trick.
>
>> There are plenty of
>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean currents
>> that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>>> 4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
>>> "signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be
>>> found.
>> However, the poles are warming at least as fast as they predict and the
>> glaciers are declining even faster than the models predict.
>
> The hot spot was suggested by AGWers as proof, when they thought it was
> there. Now that it's shown not to be there, it's absence is ignored.
>
> That's additional evidence the models are wrong. If you have enough
> models, and you can select which to use after the fact, you can "prove"
> just about anything. There's a recent thread concerning which of the
> models are right - there can be only one.
None of the models may be exactly right. But that doesn't alter the
basic premise that they are now good enough to show major long term
trends if we continue on a wreckless business as usual path.
>
>>> 4) Weather is a canonical example of chaos. Climate is derived by
>>> low- passing weather datasets, so climate must also be chaotic.
>>> Chaotic behavior is impossible to predict past the measurement error
>>> horizon. This fact seems to escape many researchers, who keep trying
>>> anyway.
>> Chaotic also means that for small perturbations it will orbit happily
>> around a local attractor but if sufficiently provoked the climate system
>> will snap over to another attractor relatively quickly.
>
> Chaotic behavior can never exactly repeat a state or sequence.
But is can come remarkably close. The human heart is a chaotic system
but to all intents and purposes it has a regular beat.
>
>> It still remains true that if you alter the Earths effective albedo then
>> it will change the climate. You may not be able to predict exactly
>> how.
>>
>> The UK could be unlucky and revert to much colder weather characteristic
>> of its 53N latitude if the Atlantic Conveyor stalled in an on average
>> warmer world.
>
> There are a lot of things that "could" happen, and even more that won't.
> The current focus seems to be on those that can scare people into giving
> up their freedom.
Lets separate the science from the policy for a moment.
The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on various
hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the models are
good enough now that refining them will not change the outcome.
>>> 5) Much of the research involved has apparently been decidedly
>>> unscientific and biased toward finding AGW no matter what. Briffa,
>>> Hansen and Mann come immediately to mind.
>> This is basically untrue. But you are entitled to your opinion. And you
>> should look *very* carefully at the bedfellows you have chosen...
>
> I look at their work.
>
>> Exxon sponsored denialists who work for various flavours of ultra right
>> wing free market US think tanks. Idso, Seitz etc are all models of
>> probity and did a really great job at preventing people from learning
>> the truth about smoking tobacco.
So do I and I discount any that have multiple previous convictions as
denier for hire on either smoking tobacco or the CFC induced ozone hole.
I knew about many of the dirty tricks played by industry on that one and
you can see from the historical record who would prostitute their
scientific credentials to create plausible doubt in the public mind.
Deniers for hire were still very active up to the point where the 1995
Nobel prize was awarded for atmospheric chemistry and ozone in
particular. They went rather quiet after that.
Even industrial fluorine chemists viewed the rate of damage as very
worrying which was what made the Montreal Protocol a workable solution.
>>>> as opposed
>>>> to the usual politicos who cite the various Exxon sponsored lying and
>>>> half truth dittohead misinformation and fakery sites.
>>> 6) Many of the "arguments" favoring AGW involve only ad hominem
>>> attacks, with no scientific content. That's what initially raised my
>>> suspicions.
>> Actually pointing out that the credentials of some of the more prominent
>> exponents of AGW denialism who were previously employed to do *exactly*
>> the same thing for big tobacco is a fair point. Their expertise is in
>> sowing doubt in the public mind so that the real scientific evidence is
>> ignored. And make no mistake they are well funded and bloody good at it.
>
> Ad hominem attacks are never valid. They are merely an admission you
> can't answer the opposition's arguments.
Not at all. I can see exactly what they are doing. String together a
careful mixture of half truths and plausible lies and you can fool most
of the population. Their reasoning such as it is relies on smoke and
mirrors that is designed to mislead. By comparison the IPCC Science
report is an open and honest attempt to describe the detailed evidence
with all the limitations and uncertainties of the methods described. The
main problem is that it is a very large document and getting longer...
>
>>> What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface temperatures?
>> Conservation of energy and consideration of the rate of heat loss from
>> the planet.
>>> Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
>> In a quick hand waving version. CO2 (or any other GHG) makes the
>> atmosphere opaque to certain bands of long wave radiation. The net
>> effect is that the surface of last scattering in those bands is moved
>> higher up into the atmosphere where due to the lapse rate it is cooler
>> and so less total energy can escape. Energy balance does the rest.
>
> Close enough. Without positive feedback, how much effect on temperature
> do you think doubling CO2 would cause?
It is presently around 1.5W/m^2 so doubled CO2 would give a back of the
envelope forcing of a fraction of a degree if all feedback was ignored
>
>> Even most sceptical scientists do not deny that without including GHG
>> forcing after about 1970 it becomes impossible to balance the Earths
>> energy budget.
>
> Can you explain how that could even be possible? Models will do whatever
> you program them to do. Discrepancy can only exist in the logic or the
> measurements.
See the paper by Baliunas & Soon APJ, 1996on ADS abstracts for instance
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..891S
But they tell a different story to their right wing think tank friends.
>> You cannot gratuitously make the sun brighter as there is
>> satellite monitoring over the relevant period.
>>
>> You can see the same on the sun with the narrowband H-alpha emissions
>> sat above the brilliant photosphere
>>
>>>> Nature will be the final arbiter in this debate and we will not have
>>>> all that long to wait - perhaps a few decades before it becomes
>>>> undeniable.
>>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence of
>> serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my position.
>
> You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly influencing
> temperature? Is that because you can't think of anything else?
There are no other convincing explanations at the moment. Unless you
wish to invoke divine intervention or invisible UFO exhaust plumes.
Sherlock Holmes summed up how logical inference works rather nicely.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Timothy Casey
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ZTFm.17299$Xq1...@newsfe10.iad...
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for hundreds
>> of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of
>> equilibrium would be established.
>
> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come from
> organic life.
.
This mythical "isotopic signature" is identical to that of CO2 derived from
magma. Any textbook on igneous petrogenisis whill give you dozens of
references to studies finding depleted C13 in magmatic fluids - and there
are more than enough submarine volcanoes - and yes this is to do with
subduction of terrestrial 13C depleted plant carbon in basin sediments and
consequent 13C depletion of magmatic carbon.
.
> Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in the
> atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy who
> started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both sides of
> the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The answer is very
> clear.
Can someone please name a CO2 monitoring station that isn't sited at or on
an active volcano (and don't say "south pole" either - there is nothing
there - the nearest base is McMurdo -right next to Erebus!)???
.
>>
>> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the
>> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came from
>> "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2 equilibrium, and
>> some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>
> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
.
No it is precisly the point that falsifies the Suess effect and casts doubt
on the origin of the CO2 rise, which could just as easily be volcanic
because volcanic CO2 is magmatic, which is too old for measurable 14C.
Timothy Casey
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ZTFm.17299$Xq1...@newsfe10.iad...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> 1) The ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
>>>> But the CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years, indicating temperature
>>>> drives CO2.
>>> True enough. But it is smoke and mirrors misdirection. In the past
>>> changes in the net amount amount of solar energy received were amplified
>>> by the CO2/H2O feedback mechanism.
>>
>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and that
>> there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>
> It isn't an unsupported assumption.
.
And what real (not virtual) laboratory experiment lends support?
I M @ good guy
Most of the AGW gossip groupies seem to think
that fossil C13 levels are greater than atmospheric,
an example of the gossip fad.
Androcles
"Timothy Casey" <sixth-pri...@timothycasey.info> wrote in message
news:4ae819cf$0$5423$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1ZTFm.17299$Xq1...@newsfe10.iad...
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> [SNIP]
<snip>
<snip>
> [SNIP]
> .
<snip>
> .
<snip>
> .
<snip>
> .
>>>
<snip>
>>
<snip>
> [SNIP]
<snip>
> .
> --
> Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prim...@timothycasey.info
>
<snip>
Oops, nothing left to respond to...
Androcles
>
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1ZTFm.17299$Xq1...@newsfe10.iad...
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> [SNIP]
<snip>
> [SNIP]
<snip>
> Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prim...@timothycasey.info
<snip>
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you
>>>>> do not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing
>>>> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be
>>>> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has
>>>> convinced me there is no significant link between CO2 and surface T.
>>> There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead to
>>> higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
>>
>> That's the link between T and CO2 shown in the ice core data.
>>
>>> And this holds whether the initial
>>> forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the Earth's
>>> orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* because of
>>> additional CO2 emitted.
>>
>> You are assuming a link between CO2 and T that's not shown in the data.
>> Your logic is thus circular.
>
> Not at all. Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere necessarily
> blocks some outgoing long wave radiation from escaping and the planet
> must warm slightly to compensate.
That's the incorrect assumption. The planet can simply emit radiation
from a lower, warmer layer. That's one negative feedback from WV. Or
the planet can reflect more solar energy (increase albedo) from low
clouds. That's another negative feedback from the change of state of
water. Both have been observed.
> The same technique of modifying IR
> long wave emissivity is used in much less controversial devices like low
> pressure sodium lamps and office block window glass.
That's hardly a good analogy for the climate system.
> The physics doesn't stop working just because Rush Limbaugh and Dubya do
> not believe in it.
Ad hominem simply focuses attention on the inadequacy of your argument.
>>> And warming always increases the atmospheric concentration of water
>>> vapour which is also a potent GHG.
>>
>> And a state-changing feedback mechanism.
>>
>>>> The main points are:
>>>>
>>>> 1) The ice cores show a clear correlation between CO2 and
>>>> temperature. But the CO2 lags the temperature by 800 years,
>>>> indicating temperature drives CO2.
>>> True enough. But it is smoke and mirrors misdirection. In the past
>>> changes in the net amount amount of solar energy received were
>>> amplified by the CO2/H2O feedback mechanism.
>>
>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and that
>> there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>
> It isn't an unsupported assumption.
Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data.
>>> That doesn't mean that if you add
>>> more CO2 to the atmosphere that the temperature will not rise.
>>
>> The ice core evidence shows that CO2 remains at peak values for 800
>> years after T begins to fall. You need to explain both sides of the
>> cycle, not just the rising edge.
>
> Oceans take a long time to cool. And the initial feedback is almost
> certainly down to albedo from additional permanent ice coverage in an
> ice age.
Can you explain what that has to do with the ice core data that shows CO2
responds to temperature but temperature does not respond to CO2?
> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external
> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent.
Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"?
>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it
>>> is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is
>>> taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not
>>> CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are
>>> still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a
>>> result. That will not hold true forever the Southern Oceans are
>>> beginning to saturate.
>>
>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for
>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of
>> equilibrium would be established.
>
> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come from
> organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes
> preferentially.
You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most limestone
comes from, lava?
> On a good day you can even tell for a particular fuel
> whether it was predominantly from C3 or C4 photosynthesis. The method is
> mainly used for detecting adulteration of wines with cane sugar.
>
> Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in the
> atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy who
> started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both sides
> of the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The answer is
> very clear.
>>
>> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the
>> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came
>> from "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2
>> equilibrium, and some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>
> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the
CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate
between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish?
>>>> 2) The climate models require significant positive feedback from
>>>> water vapor before they show scary enough results to get political
>>>> attention,
>>> And there is good evidence that such feedback exists. Attempts to show
>>> that there is a negative feedback along the lines of Lindzens iris
>>> hypothesis have not so far shown any convincing results. I'd like to
>>> think there was some merit in his ideas.
>>
>> Good. Read and enjoy:
>>
>> <http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf>
>>
>> There's an ongoing thread in alt.global-warming.
>
> I would not trust anything on Roy Spencers site. However, their
> observations and data reported are restricted to the tropics and it is
> melting the polar ice caps that will get us into serious trouble.
So you reject it without actually understanding it. Where do you think
most cooling takes place, the poles?
BTW, if you try, you might find another download site - the paper is
published in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36. You should be able
to understand it.
>>>> yet both personal experience and recent research indicate water
>>>> provides a negative feedback in the climate system. To me, the
>>>> current sensitivity estimates of 0.25K to 0.75K per doubling of CO2
>>>> seem consistent with the evidence.
>>> It could well be higher than that only time will tell.
>>
>> Not unless there is significant positive feedback, which Lindzen's
>> paper pretty much rules out.
>
> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the way
> to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens
> critiques are actually very useful in that regard.
Have you even read the paper?
>>>> 3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly
>>>> the cooling trend since 1998.
>>> The cooling trend since 1998 is a statistical trick used by denialists
>>> who deliberate pick the highest point as their baseline year. 2005 was
>>> pretty warm too and if you look over the entire dataset it is still an
>>> upward trend with noise and periodic components.
>>
>> You can trace it back to the recovery from the last glaciation. Why
>> should warming be significant and cooling just be noise?
>
> I am not saying that at all. I am just pointing out that the claim you
> made is done by using a classic fraudulent pollsters trick.
I claim the models have not predicted the actual climate any better than
a random guess. If you don't think so, show me the model and results.
Postdictions don't count.
>>> There are plenty of
>>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean
>>> currents that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
That sounds like you are acknowledging there are natural factors that
affect climate. Are you sure you know all of them?
>>>> 4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
>>>> "signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be
>>>> found.
>>> However, the poles are warming at least as fast as they predict and
>>> the glaciers are declining even faster than the models predict.
>>
>> The hot spot was suggested by AGWers as proof, when they thought it was
>> there. Now that it's shown not to be there, it's absence is ignored.
>>
>> That's additional evidence the models are wrong. If you have enough
>> models, and you can select which to use after the fact, you can "prove"
>> just about anything. There's a recent thread concerning which of the
>> models are right - there can be only one.
>
> None of the models may be exactly right. But that doesn't alter the
> basic premise that they are now good enough to show major long term
> trends if we continue on a wreckless business as usual path.
Another assumption in the absence of evidence. Giving up freedom on the
basis of a delusion is reckless. Assuming the null hypothesis - that CO2
has no effect on the climate - until there is direct, convincing evidence
is not reckless.
>>>> 4) Weather is a canonical example of chaos. Climate is derived by
>>>> low- passing weather datasets, so climate must also be chaotic.
>>>> Chaotic behavior is impossible to predict past the measurement error
>>>> horizon. This fact seems to escape many researchers, who keep trying
>>>> anyway.
>>> Chaotic also means that for small perturbations it will orbit happily
>>> around a local attractor but if sufficiently provoked the climate
>>> system will snap over to another attractor relatively quickly.
>>
>> Chaotic behavior can never exactly repeat a state or sequence.
>
> But is can come remarkably close. The human heart is a chaotic system
> but to all intents and purposes it has a regular beat.
If it does, you're in trouble. That means the regulation has failed.
>>> It still remains true that if you alter the Earths effective albedo
>>> then it will change the climate. You may not be able to predict
>>>exactly how.
>>>
>>> The UK could be unlucky and revert to much colder weather
>>> characteristic of its 53N latitude if the Atlantic Conveyor stalled in
>>> an on average warmer world.
>>
>> There are a lot of things that "could" happen, and even more that
>> won't. The current focus seems to be on those that can scare people
>> into giving up their freedom.
>
> Lets separate the science from the policy for a moment.
>
> The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on various
> hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the models are
> good enough now that refining them will not change the outcome.
I still want to know why you think that.
>>>> 5) Much of the research involved has apparently been decidedly
>>>> unscientific and biased toward finding AGW no matter what. Briffa,
>>>> Hansen and Mann come immediately to mind.
>>> This is basically untrue. But you are entitled to your opinion. And
>>> you should look *very* carefully at the bedfellows you have chosen...
>>
>> I look at their work.
>>
>>> Exxon sponsored denialists who work for various flavours of ultra
>>> right wing free market US think tanks. Idso, Seitz etc are all models
>>> of probity and did a really great job at preventing people from
>>> learning the truth about smoking tobacco.
>
> So do I and I discount any that have multiple previous convictions as
> denier for hire on either smoking tobacco or the CFC induced ozone hole.
> I knew about many of the dirty tricks played by industry on that one and
> you can see from the historical record who would prostitute their
> scientific credentials to create plausible doubt in the public mind.
>
> Deniers for hire were still very active up to the point where the 1995
> Nobel prize was awarded for atmospheric chemistry and ozone in
> particular. They went rather quiet after that.
>
> Even industrial fluorine chemists viewed the rate of damage as very
> worrying which was what made the Montreal Protocol a workable solution.
That's still ad hominem and irrelevant. You need to show what's wrong
with their conclusions to have any effect. Your "argument" is like
saying you don't believe the moon landings because Werner Von Braun
worked for the Nazis.
>>>>> as opposed
>>>>> to the usual politicos who cite the various Exxon sponsored lying
>>>>> and half truth dittohead misinformation and fakery sites.
>>>> 6) Many of the "arguments" favoring AGW involve only ad hominem
>>>> attacks, with no scientific content. That's what initially raised my
>>>> suspicions.
>>> Actually pointing out that the credentials of some of the more
>>> prominent exponents of AGW denialism who were previously employed to
>>> do *exactly* the same thing for big tobacco is a fair point. Their
>>> expertise is in sowing doubt in the public mind so that the real
>>> scientific evidence is ignored. And make no mistake they are well
>>> funded and bloody good at it.
>>
>> Ad hominem attacks are never valid. They are merely an admission you
>> can't answer the opposition's arguments.
>
> Not at all. I can see exactly what they are doing. String together a
> careful mixture of half truths and plausible lies and you can fool most
> of the population. Their reasoning such as it is relies on smoke and
> mirrors that is designed to mislead. By comparison the IPCC Science
> report is an open and honest attempt to describe the detailed evidence
> with all the limitations and uncertainties of the methods described. The
> main problem is that it is a very large document and getting longer...
Ad hominem is still a fallacy and has no effect on the truth of an
argument. Save your breath.
>>>> What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface
>>>> temperatures?
>>> Conservation of energy and consideration of the rate of heat loss from
>>> the planet.
>>>> Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
>>> In a quick hand waving version. CO2 (or any other GHG) makes the
>>> atmosphere opaque to certain bands of long wave radiation. The net
>>> effect is that the surface of last scattering in those bands is moved
>>> higher up into the atmosphere where due to the lapse rate it is cooler
>>> and so less total energy can escape. Energy balance does the rest.
>>
>> Close enough. Without positive feedback, how much effect on
>> temperature do you think doubling CO2 would cause?
>
> It is presently around 1.5W/m^2 so doubled CO2 would give a back of the
> envelope forcing of a fraction of a degree if all feedback was ignored
Then do you agree that the AGW argument for climate catastrophe hangs on
the assumption of positive feedbacks?
>>> Even most sceptical scientists do not deny that without including GHG
>>> forcing after about 1970 it becomes impossible to balance the Earths
>>> energy budget.
>>
>> Can you explain how that could even be possible? Models will do
>> whatever you program them to do. Discrepancy can only exist in the
>> logic or the measurements.
>
> See the paper by Baliunas & Soon APJ, 1996on ADS abstracts for instance
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..891S
To quote Monty Python,"It's just a model", from 1996, no less. Do you
have an explanation in your own words, or are you in parrot mode?
> But they tell a different story to their right wing think tank friends.
??
>>> You cannot gratuitously make the sun brighter as there is satellite
>>> monitoring over the relevant period.
>>>
>>> You can see the same on the sun with the narrowband H-alpha emissions
>>> sat above the brilliant photosphere
>>>
>>>>> Nature will be the final arbiter in this debate and we will not have
>>>>> all that long to wait - perhaps a few decades before it becomes
>>>>> undeniable.
>>>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>>> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence of
>>> serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my position.
>>
>> You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly influencing
>> temperature? Is that because you can't think of anything else?
>
> There are no other convincing explanations at the moment. Unless you
> wish to invoke divine intervention or invisible UFO exhaust plumes.
Your ignorance of other explanations is hardly convincing.
> Sherlock Holmes summed up how logical inference works rather nicely.
Given your arguments so far, I'd call that a non sequitur.
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Oct 20, 9:51 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You do way too much redefinition of terms, which is going nowhere to
wade through your dogmatic and non-quantifiable rhetoric, redefinition
and semantics.
Blackbody means only absorbing all energy being recieved, since one
does not want to study reflected radiation in analysis of emission
spectra. Planck's Law applies to all substances, and is based entirely
upon hv/kT, where kT is the average energy of the molecules of a gas
at any specific temperature.
The sun radiates as a blackbody and is entirely gaseous and almost ALL
hydrogen gas. It radiates in a continuous spectrum through the visible
spectrum, just as compressed hydrogen gas does in the laboratory. The
discreet and specific emission spectra, are only produced by rarified
gases, and absorption spectra only match the principle series.
The various elements of the periodic chart exist in the sun in small
proportions, and their emissions are seen in the sun's spectrograph as
the bright bands and dark absorption bands often suprimposed upon
eachother for the principle series. This occurs because the continouss
spectra is produced at deeper highly compressed gas, the bright
emission spectra are produced in higher, hot, rarified gases, and at
higher levels cooler gases which are not hot enough to radiate produce
the absorption spectra.
The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and
have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
>
> > To define CO2 and other gases as you do, you therefore must
> > differentiate these gases to those you claim to not be greenhouse
> > gases such as N2 and O2.
>
> Yes you do. I thought the models did that.
>
> > In your theory you claim non-greenhouse gases only exchange energy by
> > conduction or collision of the molecules. These energies are clearly
> > defined by Boltzman by kT, and RT. kT is the average energy of a
> > molecule. RT is the total energy of the molecules in 1 mole of gas due
> > to their motions and collisions.
>
> Nongreenhouse gases also absorb and emit radiation.
> However, their vibrational bands lie outside the black body spectral
> region of the atmosphere. I don't know if one can ignore the
> absorption of these gases, or if anyone does ignore them. However,
> their vibrational spectra is far different than those of a greenhouse
> gas.
I have a very specific point here, which you do not grasp. You are too
intent upon your dogmatic rendering.
If one pushes N2 gas with low pressure through tubing into a larger
container made of metal and which has an exhaust tube also, one can
bring the outer surface of the container to a temperature near the
temperature of the gas. Now if one increases the temperature of the
gas by several hundred degrees Kelvin, the temperature of the metal
will increase also. Now in REAL physics there is Stefan's Law, which
mathematically is
5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4
So if the metal container is a sphere and has a radius of 28.209 cm,
it will have the surface area of 1sq meter. According to Stefan's Law,
the quantity of energy leaving the surface per sq meter, per second is
459 Joules per second at 300K. If you deny this basic fact of physics
with your interminable redefinition of terms and facts YOU ARE
DEFUNCT.
At 300K 459.27 JOULES PER SECOND
At 500K 3543.75 JOULES PER SECOND
At 700K 13,613.67 JOULES PER SECOND
8.3146 Joules per deg per mole
At 300K RT is 2494.38 JOULES
At 500K RT is 4157.3 JOULES
At 700K RT is 5820.22 JOULES
This is a quantity of energy per second. This quantity of energy
leaving the surface of the metal, which obey's the blackbody curve of
Planck's radiation Law for quantity of energy at each frequency,
(distribution), increases as a fourth power to absolute temperature,
with peak frequency according to Wiens Law.
According to you, N2 gas does not absorb in the infrared spectrum.
According to you, when the N2 gas transfers heat energy to metal
surfaces, it does so soley by the energy of the motions of the
molecules, conduction, or perhaps the energy stored in the heat
capacity.
Yet if one increases the temperature of the gas N2 into the metal
container, while allowing it to expand and remain at normal air
pressure, you will find that it is possible to raise the temperature
of the metal by several hundred degrees Kelvin, while the pressure of
the gas remains the same although the temperature is increased.
If the pressure is the same, the force from the number of the
collisions and the energy of the molecules is the same. At the higher
temperature, the molecules are moving much faster, but they are
expanded and much less dense in their collisions. Pressure is the
product of the number of collisions and the velocity of the
molecules.
The number of collisions increases as a direct proportion to increased
average velocity.
As the temperature is increased, the energy denoted by RT increases in
direct proportion. This is the TOTAL energy of the mole for the linear
energy of the molecules which is translated from 1/2mv^2
R is the energy. According to 1/2mv^2, the velocity is a square root
of the energy. If velocity increases as a square root, and number of
collisions increases as a direct proportion to increasing velocity and
therefore also a square root, the pressure which is the product of the
number of collisions and average velocity increases as a direct
proportion to Energy which is RT. Square root x square root = 1,
So the point here is that we have the energy of the molecules of a gas
well defined. The rotational energies of the molecules is almost all
of the energy of the heat capacity, which for any gas does not exceed
9/2 R, or 4.5R.
R only increases as a direct proportion to temperature.
Energy radiated from the metal increases as a fourth power.
IMPOSSIBLE that the energy is transfered through the N2 solely be
collisons.
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF that the N2 gas absorbs and emits in the entire
spectrum of the continous spectrum of the infrared. THIS IS THE ONLY
MEANS THE THE QUANTITY OF ENERGY IS TRANSFERED BY THE GAS TO THE
METAL. THIS ENERGY IS IN PHOTONS WHICH IS ABSORBED AND EMITED BY THE
MOLECULES OF THE GASES AT C.
THE DEFINITION OF GREENHOUSE GASES, AS THOSE GASES WHICH INORDINATELY
ABSORB IN THE INFRARED IS ENTIRELY PROVED TO BE A FALSE POSTULATE,
REGARDLESS OF THE SUPERSTITIONS AND DOGMA OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE AND
THE COMPLETE LACK WITHIN THESE FIELDS TO ANY DEGREE OF OBJECTIVE
INQUIRY
> Just learning a little about "entropy" would help you express
> yourself a lot better. Lets start with temperature and entropy being
> state variables...
I damn well know what entropy is and what is temperature. I also damn
well know this stale ass rhetoric which you seem to think is
'physics', but which you cannot quantify into actual Joules or
calories or actual 3 dimensional space. And you have no direct science
at all for your theoretical meandering through your semantics.
The one fact about entropy is that the law of the conservation of
energy is always obeyed, although I doubt if this is important to you
or contemporary theory which is the bullshit from classical physics
dragged back out of the garbage by the fools of modern theoretical
physics which enjoys the greenie weenie up their ass.
I resent your insults and you can shove it up your dogmatic ass.
Before you tell me I am wrong, you should pull your head out of your
repititional dogmatic bullshit ass and pay the hell some attention.
You are wrong. SCUSE THE HELL OUT of me for not doing the same as you
and merely repeating the same stale meaningless bullshit.
I can damn well support every word I use, and mechanically define
every premise I present, and support all my statements with actual
laboratory science.
So screw you and your educated refusal to pull your head out of your
ass.
KD
The AGWBunnies,
Beating on their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society,,,
Darwin123
> On Oct 27, 6:37 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 9:51 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> You do way too much redefinition of terms, which is going nowhere to
> wade through your dogmatic and non-quantifiable rhetoric, redefinition
> and semantics.
>
> Blackbody means only absorbing all energy being recieved, since one
> does not want to study reflected radiation in analysis of emission
> spectra. Planck's Law applies to all substances, and is based entirely
> upon hv/kT, where kT is the average energy of the molecules of a gas
> at any specific temperature.
equilibrium. If the material is transparent, or partially transparent,
the system will not be in complete equilibrium. Some of the energy
won't be in thermal equilibrium, and will vary with the substance.
>
> The sun radiates as a blackbody and is entirely gaseous and almost ALL
> hydrogen gas. It radiates in a continuous spectrum through the visible
> spectrum, just as compressed hydrogen gas does in the laboratory.
the entire sun radiated as a black body, there would be no spectral
lines. The surface of the sun does show spectral lines. There are
bright emission bands and dark absorption bands. These bands exist in
the visible and UV regions. There are emission bands very close to the
peak black body wavelength. Real spectra from the sun show both a
spectral band component and black body component.
Granted that the spectral component comes from only the upper
layers of the suns atmosphere. Most of the sun is in an almost
complete thermal equilibrium. The top layers are not in complete
thermal equilibrium. The optical thickness of the top layers are too
small.
The surface of a real object may show a continuous spectrum, but
it is seldom a true black body emission. Thin gases can show spectral
lines. However, the shape of the spectrum can vary quite a bit from
Plancks Law. The spectrum of a "black" surface may follow Planck's
Law, but the peak intensity is seldom what is predicted from Planck's
Law. The peak intensity is diminished by self absorption.
This self absorption is why the peak intensity has to be
multiplied by the emissivity of the surface. A reflective surface
won't emit quite as brightly as a surface with high absorption. Thus,
the absorptivity of the surface is important for determining the rate
of energy transfer.
In real heat balance calculations, there are phenomenological
constants that are supposed to account for these variations from
Planck's Law. Examples of phenomenological constants includes albedo.
It would be ridiculous for meteorologists or laser researchers to
apply Planck's Law directly to a surface or atmosphere as though the
entire atmosphere were pitch black.
The use of phenomenological constants has certain risks.
However, that does not mean that the models involved don't take
emission into account. Your claim is that the models don't take
important processes into account because they don't use your back of
the envelope models. This is nonsense. If you knew what you were
talking about, you would be pointing out what constants were
incorrectly determined. However, you are discarding a great deal of
physics and chemistry when you claim that substance isn't important.
In real atmospheric calculations, the composition of the atmosphere is
important.
I myself think greenies are being inconsistent in other ways.
Someone pointed out that when compiling greenhouse gases, they ignore
most natural processes. They assume that the humidity is a known
constant. They slip in other ways. However, what you are describing is
a wishful fantasy on your part. Thowing in bad physics just muddies
the waters.
> discreet and specific emission spectra, are only produced by rarified
> gases, and absorption spectra only match the principle series.
spectral band with a high peak at low pressures becomes a broad band
with low peak at high pressures. This occurs both for emission bands
and absorption bands. So emission still gets reabsorbed at high
pressures. Furthermore, collisional dexcitation becomes important at
high pressures. This means that emission gets much weaker with
pressure than absorption. The energy from the upward moving radiation
has an even smaller chance of being remitted once it is absorbed.
Therefore, gas ion lasers don't work at high pressure. Neither
do gaseous fluorescent light bulbs. However, you done anything to
quantify the effect of atmosphere high in the earths atmosphere. You
have provided analogies that may not be valid.
Some of this high versus low pressure physics is handled by the
models used. I am very suspicious of how good these models really are.
However, it is ridiculous to claim criminal negligence based on a
laser analogy.
>
> The various elements of the periodic chart exist in the sun in small
> proportions, and their emissions are seen in the sun's spectrograph as
> the bright bands and dark absorption bands often suprimposed upon
> eachother for the principle series. This occurs because the continouss
> spectra is produced at deeper highly compressed gas, the bright
> emission spectra are produced in higher, hot, rarified gases, and at
> higher levels cooler gases which are not hot enough to radiate produce
> the absorption spectra.
at the surface where the absorption is greater. The absorption of this
radiation is large near the surface, but decreases with altitude. In
the troposphere, the temperature decreases with height. So the upper
atmosphere is cool. It will absorb the radiation of energy going up
and produce dark bands. Satellites can measure these things.
You may be right concerning the unimportance of spectral
absorption, but you haven't provided any evidence of it. There are
actual scientists claiming that the man made greenhouse effect is
bogus. However, I don't recall any of them saying that the
stratosphere is a real black body. Often, these guys question the
humidity measurements and the contribution of clouds. The importance
of clouds rather goes against your model of Planck emission.
>
> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and
> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting
thing you said so far.
>
Timothy Casey
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:ei7ge51k91vsr83sj...@4ax.com...
In my opinion, it's a shell game combining both bait and switch debating
tactics with the characteristically green fallacy that can be described as
*generalisation by omission*. It does confuse people, as this kind of
argument is usually intended to do - but the risk inherent in employing this
kind of argument is the likelihood of backfire - and in this case, people
evidently get confused on both sides of the trenches.
.
The Carbon Isotope Shell Game starts with the Suess Effect being cited in
the classic generalisation that anthropogenic CO2 is isotopically distinct
from all "Natural" CO2 because plant respiration CO2 contains the cosmogenic
and geologically short-lived 14C - as opposed to fossil fuels which are too
old contain measurable amounts of 14C. The problem here is that vegetation
is not the only source of natural CO2 and volcanoes produce old CO2 with the
same 14C signature as fossil fuel emissions - notably zip. When you point
this out, the debater introduces a classic bait & switch argument (called an
"apple-cucumber" in some parts of Australia) by saying "Yes but we were
really talking about 13C". Well, that isn't the Suess Effect.
.
A valid response to a bait and switch argument if you don't have a ready
response to the switch, is to fall back on relevance and insist that the
point remain confined to the bait. In this case, the Suess Effect does not
differentiate volcanic and fossil fuel CO2 regardless of what the
differences in 13C might be. If you are ready for the switch in this case,
you can always point out that magmatic carbon is 13C depleted just like
photosynthesising biomass, fossil fuels, and fossil fuel emissions.
.
Watch out for the distinction between atmospheric enrichment in 13C by plant
respiration and plant matter depletion in 13C - that's your shell game right
there and this interesting twist on the green fallacy (generalisation by
omission) is probably the source of much of the confusion. The technique
here is to stick rigidly to the structure of your own information rather
than trying to adapt to the often convoluted structure of your opposite.
.
Keep It Structurally Simple and most of the shell game blues should fade
away.
Martin Brown
And it is you who are playing bait and switch here. Classic denialist
lies. We can measure the corresponding decrease in the atmospheric
oxygen content that balances our rate of fossil fuel combustion with
sufficient precision to know for certain that the amount staying in the
atmosphere is a little over half of what we emit. See for example:
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf
> Watch out for the distinction between atmospheric enrichment in 13C by
> plant respiration and plant matter depletion in 13C - that's your shell
> game right there and this interesting twist on the green fallacy
> (generalisation by omission) is probably the source of much of the
> confusion. The technique here is to stick rigidly to the structure of
> your own information rather than trying to adapt to the often convoluted
> structure of your opposite.
> .
> Keep It Structurally Simple and most of the shell game blues should fade
> away.
The scientific evidence is clear - fossil fuel CO2. Dittohead lies and
YEC lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating not withstanding.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
Although clouds are a very double edged sword. At night they slow down
the escape of heat considerably - a clear sky is much warmer. And for
most of the high cloud types plenty of light and heat gets through and
less gets back out.
>>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and that
>>> there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>> It isn't an unsupported assumption.
>
> Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data.
Hang on. Have you forgotten about the CO2 measurement technique that
relies on delta-T from pinging CO2 molecules in their absorption band.
>> Oceans take a long time to cool. And the initial feedback is almost
>> certainly down to albedo from additional permanent ice coverage in an
>> ice age.
>
> Can you explain what that has to do with the ice core data that shows CO2
> responds to temperature but temperature does not respond to CO2?
The fallacy being exploited here by the denialists is by claiming
increasing A causes increasing B that the opposite is automatically
false. It isn't. Warming causes CO2 release causes a bit more warming.
The only thing we can say with certainty is that the loop gain is less
than 1.
Temperature causes CO2 changes in the historical record (and it does).
But that does not alter the fact that increased CO2 also causes some
warming just an amount that is less than the initial externally applied
change.
>
>> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external
>> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent.
>
> Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"?
No. The brightness of the sun, or variation of the Earths orbital
elements either of which can change the global energy balance. And since
VSOP87 an later revisions it is possible to study the orbital dynamics
over a long period.
>
>>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it
>>>> is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is
>>>> taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not
>>>> CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are
>>>> still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a
>>>> result. That will not hold true forever the Southern Oceans are
>>>> beginning to saturate.
>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for
>>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of
>>> equilibrium would be established.
>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come from
>> organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes
>> preferentially.
>
> You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most limestone
> comes from, lava?
It is mainly photosynthesis which concentrates the C12 CO2. That makes
corals a bit dodgy.
>> On a good day you can even tell for a particular fuel
>> whether it was predominantly from C3 or C4 photosynthesis. The method is
>> mainly used for detecting adulteration of wines with cane sugar.
>>
>> Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in the
>> atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy who
>> started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both sides
>> of the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The answer is
>> very clear.
>>> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the
>>> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came
>>> from "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2
>>> equilibrium, and some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
>
> In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the
> CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate
> between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish?
There isn't that much exchange. Part of the way the global carbon
balance is tracked relies on the differences between deltaC13 for the
various sources.
>
>>> <http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf>
>>>
>>> There's an ongoing thread in alt.global-warming.
>> I would not trust anything on Roy Spencers site. However, their
>> observations and data reported are restricted to the tropics and it is
>> melting the polar ice caps that will get us into serious trouble.
>
> So you reject it without actually understanding it. Where do you think
> most cooling takes place, the poles?
I didn't say I rejected it. I think Lindzen is a decent scientist. It is
possibly true for the restricted zone that they looked at. I don't trust
Roy Spencer though.
>> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the way
>> to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens
>> critiques are actually very useful in that regard.
>
> Have you even read the paper?
Yes.
>
>>>>> 3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly
>>>>> the cooling trend since 1998.
>
>>>> The cooling trend since 1998 is a statistical trick used by denialists
>>>> who deliberate pick the highest point as their baseline year. 2005 was
>>>> pretty warm too and if you look over the entire dataset it is still an
>>>> upward trend with noise and periodic components.
>>> You can trace it back to the recovery from the last glaciation. Why
>>> should warming be significant and cooling just be noise?
>> I am not saying that at all. I am just pointing out that the claim you
>> made is done by using a classic fraudulent pollsters trick.
>
> I claim the models have not predicted the actual climate any better than
> a random guess. If you don't think so, show me the model and results.
> Postdictions don't count.
Whatever I show you will never convince someone who is determined to
ignore all evidence that conflicts with their predetermined beliefs. But
you could go and look at a paper copy of the Climate Change 2001
Scientific Report and see how close their predictions are 10 years on.
>>>> There are plenty of
>>>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean
>>>> currents that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>
> That sounds like you are acknowledging there are natural factors that
> affect climate. Are you sure you know all of them?
Not certain, but any additional ones will eventually be found. You
cannot just invoke phlogiston and fairies to balance the energy books.
>
>>>>> 4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
>>>>> "signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be
>>>>> found.
>>>> However, the poles are warming at least as fast as they predict and
>>>> the glaciers are declining even faster than the models predict.
>>> The hot spot was suggested by AGWers as proof, when they thought it was
>>> there. Now that it's shown not to be there, it's absence is ignored.
>>>
>>> That's additional evidence the models are wrong. If you have enough
>>> models, and you can select which to use after the fact, you can "prove"
>>> just about anything. There's a recent thread concerning which of the
>>> models are right - there can be only one.
>> None of the models may be exactly right. But that doesn't alter the
>> basic premise that they are now good enough to show major long term
>> trends if we continue on a wreckless business as usual path.
>
> Another assumption in the absence of evidence. Giving up freedom on the
> basis of a delusion is reckless. Assuming the null hypothesis - that CO2
> has no effect on the climate - until there is direct, convincing evidence
> is not reckless.
So what do you want to see. How many times will New Orleans have to be
trashed by Cat 5 storms before they give up rebuilding it?
>
>> The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on various
>> hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the models are
>> good enough now that refining them will not change the outcome.
>
> I still want to know why you think that.
I think the models are now good enough.
>>>> Exxon sponsored denialists who work for various flavours of ultra
>>>> right wing free market US think tanks. Idso, Seitz etc are all models
>>>> of probity and did a really great job at preventing people from
>>>> learning the truth about smoking tobacco.
>> So do I and I discount any that have multiple previous convictions as
>> denier for hire on either smoking tobacco or the CFC induced ozone hole.
>> I knew about many of the dirty tricks played by industry on that one and
>> you can see from the historical record who would prostitute their
>> scientific credentials to create plausible doubt in the public mind.
>>
>> Deniers for hire were still very active up to the point where the 1995
>> Nobel prize was awarded for atmospheric chemistry and ozone in
>> particular. They went rather quiet after that.
>>
>> Even industrial fluorine chemists viewed the rate of damage as very
>> worrying which was what made the Montreal Protocol a workable solution.
>
> That's still ad hominem and irrelevant. You need to show what's wrong
> with their conclusions to have any effect. Your "argument" is like
> saying you don't believe the moon landings because Werner Von Braun
> worked for the Nazis.
No it isn't. It is like saying that you cannot trust the word of proven
liars who have a track record of successfully deceiving the public.
>>> Ad hominem attacks are never valid. They are merely an admission you
>>> can't answer the opposition's arguments.
>> Not at all. I can see exactly what they are doing. String together a
>> careful mixture of half truths and plausible lies and you can fool most
>> of the population. Their reasoning such as it is relies on smoke and
>> mirrors that is designed to mislead. By comparison the IPCC Science
>> report is an open and honest attempt to describe the detailed evidence
>> with all the limitations and uncertainties of the methods described. The
>> main problem is that it is a very large document and getting longer...
>
> Ad hominem is still a fallacy and has no effect on the truth of an
> argument. Save your breath.
I think most reasonable people can see the difference if it is explained
to them. Science is never absolutely certain of anything - it is always
the best decription of nature we can make with the evidence and theories
of the day and subject to revision and improvement. However, we have
reached the point where the evidence that we are changing the planets
climate by increasing the CO2 levels is now very strong indeed.
The denialists started out with "it isn't happening". When that claim
was refuted by hard evidence they shifted ground to "it doesn't matter".
When that claim is shown to be false they will be able to to say "well
it is too late anyway".
>
>>>>> What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface
>>>>> temperatures?
>
>>>> Conservation of energy and consideration of the rate of heat loss from
>>>> the planet.
>
>>>>> Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
>>>> In a quick hand waving version. CO2 (or any other GHG) makes the
>>>> atmosphere opaque to certain bands of long wave radiation. The net
>>>> effect is that the surface of last scattering in those bands is moved
>>>> higher up into the atmosphere where due to the lapse rate it is cooler
>>>> and so less total energy can escape. Energy balance does the rest.
>>> Close enough. Without positive feedback, how much effect on
>>> temperature do you think doubling CO2 would cause?
>> It is presently around 1.5W/m^2 so doubled CO2 would give a back of the
>> envelope forcing of a fraction of a degree if all feedback was ignored
>
> Then do you agree that the AGW argument for climate catastrophe hangs on
> the assumption of positive feedbacks?
There are known positive feedbacks. And I don't think there will be a
climate catastrophe as such. We will just surrender rather large areas
of highly populated and fertile land to the sea.
I tried to break one of the models once by adding an insane amount of
CO2. Even then the poles were still habitable after equilibrium.
>
>>>> Even most sceptical scientists do not deny that without including GHG
>>>> forcing after about 1970 it becomes impossible to balance the Earths
>>>> energy budget.
>>> Can you explain how that could even be possible? Models will do
>>> whatever you program them to do. Discrepancy can only exist in the
>>> logic or the measurements.
>> See the paper by Baliunas & Soon APJ, 1996on ADS abstracts for instance
>> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..891S
>
> To quote Monty Python,"It's just a model", from 1996, no less. Do you
> have an explanation in your own words, or are you in parrot mode?
Short version is that you cannot balance the books without incorporating
greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's. And the extent of inferred
solar forcing over the past century is roughly the same as the induced
AGW over the past 3-4 decades.
>
>> But they tell a different story to their right wing think tank friends.
>
> ??
Check membership of ultraright wing free market thinktanks.
>>>>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>>>> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence of
>>>> serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my position.
>>> You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly influencing
>>> temperature? Is that because you can't think of anything else?
>> There are no other convincing explanations at the moment. Unless you
>> wish to invoke divine intervention or invisible UFO exhaust plumes.
>
> Your ignorance of other explanations is hardly convincing.
>
>> Sherlock Holmes summed up how logical inference works rather nicely.
>
> Given your arguments so far, I'd call that a non sequitur.
If you can demonstrate another source of trapped heat that will balance
the Earths global energy budget consistent with the observational
constraints then I would consider that compelling evidence.
But unless and until someone comes up with another explanation we have a
convincing physical mechanism in CO2 that predicts the observed results.
Regards,
Martin Brown
I M @ good guy
Can you be more specific about what you believe,
is it that burning CO2 reduces the amount of oxygen
in the air?
And that it is not a 1:1 result?
What is it then? Is it really oxygen you mean?
The concentration is decreasing?
Martin Brown
> Can you be more specific about what you believe,
> is it that burning CO2 reduces the amount of oxygen
> in the air?
Burning hydrocarbon based fuels increases CO2 and there is a matching
though always larger decrease in O2 - technically much harder to measure
but it has been done with sufficient precision for almost two decades.
CH4 +2O2 -> C02 + 2H2O
C7H16 + 11O2 -> 7CO2 + 8H2O
We can now see both sides of the equation.
>
> And that it is not a 1:1 result?
>
> What is it then? Is it really oxygen you mean?
Yes. Read the reference above. Paramagnetic oxygen analysers and an
interferometric measurement technique can both do the job. Ralph Keeling
son of the guy who started measuring CO2 at Mauna Kea in the 1950's is a
world expert on the technique. A popular science article is online at:
http://siointra.ucsd.edu/Resources/Publications/Explorations_Features/12_2007_Feature_final.pdf
> The concentration is decreasing?
Yes. It is a truly impressive measurement technique. Hard evidence.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Roger Coppock
> old contain measurable amounts of 14C. The problem here is that vegetation
> is not the only source of natural CO2 and volcanoes produce old CO2 with the
> same 14C signature as fossil fuel emissions - notably zip. When you point
Volcano and fossil fuel CO2 has different O isotope
ratios from vegetation and animal CO2.
Bill Ward
Interesting, but a 10 year old report on the instrument development and
preliminary findings. Where is the confirmation? By now there should be
a lot of data.
And (sorry, I can't resist), La Jolla is not the globe.
Bill Ward
From the above:
" The downward trend in oxygen levels was no surprise but the
rate of decline was. It is not declining as fast as it should be. With the
amounts of carbon dioxide in the oceans and the air well-estimated,
Ralph Keeling postulates that increased photosynthesis on land must
account for the rest of the CO2 produced by society."
Oh no! A negative feedback! Read the article for the tap dance trying to
get around it.
The atmosphere is pretty clearly a self-regulating system with inherent
stability.
Bill Ward
You said you read Lindzen & Choi 2009. If you did, please explain why
you say the above. They find net negative feedback.
>>>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and
>>>> that there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>>> It isn't an unsupported assumption.
>>
>> Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data.
>
> Hang on. Have you forgotten about the CO2 measurement technique that
> relies on delta-T from pinging CO2 molecules in their absorption band.
How does that show CO2 significantly affects surface temperature? It
shows only that CO2 can convert IR to heat and back. So does WV, which
completely overwhelms CO2 in the troposphere, resulting in local
thermodynamic equilibrium - warmer air.
>>> Oceans take a long time to cool. And the initial feedback is almost
>>> certainly down to albedo from additional permanent ice coverage in an
>>> ice age.
>>
>> Can you explain what that has to do with the ice core data that shows
>> CO2 responds to temperature but temperature does not respond to CO2?
>
> The fallacy being exploited here by the denialists is by claiming
> increasing A causes increasing B that the opposite is automatically
> false. It isn't. Warming causes CO2 release causes a bit more warming.
> The only thing we can say with certainty is that the loop gain is less
> than 1.
>
> Temperature causes CO2 changes in the historical record (and it does).
> But that does not alter the fact that increased CO2 also causes some
> warming just an amount that is less than the initial externally applied
> change.
So you say. It would be far more convincing if you could point to the
ice core data and show the resultant ringing. I don't see any.
>>> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external
>>> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent.
>>
>> Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"?
>
> No. The brightness of the sun, or variation of the Earths orbital
> elements either of which can change the global energy balance. And since
> VSOP87 an later revisions it is possible to study the orbital dynamics
> over a long period.
Why would CO2 respond to either of those stimuli rather than
temperature? If it's responding to temperature, how does it know what
caused the temperature change?
>>>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it
>>>>> is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is
>>>>> taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not
>>>>> CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are
>>>>> still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a
>>>>> result. That will not hold true forever the Southern Oceans are
>>>>> beginning to saturate.
>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for
>>>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort
>>>> of equilibrium would be established.
>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come
>>> from organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes
>>> preferentially.
>>
>> You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most limestone
>> comes from, lava?
>
> It is mainly photosynthesis which concentrates the C12 CO2. That makes
> corals a bit dodgy.
Where do you think corals get their energy from? H2S in volcanic vents?
>>> On a good day you can even tell for a particular fuel whether it was
>>> predominantly from C3 or C4 photosynthesis. The method is mainly used
>>> for detecting adulteration of wines with cane sugar.
>>>
>>> Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in
>>> the atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy
>>> who started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both
>>> sides of the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The
>>> answer is very clear.
>>>> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the
>>>> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came
>>>> from "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2
>>>> equilibrium, and some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
>>
>> In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the
>> CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate
>> between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish?
>
> There isn't that much exchange.
The Earth's surface is 70% water. CO2 is quite soluble in water. Winds
agitate the surface. How do you propose stopping atmospheric CO2 from
exchanging with the ocean?
> Part of the way the global carbon
> balance is tracked relies on the differences between deltaC13 for the
> various sources.
Maybe that's part of the problem.
>>>> <http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> There's an ongoing thread in alt.global-warming.
>>> I would not trust anything on Roy Spencers site. However, their
>>> observations and data reported are restricted to the tropics and it is
>>> melting the polar ice caps that will get us into serious trouble.
>>
>> So you reject it without actually understanding it. Where do you think
>> most cooling takes place, the poles?
>
> I didn't say I rejected it. I think Lindzen is a decent scientist. It is
> possibly true for the restricted zone that they looked at. I don't trust
> Roy Spencer though.
What's Roy Spencer got to do with it?
>>> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the
>>> way to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens
>>> critiques are actually very useful in that regard.
>>
>> Have you even read the paper?
>
> Yes.
Then why do you think there is net positive feedback? His paper
essentially rules it out.
>>>>>> 3) Climate models fail to predict the actual climate, particularly
>>>>>> the cooling trend since 1998.
>>
>>>>> The cooling trend since 1998 is a statistical trick used by
>>>>> denialists who deliberate pick the highest point as their baseline
>>>>> year. 2005 was pretty warm too and if you look over the entire
>>>>> dataset it is still an upward trend with noise and periodic
>>>>> components.
>>>> You can trace it back to the recovery from the last glaciation. Why
>>>> should warming be significant and cooling just be noise?
>>> I am not saying that at all. I am just pointing out that the claim you
>>> made is done by using a classic fraudulent pollsters trick.
>>
>> I claim the models have not predicted the actual climate any better
>> than a random guess. If you don't think so, show me the model and
>> results. Postdictions don't count.
>
> Whatever I show you will never convince someone who is determined to
> ignore all evidence that conflicts with their predetermined beliefs.
I'll take that as confirmation you can't show the model and results.
> But
> you could go and look at a paper copy of the Climate Change 2001
> Scientific Report and see how close their predictions are 10 years on.
Or you could just quote the section you think proves your point. Unless,
of course, you've never read it.
>>>>> There are plenty of
>>>>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean
>>>>> currents that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>>
>> That sounds like you are acknowledging there are natural factors that
>> affect climate. Are you sure you know all of them?
>
> Not certain, but any additional ones will eventually be found. You
> cannot just invoke phlogiston and fairies to balance the energy books.
That would be your projection. I'm invoking physics and measurements.
>>>>>> 4) The hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by the models as a
>>>>>> "signature" of the proposed positive feedback mechanism has not be
>>>>>> found.
>>>>> However, the poles are warming at least as fast as they predict and
>>>>> the glaciers are declining even faster than the models predict.
>>>> The hot spot was suggested by AGWers as proof, when they thought it
>>>> was there. Now that it's shown not to be there, it's absence is
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>> That's additional evidence the models are wrong. If you have enough
>>>> models, and you can select which to use after the fact, you can
>>>> "prove" just about anything. There's a recent thread concerning
>>>> which of the models are right - there can be only one.
>>> None of the models may be exactly right. But that doesn't alter the
>>> basic premise that they are now good enough to show major long term
>>> trends if we continue on a wreckless business as usual path.
>> Another assumption in the absence of evidence. Giving up freedom on
>> the basis of a delusion is reckless. Assuming the null hypothesis -
>> that CO2 has no effect on the climate - until there is direct,
>> convincing evidence is not reckless.
>
> So what do you want to see. How many times will New Orleans have to be
> trashed by Cat 5 storms before they give up rebuilding it?
What does that have to do with CO2 causing surface warming? It appears
you're just trying to change the subject. That simply calls attention to
the fact you can't address the original point.
>>> The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on various
>>> hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the models are
>>> good enough now that refining them will not change the outcome.
>>
>> I still want to know why you think that.
>
> I think the models are now good enough.
That's nice. Now why do you have that opinion? What actual, measured
evidence can you show?
And somehow you think that validates ad hominem argument. How sad.
> However, we have
> reached the point where the evidence that we are changing the planets
> climate by increasing the CO2 levels is now very strong indeed.
Yet you can't show any. Again, how sad.
> The denialists started out with "it isn't happening". When that claim
> was refuted by hard evidence they shifted ground to "it doesn't matter".
> When that claim is shown to be false they will be able to to say "well
> it is too late anyway".
Again with the irrelevant ad hominem. Give it a rest.
>>>>>> What convinced you that CO2 significantly raises surface
>>>>>> temperatures?
>>
>>>>> Conservation of energy and consideration of the rate of heat loss
>>>>> from the planet.
>>
>>>>>> Can you explain the mechanism(s) involved in your own words?
>>>>> In a quick hand waving version. CO2 (or any other GHG) makes the
>>>>> atmosphere opaque to certain bands of long wave radiation. The net
>>>>> effect is that the surface of last scattering in those bands is
>>>>> moved higher up into the atmosphere where due to the lapse rate it
>>>>> is cooler and so less total energy can escape. Energy balance does
>>>>> the rest.
>>>> Close enough. Without positive feedback, how much effect on
>>>> temperature do you think doubling CO2 would cause?
>>> It is presently around 1.5W/m^2 so doubled CO2 would give a back of
>>> the envelope forcing of a fraction of a degree if all feedback was
>>> ignored
>>
>> Then do you agree that the AGW argument for climate catastrophe hangs
>> on the assumption of positive feedbacks?
>
> There are known positive feedbacks. And I don't think there will be a
> climate catastrophe as such. We will just surrender rather large areas
> of highly populated and fertile land to the sea.
I'll take that as a "yes". Now, if net feedbacks can be shown to be
negative, does that falsify the AGW hypothesis?
> I tried to break one of the models once by adding an insane amount of
> CO2. Even then the poles were still habitable after equilibrium.
>>
>>>>> Even most sceptical scientists do not deny that without including
>>>>> GHG forcing after about 1970 it becomes impossible to balance the
>>>>> Earths energy budget.
>>>> Can you explain how that could even be possible? Models will do
>>>> whatever you program them to do. Discrepancy can only exist in the
>>>> logic or the measurements.
>>> See the paper by Baliunas & Soon APJ, 1996on ADS abstracts for
>>> instance http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..891S
>>
>> To quote Monty Python,"It's just a model", from 1996, no less. Do you
>> have an explanation in your own words, or are you in parrot mode?
>
> Short version is that you cannot balance the books without incorporating
> greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's. And the extent of inferred
> solar forcing over the past century is roughly the same as the induced
> AGW over the past 3-4 decades.
Thanks, Polly. I understand now. Have a cracker.
>>> But they tell a different story to their right wing think tank
>>> friends.
>>
>> ??
>
> Check membership of ultraright wing free market thinktanks.
Does that include me?
>>>>>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>>>>> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence
>>>>> of serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my
>>>>> position.
>>>> You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly influencing
>>>> temperature? Is that because you can't think of anything else?
>>> There are no other convincing explanations at the moment. Unless you
>>> wish to invoke divine intervention or invisible UFO exhaust plumes.
>>
>> Your ignorance of other explanations is hardly convincing.
>>
>>> Sherlock Holmes summed up how logical inference works rather nicely.
>>
>> Given your arguments so far, I'd call that a non sequitur.
>
> If you can demonstrate another source of trapped heat that will balance
> the Earths global energy budget consistent with the observational
> constraints then I would consider that compelling evidence.
You don't even consider changing the model to fit the measurements, do
you? There are many models, and only one reality, so by consensus, the
models must be right?
> But unless and until someone comes up with another explanation we have a
> convincing physical mechanism in CO2 that predicts the observed
> results.
So you have no clue and don't understand enough to explain anything you
know. You had me fooled for a while.
Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.
I M @ good guy
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I thought sure there would be some indication
that plants released oxygen other than from the CO2,
because they have to separate oxygen from water to
get the hydrogen for the hydrocarbons.
Do you know if that has been considered and
looked for?
I M @ good guy
Is that a surprise for anybody, especially the
primary investigator on the study?
Don't the plants need hydrogen to build
hydrocarbons?
And where else besides water would it come from?
Oxygen should be a by-product, shouldn't it?
Maybe they figured the average plant content
wrong, must be a lot of different chemical formulas.
>Oh no! A negative feedback! Read the article for the tap dance trying to
>get around it.
I didn't read it, but I will now.
>The atmosphere is pretty clearly a self-regulating system with inherent
>stability.
This feedback nonsense can be confusing, in
real climate processes the effects can be defined
with real numbers, not just estimated speculative
parameter values in a computer program.
Timothy Casey
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dXBGm.31$jh1...@newsfe19.iad...
No we don't. You left out
.
Fe + O2 -> FeO2
.
Amongst many, many other alternative consumers of atmospheric oxygen to
fossil fuel combustion
Timothy Casey
Dare I say, speak for yourself Martin!
You can call a cat a bird, but you can't make it fly.
.
>Classic denialist lies.
.
Care to substantiate that claim?
.
Eg.
.
There are plenty of papers showing that magmatic CO2 is too old to contain
measurable 14C
True or False?
.
There are plenty of papers showing that magmatic CO2 is 13C depleted.
True or False?
.
Who's in denial now, Martin?
.
>We can measure the corresponding decrease in the atmospheric oxygen content
>that balances our rate of fossil fuel combustion with sufficient precision
>to know for certain that the amount staying in the atmosphere is a little
>over half of what we emit. See for example:
>
> http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf
So what? Combustion of fossil fuels is not the only consumer of oxygen.
Magmatic carbon may well be oxidised by reaction with mineral phases in the
mantle, but how do you think oxygen gets into the mantle in the first place?
Of course, once extruded, mineral oxidation processes remove some oxygen
from the atmosphere, followed by weathering which removes yet more oxygen
and some CO2, then we have the depositional systems of sedimentary
environments that coax even more oxygen out of the atmosphere (eg Fe
oxidation to form redbeds), chemical sedimentary systems producing massive
carbonates consume yet more oxygen and CO2, and 200-500my later, subduction
takes it down into the mantle where volatile hydrated weathering minerals
are reduced and subducted kerogen+hydrocarbons are oxidised to form H2O &
CO2. How much does that throw out your so-called balance?
.
Once again, it's the classic "green fallacy" of generalisation by omission.
If we omit all other oxidation processes on the planet, we can claim the
apparent "balance" between CO2 enrichment and O2 depletion in the atmosphere
actually means the CO2 accumulation is all from fossil fuel combustion (and
go on to deny significant alternative CO2 sources such as volcanoes)! What
martin is denying by imitating the oversight of Manning et al., are all the
other oxygen sinks on the planet; b-horizon calcrete and ferricrete
formation offer just two of so many examples.
.
>> Watch out for the distinction between atmospheric enrichment in 13C by
>> plant respiration and plant matter depletion in 13C - that's your shell
>> game right there and this interesting twist on the green fallacy
>> (generalisation by omission) is probably the source of much of the
>> confusion. The technique here is to stick rigidly to the structure of
>> your own information rather than trying to adapt to the often convoluted
>> structure of your opposite.
>> .
>> Keep It Structurally Simple and most of the shell game blues should fade
>> away.
>
> The scientific evidence is clear - fossil fuel CO2. Dittohead lies and YEC
> lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating not withstanding.
In point of fact, we *don't* _have_ all the scientific evidence. We do have
enough scientific evidence to know better than to generalise or otherwise
omit the potential impact of significant oxidation processes in depositional
and weathering systems. We also have enough scientific evidence to know that
CO2 is the most abundant volcanic gas {other than steam, and according to
Perfit et al (1980, "Chemical Characteristics of Island Arc Basalts:
Implications for mantle sources", Chemical Geology, Vol. 30, pp. 277-256),
other than carbon monoxide}
.
Moreover, "YEC lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating" is clearly
*not* an honest characterisation of the argument that the Suess effect
cannot isolate magmatic CO2 because magmatic and fossil fuel sources are
both too old.
I M @ good guy
<sixth-pri...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
Do you have any information that touches on
the rate of change in atmospheric oxygen compared
to the increase in CO2 concentration?
Martin mentioned something about oxygen
depletion as a result of combining with carbon and
I assume those doing such a study also consider
combining with hydrogen.
But he mention a problem the investigators
did not fully understand, and after I mentioned
that plants need to take hydrogen from water to
make hydrocarbons, I have no way of knowing
if anybody read it.
Martin Brown
Not at all. It is a minor correction about 15% to the expected result
based on fossil fuel consumption. And the measurement technique is
sufficiently accurate that it is real.
The results obtained show 85% of the oxygen depletion expected based on
the best estimates of photosynthesis. It appears that these estimates
are out by about 15% which isn't bad considering the net change in the
atmosphere is the difference of two very large numbers in the carbon
cycle. The papers are not on free access sites that I can see, but a
summary and graph from a public lecture are online at:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/talks/rfk_birch_aquarium_2007.pdf
(large file - page 42 shows the graph and 85% trendline fit)
It probably means photosynthesis works a bit better than expected or
that there is a another source of O2 not properly accounted for yet.
>
> The atmosphere is pretty clearly a self-regulating system with inherent
> stability.
Provided you don't push it too far.
>
>>> The concentration is decreasing?
>> Yes. It is a truly impressive measurement technique. Hard evidence.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
> that plants released oxygen other than from the CO2,
> because they have to separate oxygen from water to
> get the hydrogen for the hydrocarbons.
Arguably the free oxygen gas they release always comes from water. CO2
is reduced by electron transfer reactions using a catalyst, ATP to store
the energy and creating water as a by product. Wiki has a decent
introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Oxygen_and_photosynthesis
The ratio of oxygen released and CO2 converted to sugars is well
defined. At night without sunlight most plants respire releasing CO2
into the atmosphere. A few xerophytes that live in deserts do the CO2
fixing step in the cool of the night using CAM to avoid water loss.
> Do you know if that has been considered and
> looked for?
Plants basically split water to release oxygen and use electron transfer
via a catalysts to reduce CO2. Photosynthesis is what plants do to live.
Depending on the photosynthetic route it alters the exact isotopic
abundance of the resulting sugars. But the sugars contain carbon and the
plants metabolism is designed to do the whole photosynthetic gig
requiring both water and carbon dioxide to function.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
>
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dXBGm.31$jh1...@newsfe19.iad...
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:55:00 +0000, Martin Brown
>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The scientific evidence is clear - fossil fuel CO2. Dittohead lies
>>>> and YEC lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating not
>>>> withstanding.
>>>
>>> Can you be more specific about what you believe,
>>> is it that burning CO2 reduces the amount of oxygen
>>> in the air?
>>
>> Burning hydrocarbon based fuels increases CO2 and there is a matching
>> though always larger decrease in O2 - technically much harder to
>> measure but it has been done with sufficient precision for almost two
>> decades.
>>
>> CH4 +2O2 -> C02 + 2H2O
>>
>> C7H16 + 11O2 -> 7CO2 + 8H2O
>>
>> We can now see both sides of the equation.
> .
> No we don't. You left out
> .
> Fe + O2 -> FeO2
Cute. And the amount that affects the final answer is miniscule. And all
the free metallic iron on the planet has been made industrially by the
reduction of iron ore with coke from coal so it doesn't really affect
the game at all. And rusting is more complex and requires water to make
it go - very little iron is burned in air. You might argue that a
percentage of the electric arc furnace power came from nuclear and hydro
I suppose but it doesn't alter things by much.
Aluminium which is electrolytically produced often from hydroelectric
power would oxidise in air very easily except that despite its
reactivity the surface passivates under normal atmospheric conditions.
> .
> Amongst many, many other alternative consumers of atmospheric oxygen to
> fossil fuel combustion
The next most significant ones using up oxygen are sulphur and other
trace impurities in the fossil fuels - pyrites in coal for instance.
This doesn't help your package of lies and half truths at all.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bill Ward
It would be a little more convincing if there were text to go with it.
I saw no mention of the equilibrium between CO2 and CaCo3 in the ocean.
Surely he's aware of the enormous CO2 source/sink available in the form
of seashells.
> (large file - page 42 shows the graph and 85% trendline fit)
It doesn't mean much without the derivation.
> It probably means photosynthesis works a bit better than expected or
> that there is a another source of O2 not properly accounted for yet.
>> The atmosphere is pretty clearly a self-regulating system with inherent
>> stability.
>
> Provided you don't push it too far.
Is that what the 1600 ppm CO2 spikes represent?
Martin Brown
At the latitudes they considered. It is disingenuous to extend that
result even if it is correct to the entire planet. And the results they
claimed are still subject to interpretation.
>
>>>>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and
>>>>> that there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>
>>>> It isn't an unsupported assumption.
>>> Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data.
>> Hang on. Have you forgotten about the CO2 measurement technique that
>> relies on delta-T from pinging CO2 molecules in their absorption band.
>
> How does that show CO2 significantly affects surface temperature? It
> shows only that CO2 can convert IR to heat and back. So does WV, which
> completely overwhelms CO2 in the troposphere, resulting in local
> thermodynamic equilibrium - warmer air.
And the two together are slightly more effective than eithe roe on its own.
>> Temperature causes CO2 changes in the historical record (and it does).
>> But that does not alter the fact that increased CO2 also causes some
>> warming just an amount that is less than the initial externally applied
>> change.
>
> So you say. It would be far more convincing if you could point to the
> ice core data and show the resultant ringing. I don't see any.
The excursions from the mean are larger than could be explained without
some amplification of the initial stimulous. You don't necessarily get
ringing with small to moderate amounts of positive feedback.
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 grows monotonically and converges to 2
1 + x + x^2 + ... converges to 1/(1-x)
>
>>>> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external
>>>> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent.
>>> Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"?
>> No. The brightness of the sun, or variation of the Earths orbital
>> elements either of which can change the global energy balance. And since
>> VSOP87 an later revisions it is possible to study the orbital dynamics
>> over a long period.
>
> Why would CO2 respond to either of those stimuli rather than
> temperature? If it's responding to temperature, how does it know what
> caused the temperature change?
The stimulous is generally accepted to be a change in the total absorbed
insolation as the Earths orbital elements evolve with time. That drives
the temperature to change slightly and feedback from both CO2 and WV
enhance it.
>
>>>>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it
>>>>>> is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is
>>>>>> taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not
>>>>>> CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are
>>>>>> still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a
>>>>>> result. That will not hold true forever the Southern Oceans are
>>>>>> beginning to saturate.
>>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for
>>>>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort
>>>>> of equilibrium would be established.
>>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come
>>>> from organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes
>>>> preferentially.
>>> You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most limestone
>>> comes from, lava?
>> It is mainly photosynthesis which concentrates the C12 CO2. That makes
>> corals a bit dodgy.
>
> Where do you think corals get their energy from? H2S in volcanic vents?
Their symbiotes the zooxanthelle are photosynthetic and trade sugars and
nutrients with the coral polyps in return for a home as well as what
they can catch.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral02_zooxanthellae.html
By comparison shellfish and certain plankton are more reliable for
deltaC13 in carbonates. As are some obscure slow growing deep corals. It
is the photosynthesis reaction that is isotopically selective.
A paper on the PETM is online and shows how isotopic signatures can be
used to unravel the past. The initial cause of the Paleocene-Eocene
thermal maximum is still hotly disputed but its occurrence is not in
doubt and it was geologically fast.
>
>>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
>>> In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the
>>> CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate
>>> between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish?
>> There isn't that much exchange.
>
> The Earth's surface is 70% water. CO2 is quite soluble in water. Winds
> agitate the surface. How do you propose stopping atmospheric CO2 from
> exchanging with the ocean?
>
>> Part of the way the global carbon
>> balance is tracked relies on the differences between deltaC13 for the
>> various sources.
>
> Maybe that's part of the problem.
Then again you deny any and all evidence that conflicts with your
position. The same isotopic ratio and concentration data shows a phase
lag from the industrial north to the mostly oceanic southern hemisphere.
>>>> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the
>>>> way to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens
>>>> critiques are actually very useful in that regard.
>>> Have you even read the paper?
>> Yes.
>
> Then why do you think there is net positive feedback? His paper
> essentially rules it out.
It is only one paper and the results are subject to interpretation and
only applicable to a specific latitude range. Hardly convincing.
>> But
>> you could go and look at a paper copy of the Climate Change 2001
>> Scientific Report and see how close their predictions are 10 years on.
>
> Or you could just quote the section you think proves your point. Unless,
> of course, you've never read it.
I posted this one before since it is a pretty good hard evidence
prediction from that era using GFDL and Hdely models for the northern
hemisphere sea ice with predictions out to 2040. Taken from Vinnikov et
Al 1999. Further down the line we now see serious loss of Arctic ice.
(page 447 Box 7.1)
>
>>>>>> There are plenty of
>>>>>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean
>>>>>> currents that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>>> That sounds like you are acknowledging there are natural factors that
>>> affect climate. Are you sure you know all of them?
>> Not certain, but any additional ones will eventually be found. You
>> cannot just invoke phlogiston and fairies to balance the energy books.
>
> That would be your projection. I'm invoking physics and measurements.
So state what you think is driving the recent climate changes over the
past few decades.
>>> Another assumption in the absence of evidence. Giving up freedom on
>>> the basis of a delusion is reckless. Assuming the null hypothesis -
>>> that CO2 has no effect on the climate - until there is direct,
>>> convincing evidence is not reckless.
You deny any evidence that is presented. This is not a rational debate.
>> So what do you want to see. How many times will New Orleans have to be
>> trashed by Cat 5 storms before they give up rebuilding it?
>
> What does that have to do with CO2 causing surface warming? It appears
> you're just trying to change the subject. That simply calls attention to
> the fact you can't address the original point.
Actually I am inclined to think that the only way Americans will ever
take the matter seriously is when they suffer major financial losses
that are attributed to climate change.
>>>> The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on various
>>>> hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the models are
>>>> good enough now that refining them will not change the outcome.
>>> I still want to know why you think that.
>> I think the models are now good enough.
>
> That's nice. Now why do you have that opinion? What actual, measured
> evidence can you show?
Sea ice predictions will do for a start.
When the people have such a well know track record of lying and deceit
then yes I do think it is entirely justified to point out their track
record as deniers for hire.
>
>> However, we have
>> reached the point where the evidence that we are changing the planets
>> climate by increasing the CO2 levels is now very strong indeed.
>
> Yet you can't show any. Again, how sad.
You won't accept anything I show you. That is a different matter.
>
>> The denialists started out with "it isn't happening". When that claim
>> was refuted by hard evidence they shifted ground to "it doesn't matter".
>> When that claim is shown to be false they will be able to to say "well
>> it is too late anyway".
>
> Again with the irrelevant ad hominem. Give it a rest.
Usenet archives will be an interesting resource in the future. I expect
to see loads of politicians blaming scientists for not making it clear
that AGW was a serious problem in a few decades time.
>
>>> Then do you agree that the AGW argument for climate catastrophe hangs
>>> on the assumption of positive feedbacks?
>> There are known positive feedbacks. And I don't think there will be a
>> climate catastrophe as such. We will just surrender rather large areas
>> of highly populated and fertile land to the sea.
>
> I'll take that as a "yes". Now, if net feedbacks can be shown to be
> negative, does that falsify the AGW hypothesis?
Iff they can on a global scale then yes. But that does not look likely
and you cannot generalise from one study that shows that there is a
negative feedback under a specific set of circumstances to the global scale.
>>>> But they tell a different story to their right wing think tank
>>>> friends.
>>> ??
>> Check membership of ultraright wing free market thinktanks.
>
> Does that include me?
It begins to look that way.
>
>>>>>>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>
>>>>>> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence
>>>>>> of serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my
>>>>>> position.
>
>>>>> You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly influencing
>>>>> temperature? Is that because you can't think of anything else?
>
>>>> There are no other convincing explanations at the moment. Unless you
>>>> wish to invoke divine intervention or invisible UFO exhaust plumes.
>>> Your ignorance of other explanations is hardly convincing.
>>>
>>>> Sherlock Holmes summed up how logical inference works rather nicely.
>>> Given your arguments so far, I'd call that a non sequitur.
>> If you can demonstrate another source of trapped heat that will balance
>> the Earths global energy budget consistent with the observational
>> constraints then I would consider that compelling evidence.
>
> You don't even consider changing the model to fit the measurements, do
> you? There are many models, and only one reality, so by consensus, the
> models must be right?
Certain key characteristics of the models are shared. And I have enough
confidence in the simulations and the researchers to believe the models.
>
>> But unless and until someone comes up with another explanation we have a
>> convincing physical mechanism in CO2 that predicts the observed
>> results.
>
> So you have no clue and don't understand enough to explain anything you
> know. You had me fooled for a while.
I am trying to explain the scientific position in simple terms and you
are determined to try and avoid learning anything. I conclude that I am
wasting my time. I had thought for a while you were honestly interested
in the science.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Timothy Casey
Really? What about weathering?
4FeSiO3+O2+2H2O-->4FeO(OH) + 4SiO2
.
Recognise what these minerals are and where they come from?
Any idea what happens to them?
Does the expression "tip of the iceberg" mean anything to you?
.
Then we have redbeds - one of the most abundant fluviatile sediments: Why?
Because fluviatile depositional systems present a variety of reduced
minerals with an oxidizing environment. To get an idea of how fast and
voluminously this occurs, just compare chemical maturity with distance from
source.
.
Like I said, unless you've gone and measured all of them, you can't
legitimately claim to have any sort of budget as Manning et al (1999) do.
It's the same old story as when Keeling (1979) went and assumed that
volcanic emissions have no impact on atmospheric 13C/12C ratios when,
although the quantification wasn't in, it was still well known that CO2 was
the most common gaseous volcanic emission apart from water (Perfit et al.,
1980; Symmonds et al., 1994). Guesswork that overlooks the basics of
magmatic chemistry is inviting trouble.
.
For example, when Kerrick (2001) guessed that subaerial volcanogenic CO2
emission amounted to 27�3 MtCpa, how long do you think it took before the
fairly obvious statistical significance of Kerrick's "10%" sample which
according to the Smithsonian is actually a 1.3% sample, came blindingly to
book? It was just two years before the original Yellowstone estimates were
checked by proper measurements taken by Werner & Brantley. By itself, the
Yellowstone volcanic province puts out 78�6 MtCpa - which is three times
that of all previous estimates of total subaerial volcanogenic CO2
emissions.
.
Of course, three million submarine volcanic seamonts as estimated by Hillier
& Watts (2007) at an activity rate of 4% (Batiza, 1982) gives us 120,000
submarine intraplate volcanoes all chundering out CO2 at typical oceanic
intraplate rates. Kilauea at 870 KtCpa is the one single lonely oceanic
intraplate that Kerrick and previous authors thought to include, so while it
is far from statistically significant, if we play the numbers like Kerrick
(multiply 10% by two): that's 10% x 120,000 x 2 x 870 KtC = 20880000 KtC =
20.88 GtCpa - and that explains a lot - even with Kerrick's choice of
understatement. You can't make 20 GtCpa (76.27 GtCO2pa) just go away unless
you can come up with better facts (and other guesses are not facts) - and
until you have better facts, the only way to explain Manning et al (1999) in
this context is to admit that some of the sinks you (and Manning et al)
overlooked are alot bigger than ye realise.
.
The fact that you need to attack me personally speaks to your own problems,
and has nothing to do with the veracity of the facts I present - the
citations are there if anyone bothers to check, unlike some people:
.
Batiza, R., 1982, "Abundances, distribution and sizes of volcanoes in the
Pacific Ocean and implications for the origin of non-hotspot volcanoes",
Earh & Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 60, pp. 195-206
.
Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, "Global distribution of seamounts from
ship-track bathymetry data", Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34,
L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874
.
Keeling, C. D., 1979, "The Suess Effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon Interrelations",
Environment International, Vol. 2, pp. 229-300
.
Kerrick, D. M., 2001, "Present and Past Nonanthropogenic CO2 Degassing From
the Solid Earth", Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 39, pp. 565-586
.
Perfit, M. R., Gust, D. A., Bence, A. E., Arculus, R. J., & Taylor, S. R.,
1980, "Chemical Characteristics of Island Arc Basalts: implications for
Symonds, R. B., Rose, w. I., Bluth, G., & Gerlach, T. M., 1994, "Volcanic
gas studies: methods, results, and applications", in M. R. Carroll & J. R.
Holloway [Editors], Volatiles in Magmas: Mineralogical Society of America
Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol. 30, pp. 1-66
.
Werner, C., & Brantley, C., 2003, "CO2 Emissions from the Yellowstone
Volcanic System", Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems: an electronic journal
of the earth sciences, Vol. 4, 1061, doi:10.1029/2002GC000473
.
Wilson, M., 1989, Igneous Petrogenenis: A Global Tectonic Approach.,
ISBN13:978-0-4125-3310-5
.
Incidentally, metallic iron _is_ found naturally, although not much as it
has meteoric or deep mantle source and must be protected from weathering.
The Earth Sciences department at the University of Melbourne had quite a
spectacular iron-pyroxene-olivine mantle chunk recovered from South America.
You probably don't realise that you can get natural metallic copper and
nickel from komatiite deposits as well.
.
If you bother look at some rocks and try to understand some of the
geochemistry, Martin, you'll discover that your generalisations are, in
fact, untruthful.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Bill Ward
The tropical region is where most of the energy is radiated. Are you not
accepting the results because you don't like the implications?
> It is disingenuous to extend that
> result even if it is correct to the entire planet. And the results they
> claimed are still subject to interpretation.
You might want to try and support that with an alternative explanation.
>>>>>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and
>>>>>> that there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>>
>>>>> It isn't an unsupported assumption.
>>>> Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data.
>>> Hang on. Have you forgotten about the CO2 measurement technique that
>>> relies on delta-T from pinging CO2 molecules in their absorption band.
>> How does that show CO2 significantly affects surface temperature? It
>> shows only that CO2 can convert IR to heat and back. So does WV, which
>> completely overwhelms CO2 in the troposphere, resulting in local
>> thermodynamic equilibrium - warmer air.
>
> And the two together are slightly more effective than eithe roe on its
> own.
That's not support for your unfounded assumption. Explain how you think
CO2 significantly affects surface temperatures.
>>> Temperature causes CO2 changes in the historical record (and it does).
>>> But that does not alter the fact that increased CO2 also causes some
>>> warming just an amount that is less than the initial externally
>>> applied change.
>>
>> So you say. It would be far more convincing if you could point to the
>> ice core data and show the resultant ringing. I don't see any.
>
> The excursions from the mean are larger than could be explained without
> some amplification of the initial stimulous. You don't necessarily get
> ringing with small to moderate amounts of positive feedback.
>
> 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 grows monotonically and converges to 2
>
> 1 + x + x^2 + ... converges to 1/(1-x)
Do you have even the slightest experience in signal analysis? If you
have enough positive feedback to make a significant difference, it has to
show up as an echo on the output (T record). I don't see any, do you?
>>>>> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external
>>>>> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent.
>>>> Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"?
>>> No. The brightness of the sun, or variation of the Earths orbital
>>> elements either of which can change the global energy balance. And
>>> since VSOP87 an later revisions it is possible to study the orbital
>>> dynamics over a long period.
>>
>> Why would CO2 respond to either of those stimuli rather than
>> temperature? If it's responding to temperature, how does it know what
>> caused the temperature change?
>
> The stimulous is generally accepted to be a change in the total absorbed
> insolation as the Earths orbital elements evolve with time. That drives
> the temperature to change slightly and feedback from both CO2 and WV
> enhance it.
So the CO2 is responding to changes in temperature. How does it know
what's causing the temperature change?
>>>>>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And
>>>>>>> it is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere
>>>>>>> is taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is
>>>>>>> not CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the
>>>>>>> oceans are still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more
>>>>>>> acidic as a result. That will not hold true forever the Southern
>>>>>>> Oceans are beginning to saturate.
>>>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for
>>>>>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some
>>>>>> sort of equilibrium would be established.
>>>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come
>>>>> from organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes
>>>>> preferentially.
>>>> You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most
>>>> limestone comes from, lava?
>
>>> It is mainly photosynthesis which concentrates the C12 CO2. That makes
>>> corals a bit dodgy.
Are you saying it's some special type of photosynthesis that doesn't
affect the isotope ratios?
>> Where do you think corals get their energy from? H2S in volcanic
>> vents?
>
> Their symbiotes the zooxanthelle are photosynthetic and trade sugars and
> nutrients with the coral polyps in return for a home as well as what
> they can catch.
Then the carbon in their shells is of organic origin and should have the
same isotopic signature as fossil fuel, shouldn't it not? Again it
appears you are trying to reject facts on the basis of their implications
rather than any logical explanation.
> http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/
coral02_zooxanthellae.html
>
> By comparison shellfish and certain plankton are more reliable for
> deltaC13 in carbonates. As are some obscure slow growing deep corals. It
> is the photosynthesis reaction that is isotopically selective.
Then how do you distinguish between "fossil fuel", and "shellfish"
carbon?
> A paper on the PETM is online and shows how isotopic signatures can be
> used to unravel the past. The initial cause of the Paleocene-Eocene
> thermal maximum is still hotly disputed but its occurrence is not in
> doubt and it was geologically fast.
That sounds like you are admitting that shell carbonate is of organic
origin, just like fossil fuel. Are you withdrawing your claim above that
the isotopic ratio uniquely identifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion?
>>>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
>
>>>> In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the
>>>> CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate
>>>> between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish?
>>> There isn't that much exchange.
>>
>> The Earth's surface is 70% water. CO2 is quite soluble in water.
>> Winds agitate the surface. How do you propose stopping atmospheric CO2
>> from exchanging with the ocean?
You seemed to ignore the above question. Are you withdrawing your claim
that there is little exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere?
>>> Part of the way the global carbon
>>> balance is tracked relies on the differences between deltaC13 for the
>>> various sources.
>>
>> Maybe that's part of the problem.
>
> Then again you deny any and all evidence that conflicts with your
> position. The same isotopic ratio and concentration data shows a phase
> lag from the industrial north to the mostly oceanic southern hemisphere.
Looks to me like you're the one trying to dodge the experimental evidence
with irrelevant tidbits. Explain the relevance if you expect to be taken
seriously.
>>>>> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the
>>>>> way to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens
>>>>> critiques are actually very useful in that regard.
>>>> Have you even read the paper?
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Then why do you think there is net positive feedback? His paper
>> essentially rules it out.
>
> It is only one paper and the results are subject to interpretation and
> only applicable to a specific latitude range. Hardly convincing.
Then what do you think is wrong with it. It covers the region where most
of the cooling takes place. Again, you reject inconvenient facts because
of the implications. You need to explain why.
>>> But
>>> you could go and look at a paper copy of the Climate Change 2001
>>> Scientific Report and see how close their predictions are 10 years on.
>>
>> Or you could just quote the section you think proves your point.
>> Unless, of course, you've never read it.
>
> I posted this one before since it is a pretty good hard evidence
> prediction from that era using GFDL and Hdely models for the northern
> hemisphere sea ice with predictions out to 2040. Taken from Vinnikov et
> Al 1999. Further down the line we now see serious loss of Arctic ice.
> (page 447 Box 7.1)
<http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/remsensabs.html>
Soil moisture? Do you have a more specific cite?
It still looks like you can't actually show a model that predicted the
last 10 years. Are you withdrawing your claim that climate models are
more accurate than random guesses?
>>>>>>> There are plenty of
>>>>>>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean
>>>>>>> currents that can drive deviations from the long term trend.
>>>> That sounds like you are acknowledging there are natural factors that
>>>> affect climate. Are you sure you know all of them?
>>> Not certain, but any additional ones will eventually be found. You
>>> cannot just invoke phlogiston and fairies to balance the energy books.
>>
>> That would be your projection. I'm invoking physics and measurements.
>
> So state what you think is driving the recent climate changes over the
> past few decades.
The influence of the solar magnetic field looks like the best guess at
the moment. Models based on that actually predicted the cooling.
>>>> Another assumption in the absence of evidence. Giving up freedom on
>>>> the basis of a delusion is reckless. Assuming the null hypothesis -
>>>> that CO2 has no effect on the climate - until there is direct,
>>>> convincing evidence is not reckless.
>
> You deny any evidence that is presented. This is not a rational debate.
Look back and you will see several instances where you made statements
you can't support. This isn't dodgeball - you have to actually explain
and defend your objections, not just sidestep the issues.
>>> So what do you want to see. How many times will New Orleans have to be
>>> trashed by Cat 5 storms before they give up rebuilding it?
>>
>> What does that have to do with CO2 causing surface warming? It appears
>> you're just trying to change the subject. That simply calls attention
>> to the fact you can't address the original point.
>
> Actually I am inclined to think that the only way Americans will ever
> take the matter seriously is when they suffer major financial losses
> that are attributed to climate change.
That's an example of an unsuccessful attempt to dodge the fact that there
is no evidence linking Katrina and CO2 increases. Give it up - it just
doesn't work, and makes you look incompetent to boot.
>>>>> The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on
>>>>> various hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the
>>>>> models are good enough now that refining them will not change the
>>>>> outcome.
>>>> I still want to know why you think that.
>>> I think the models are now good enough.
>>
>> That's nice. Now why do you have that opinion? What actual, measured
>> evidence can you show?
>
> Sea ice predictions will do for a start.
That's not temperature, and the climate models were supposed to predict
"average global temperature". They didn't, and you're attempting to
dodge that fact.
Ad hominem simply calls attention to your inability to address the issue.
>>> However, we have
>>> reached the point where the evidence that we are changing the planets
>>> climate by increasing the CO2 levels is now very strong indeed.
>>
>> Yet you can't show any. Again, how sad.
>
> You won't accept anything I show you. That is a different matter.
You don't seem able to explain anything. You just make a statement and
ignore all rebuttal by trying to change the subject. You seem to have
the vocabulary, but not the critical thinking ability that's required.
>>> The denialists started out with "it isn't happening". When that claim
>>> was refuted by hard evidence they shifted ground to "it doesn't
>>> matter". When that claim is shown to be false they will be able to to
>>> say "well it is too late anyway".
>>
>> Again with the irrelevant ad hominem. Give it a rest.
>
> Usenet archives will be an interesting resource in the future. I expect
> to see loads of politicians blaming scientists for not making it clear
> that AGW was a serious problem in a few decades time.
Or vice versa.
>>>> Then do you agree that the AGW argument for climate catastrophe hangs
>>>> on the assumption of positive feedbacks?
>>> There are known positive feedbacks. And I don't think there will be a
>>> climate catastrophe as such. We will just surrender rather large areas
>>> of highly populated and fertile land to the sea.
>>
>> I'll take that as a "yes". Now, if net feedbacks can be shown to be
>> negative, does that falsify the AGW hypothesis?
>
> Iff they can on a global scale then yes. But that does not look likely
> and you cannot generalise from one study that shows that there is a
> negative feedback under a specific set of circumstances to the global
> scale.
What other explanation can you give? The Lindzen study covered the
tropics for a number of years, and the results appear to be statistically
robust.
>>>>> But they tell a different story to their right wing think tank
>>>>> friends.
>>>> ??
>>> Check membership of ultraright wing free market thinktanks.
>>
>> Does that include me?
>
> It begins to look that way.
Ad hominem fails again.
>>>>>>>> Or proven false. What would it take to convince you?
>>
>>>>>>> Repeal of the laws of physics. If there isn't very strong evidence
>>>>>>> of serious climate change by 2050 then I might reconsider my
>>>>>>> position.
>>
>>>>>> You consider climate change as proof of CO2 significantly
>>>>>> influencing temperature? Is that because you can't think of
>>>>>> anything else?
>>
>>>>> There are no other convincing explanations at the moment. Unless you
>>>>> wish to invoke divine intervention or invisible UFO exhaust plumes.
>>>> Your ignorance of other explanations is hardly convincing.
>>>>
>>>>> Sherlock Holmes summed up how logical inference works rather nicely.
>>>> Given your arguments so far, I'd call that a non sequitur.
>>> If you can demonstrate another source of trapped heat that will
>>> balance the Earths global energy budget consistent with the
>>> observational constraints then I would consider that compelling
>>> evidence.
>>
>> You don't even consider changing the model to fit the measurements, do
>> you? There are many models, and only one reality, so by consensus,
>> the models must be right?
>
> Certain key characteristics of the models are shared. And I have enough
> confidence in the simulations and the researchers to believe the models.
I wouldn't want to shake your faith, but that's theology, not science.
>>> But unless and until someone comes up with another explanation we have
>>> a
>>> convincing physical mechanism in CO2 that predicts the observed
>>> results.
>>
>> So you have no clue and don't understand enough to explain anything you
>> know. You had me fooled for a while.
>
> I am trying to explain the scientific position in simple terms and you
> are determined to try and avoid learning anything. I conclude that I am
> wasting my time. I had thought for a while you were honestly interested
> in the science.
I think anyone who's been following the thread can see that you simply
can't handle the science involved. It's an act of faith for you, and I'm
wasting my time trying to get you to explain why you believe as you do.
You just believe without being able to explain why.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The tropical region is where most of the energy is radiated."
laughing, wow in bills mind that permits lindzens assumptions to be
applied to the globe, WRONG....
Timothy Casey
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
Not enough information available to the public.
.
> Martin mentioned something about oxygen
> depletion as a result of combining with carbon and
> I assume those doing such a study also consider
> combining with hydrogen.
> But he mention a problem the investigators
> did not fully understand, and after I mentioned
> that plants need to take hydrogen from water to
> make hydrocarbons, I have no way of knowing
> if anybody read it.
It's Keeling & the Scripps Institute again if memory serves: Manning et al
(1999)
The correlation is fine (1.3�0.02 mol O2 per mol CO2) implying 5.67 GtO2pa
consumption of oxygen. The problem is where Manning and friends assume that
1.44 mol of O2 consumed per CO2 produced corresponds to "all the air was
polluted by fossil fuel combustion from fossil fuels only". What they leave
out are all the weathering and other oxidation processes involving neither
carbon nor petroleum that raise the molar ratio. eg:
.
4FeSiO3+O2+2H2O-->4FeO(OH) + 4SiO2
.
Manning et al (1999) are to be commended for pointing out the outliers
("residuals"). Outliers indicate an additional mode that will resolve with
sufficient data collection. In this case, evidence for two sources - hardly
surprising considering that these guys like to plant their labs in easy
reach of volcanic emissions.
.
The O2 tonnage looks convincing for combustion, but as I said, there are
other sinks
.
Respiration/CO2 ratios are not so well known as certain people here claim.
It's mostly supposition that fails to account for the fact that increased
CO2 leads to increased growth and spreading rates - that means accelerated
photosynthesis - but there is no documented mechanism to indicate
correspondingly accelerated respiration at night. That means that unless CO2
is almost exhausted, plants photosynthesise much more than they respire.
This is supported by studies of past growth (Waddell et al., 1987; Graybill
& Idso, 1993; Grace et al., 1995; Smith et al. 2002). It is also supported
by experimental results (Idso & Kimball, 1991; Idso & Idso, 1994; Idso &
Kimball, 1994; Kimball et al., 1995; Pinter et al., 1996; Idso & Kimball,
1997; Kimball et al., 2007). Carbon dioxide also drastically accelerates
reproduction of algae (Shapiro, 1973) and plankton (Riebesell, 1993).
.
In any case the bibliography is at:
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net
.
Keep in mind that the page is a work in progress. There are no current
figures that use material evidence to equate global
photosynthesis/respiration ratio with mean global CO2. Nobody's done
anything to quantify CO2 produced by deflation or that taken in by the soil
carbonate sink - and the last time I asked, I was pointed to the IPCC who
have nothing. Not impressed at all. Both deflation and soil carbonate
formation are major as soil has a high TOC and wherever calcium and
magnesium bearing minerals are weathered you get soil carbonate nodules. I
expect this will skews my estimates, but it will knock the IPCC guesswork
clean off the page. These people talk about budgets and flow problems and
they don't know what a deficit is or why it should be included in an
emission flow regime!
.
The truth of the matter is that some of this stuff we simply don't know and
guesses aren't evidence, as
.
Werner, C., & Brantley, C., 2003, "CO2 Emissions from the Yellowstone
Volcanic System", Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems: an electronic journal
of the earth sciences, Vol. 4, 1061, doi:10.1029/2002GC000473
.
.
Kerrick, D. M., 2001, "Present and Past Nonanthropogenic CO2 Degassing From
the Solid Earth", Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 39, pp. 565-586
.
Timothy Casey
news:4aed1b0e$0$17749$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
[...]
> other oxygen sinks on the planet; b-horizon calcrete and ferricrete
> formation offer just two of so many examples.
.
.
Apologies for any confusion...
I M @ good guy
<sixth-pri...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
[Only response way at end]
It got too complex for my question, but thanks.
I first stated that I thought plants released oxygen
from both CO2 and water, then I got the impression
Martin was saying that all released oxygen was from
water, which didn't make sense if there is 4 times a
difference per molecule.
For years I have read that even if all fossil fuel
was burned, there would still be plenty of oxygen,
yet now there seems to be claims otherwise.
No doubt there are lots of different ways
different plants do the process, but the oxygen
from CO2 has to go someplace when hydrocarbons
are made, so I don't understand Martin's answer
at all.
Calling any of the chemicals involved in any
plant process dangerous would seem to need
some explaining, a lot of the AGW alarmism
seems extraordinarily extreme.
Martin Brown
> I first stated that I thought plants released oxygen
> from both CO2 and water, then I got the impression
> Martin was saying that all released oxygen was from
> water, which didn't make sense if there is 4 times a
> difference per molecule.
OK. I will try again. The main photosynthesis reaction that requires
light, chlorophyll and an enzyme catalyst - the very hard step is where
the plant splits a water molecule and releases oxygen to the atmosphere.
The plant then uses that hydrogen as stored energy to reduce CO2
creating water and the basic building blocks for plant acids and sugars.
There is an animation diagram of the key reaction steps online at:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~argus/Dreambio/photosynthesis/photosynthsis%20animation.htm
It looks to be fairly accurate.
>
> For years I have read that even if all fossil fuel
> was burned, there would still be plenty of oxygen,
> yet now there seems to be claims otherwise.
There would still be plenty of oxygen. The measurements of atmospheric
oxygen are looking at tiny changes on a large baseline which is why it
took so long to be able to do it with the required precision. By
comparison the CO2 measurements are easy.
Even if we got CO2 up by another 1000ppm it would only rob the
atmosphere of 1000ppm O2 so that an initial 20% would be down to a
shocking 19.9%. That would not be a noticeable reduction.
> No doubt there are lots of different ways
> different plants do the process, but the oxygen
> from CO2 has to go someplace when hydrocarbons
> are made, so I don't understand Martin's answer
> at all.
There are really 3 main ways plants do it C3, C4 and CAM. The oxygen
from the CO2 ends up back as water in the plant. Water molecules that
may subsequently be split by photosynthesis I suppose.
>
> Calling any of the chemicals involved in any
> plant process dangerous would seem to need
> some explaining, a lot of the AGW alarmism
> seems extraordinarily extreme.
I suspect you have been reading one of Idso's misleading pro CO2 sites.
I think you would do well to remember that plants have their own agenda
and are not necessarily benign. If you think about it plants also
synthesise defence molecules like nicotine, strychnine, urushiol and
monofluoacetate. All very dangerous natural chemicals.
BTW Did you know that too much oxygen is also bad for you?
Regards,
Martin Brown
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>
> > The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and
> > have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
>
> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in
> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting
> thing you said so far.
>
This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been
observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption
spectra only represents the principle series.
It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not
apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra,
where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission
spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the
bright lines of emission.
The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the
continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen
gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases
have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated
for each frequency.
The important point here is that 41% of the energy is radiated in the
infrared. Virutally all of this energy is radiated from the hydrogen
gas. If you have mathematics to show otherwise, please present them
instead of your interminable redefinition of terms and statements that
I am incorrect in accord with your unsupported rhetoric.
A simple and valid analysis of the sun's radiated energy and it's
composition, proves that the hydrogen gas is absorbing and radiating
all the wavelengths. The sun radiates for overall energy and
distributrion as a blackbody near 6000K, as duplicated in the
laboratory.
It is utterly impossible that the motions of the hydrogen molecules is
the source of the energy of the radiation. Regardless of your need to
redefine terms in order to appear to make your fallacious and failed
theoretical perspectives have some credibility.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
At each frequency is a quantity of energy being radiated. The peak
intensity obey's Wiens Law, 4.95kT / h.
There are only trace amounts of the elements which produce the line
spectra. Negligible to overall radiated energy. The hydrogen gas is
not transparent to infrared as the theory of greenhouse gases would
wish to state.
If you cannot see that the numbers prove this, then you are
mathematically inept, and wish to stay that way. Save your philosophy
for your readings at the local coffee house and leave physics the hell
alone.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
A couple of more comments which you are bound to ignore in your need
to reiterate your failed dogma since you cannot incorporate these
facts,,,
there are many stars which have no other elements than hydrogen and
helium,, the helium is concentrated near the core of the star and is
not important in the emission spectra.
At 6000K, the sun radiates about 60 million Joules per sq meter.
RT is only about 50,000 Joules. RT represents the kinetic energy of
the molecules for their linear motions and velocities.
It is of no point to make up theoretics as to how the energy of the
sun is composed, since these results can be duplicated in the
laboratory.
You also completely must ignore the simple experiment in which the
nitrogen gas, and other gases, can be shown to transfer actual energy
which can be captured and quantified in which it can be proved that
this transfer of energy is NOT DONE by the absorption and transfer by
motions or collisions or conduction.
This simple proof shows that these gases absorb the continous spectrum
of the infrared from about 1-2um. This entirely subverts the theory
that only some gases are reactive or absorb in the infrared at the
particular bands. This entirely subverts the supposed analysis done
for atmospheric gases.
There are many other laboratory means to prove this assertion. This
also proves the detachment of theoretical physics from actual
scientific fact, and the lack of interest in this field for scientific
determination beyond the purely theoretical speculation.
Since it is clear that no one in theoretical physics can objectively
look at these facts, but to a person can only repeat their failed
rhetoric and theory, the day will come when people outside this field
do the analysis which will discard this theory and those who claim
profiency in such mathematics and scientific analysis.
KD
Martin Brown
> On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>>
>>> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and
>>> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
>> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in
>> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting
>> thing you said so far.
>
> This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been
> observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption
> spectra only represents the principle series.
>
> It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not
You are clueless and confused. The lines of hydrogen are dark when you
look towards the suns brilliant photosphere and bright when you look
through the chromosphere towards the blackness of space.
> apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra,
> where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission
> spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the
> bright lines of emission.
Not true. As papers describing early IR spectroscopy of the Paschen
series make clear. Dark seen against the photosphere but bright by
comparison with the sky.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1935PASP...47..321B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1952ApJ...115..323M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
> The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the
> continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen
> gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases
> have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated
> for each frequency.
Yes they do. As the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum bear witness.
They alter the amount of radiation escaping at the characteristic
resonant frequencies of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements
escaping from the star. If the chromosphere is optically dense at the
relevant wavelength then some proportion of the light that leaves the
surface of the sun is absorbed and then re-emitted isotropically.
[snip delusional "dittohead science"]
Regards,
Martin Brown
kdt...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>
> >>> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and
> >>> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
> >> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in
> >> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting
> >> thing you said so far.
>
> > This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been
> > observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption
> > spectra only represents the principle series.
>
> > It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not
>
'> You are clueless and confused. The lines of hydrogen are dark when
you
'> look towards the suns brilliant photosphere and bright when you
look
'> through the chromosphere towards the blackness of space.
Pretend that you are now defining the situation and that I am
incorrect? Of course we are dealing in theoretics, huh, and no one can
prove a thing with your vague and invalid redefinitions? As long as
you fucking punks get together and agree that you are right in your
vagueness, in full view of scientific evidence and means to PROVE you
invalid?
But the theoretical idiots of theoretical science have eliminated the
concept of 'proof' from their dogmatic renditions, so that they
neither need proof, expect proof, respect proof, or FEAR proof.
It is not the relative brightness that is in question here. The
hydrogen emission lines of the Lyman series, and the other lines which
represent the principle series appear as bright lines against the
continuous spectrum, in which ALL frequencies of the continuum are
present where each frequency represents 1 whole value of Planck's
constant.,,,,,,,,hv, or h x cycles per second, which denotes a
particular and specified quantity of energy with no intermediate
values other than the integers of hv.
When a continuous spectrum is passed through cool hydrogen gas, these
dark lines appear. These are absorption lines and the temperature of
the cool hydrogen gas is increased according to the quantity of energy
which is stopped from passing through the gas. You are nonsense with
your idea that it is merely the background which determines if the
line is a dark absorption band or a bright emission band.
Absorption lines of the Lyman series are hard to find, since these
frequencies are in the ultraviolet and are ALL absorbed by gas
molecules anyway. People thought the Balmer series were the only
series of hydrogen until evacuated apparatus was developed which
allowed the study of the Lyman series, which is the series which is
mathematically fuctional to the energy of the ionization potential of
the atom, as the priciple series of other elements are.
For the most part, visible light frequencies can pass through most
gases without being absorbed. But around 1-2um, all frequencies of the
infrared are absorbed by all gas molecules, although this energy is
imediately radiated at other frequencies.
The dark BANDS of the infrared are not the same as the dark absorption
bands of the visible.
There is a very great difference in the absorption spectra of
hydrogen, and the emission spectra of hydrogen, although they are
represented at the same frequencies. It has nothing to do with the
background, dillfuss.
> > apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra,
> > where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission
> > spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the
> > bright lines of emission.
>
> Not true. As papers describing early IR spectroscopy of the Paschen
> series make clear. Dark seen against the photosphere but bright by
> comparison with the sky.
>
> > The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the
> > continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen
> > gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases
> > have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated
> > for each frequency.
>
'> Yes they do. As the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum bear
witness.
'>
You are nonsense. The Fraunhofer lines are particulary the absorption
spectra of the cooler gases at higher levels. These frequencies are
directly correlated to particular frequencies of particular elements
which correspond to particular emission lines of the PRINCIPLE series
only.
You guys are outrageous brats, as you try to evade the fact that I am
particulary right in saying that the dark absorption spectra of the
elemental gases correspond ONLY to the principle series of the
emission spectra. The very important subseries, the sharp and diffuse,
ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN ABSORPTION SPECTRA.
These absorption lines, which are absorbing the particular
frequencies, (not bands), of the continuous spectrum from the
compressed hydrogen gas within, are split and superimposed with the
bright emission lines of the principle series of the same element
which are produced at lower levels that are still very hot, but
rarified, or low pressure.
There are thousands and thousands of emission lines in the sun's
spectrum, but only the relevant frequencies of the principle series is
represented in the absorption lines.
The sun has all the elements of the periodic chart and therefore a
very complex spectrum. Some stars have a very simple spectrum, with
only hydrogen and helium. Very few absorption or bright emission lines
in the continuous spectrum produced by the hydrogen molecules. Some
stars are red giants and burn and are composed of mostly helium.
The sun is at equilibrium. These means that the probability of a
molecule being at a particular energy level obeys Planck's Law for
radiation distribution according to frequency. As the molecules absorb
and radiate the photons, which possess the energy which is also
distributed according to this probability, the probability holds for
the distribution of energy escaping the gases.
This distribution obeys Wiens Law for peak intensity, which is also
due to the 'probability' for the energy level at time of emission. The
molecules act as an oscillator, and although the absorption and
emisison occurs at the velocity of light, there is a time of
continuance.
> They alter the amount of radiation escaping at the characteristic
> resonant frequencies of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements
> escaping from the star. If the chromosphere is optically dense at the
> relevant wavelength then some proportion of the light that leaves the
> surface of the sun is absorbed and then re-emitted isotropically.
SO WHAT?
Can you quantify and support your statements with any DIRECT science,
or is your love for the literature and philosophy of theoretical
meanderings enough to form your concept of SCIENCE?
These absorption bands have no means to alter the amount of radiation
'escaping' in total. A quantity of energy is produced by the nuclear
reactions in the core, and this quantity of energy escapes the sun,
regardless of it's composition, in order for the sun to be at constant
temperature and thermal equilibrium, which it has been for about 5
billion years.
==================
The point here is that there is no means the gases in the sun can
absorb and emit the quantity of energy in their molecular collisions
and motions. The idea of the greenhouse gases is PROVED defunct.
This concept has no direct science or laboratory proof which would be
easily forthcoming if it were true. For this reason this idea was
abandoned by modern chemistry and science and only revived by
theoreticians out of touch with reality.
There is no evidence for this property in valid analysis of gases
which is documented by the Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling, in his book
which is easily available to anyone, 'General Chemistry', and
availlable for free online somewhere.
This concept can be proved invalid by proper scientific inquiry. These
proofs also prove the theorists of present theoretical physics and
climatology to be completely out of touch with real science and proper
physics.
KD
Martin Brown
Are you a bot? Your "Dittohead Science" is a joke.
The long screed of delusional babble you posted looks suspisciously like
output of the Shannoniser. Actually that program might make more sense.
The statements I have made are experimentally verifiable. Narrowband
H-alpha filters for observing the suns chromosphere are now accessible
to amateur astronomers the world over. The same basic principles apply
to any species that can absorb and emit photons at specific wavelengths
when illuminated with continuum radiation.
Regards,
Martin Brown
kdt...@earthlink.net
Your logic goes nowhere. Studying H-alpha is basic to astronomy. So
what has that to do with anything? A lot of mapping is done in this
wavelength, and also in the hydrogen 20cm line.
H-alpha is the first line of the Balmer series. It is in the visible
region. In the excitation of hydrogen, the first Lyman line appears
first, in the energy levels. However this line is far into the
ultraviolet. At the second energy level of hydrogen, the second line
of the Lyman series appears along with the first line of the Balmer
series. From this point there is a corresponding line of the Balmer
series for each line of the Lyman series. However the Balmer series
are exactly 1/4 the energy of the corresponding Lyman line.
For this reason, the harmonics of the Balmer series are in line with
the harmonics of the Lyman series, and parts of the Balmer series
appears in absorption spectra. The sub-series of the other elements
are not mathematically harmonic to the principle series, and therefore
do not appear in absorption spectra.
The Lyman series of hydrogen, and the principle series of the other
elements, is mathematically a harmonic of the energy level of the
ionization potential. The first line of the Lyman series appears at
the energy level that is exactly 3/4 the energy of the ionization
potential.
The energy of the photons at particular wavelength is available in
electron volts by taking the reciprocal of the wavelength and
multiplying this by 12398, since a photon with wavelength of 1.2398um
has the energy of 1 electron volt. If a photon has a frequency per
second and travels at c, this will be the number of pulsations in the
distance of 2.99E10 cm. So the distance between pulsations, or
wavelength is 2.99E10 divided by frequency,,, and 2.99E10cm divided by
wavelength gives number of pulsations per second, or frequency,
A principle series as spectral lines which are separated by intervals
mathematically defined by Shroedinger as functions of differential
operators, which is called the 'eigenfunction' for the series. These
intervals become closer together and reach the 'series limit' at the
point that the intervals become one whole value of h, therefore cannot
be divided further. This point is the energy level of the ionization
potential, so the mathematics of the series is inherent to this value
of the ionization potential.
At this point the series rejoins the continuum, and the spectra beyond
this point of the continuous spectrum are called 'spark spectra' and
produced with the ionization of the atom or dissacociation of the
electron from the atom.
Planck's actual hypothesis which revolutionized all of physics, is
that,,, 'for each spectral line, there is a corresponding electron
oscillator of particular and specific energy, hv'.
People miss the important point that he states of the existence of the
'electron oscillator'. Classical physics wished to describe radiation
as caused by the motions of the molecules which produced radiation.
But it is very clear at high temperatures with gases, that there is no
possibility that these motions can ,, contain, absorb, transfer or
transmit, the quantities of energy which are involved.
This applies to all infrared and visible radiation. The molecules of a
gas have a molecular shell composed of at least one electron, which is
the diameter of the molecule and the surface for collisions and the
surface for absorption and emission of photons which are packets of
energy.
Fact of science ignored by theoretical science since it does not fit
the need to say that energy is only absorbed in particular quantums,
and to attempt to maintain the false theory of greenhouse gases.
So Martin, lets look at some math and you can explain how your side
remarks are pertinent in the least. I know I am guilty of heresy in
your church, but please don't start gathering the wood to burn me at
the stake, as all good little religous zealots wish to do with those
who do not bow to the doctrine handed down from their god, (algore).
================
The hydrogen gas near the surface of the sun at 5780K radiates at
63,284,071.51 JOULES PER SECOND PER SQ METER.
5780 fourth power, x 5.67E-8
Surface area of the sun at radius, 696,000 kilometers, is,,
6.08735E18 sq meters,,,, x Joules per sq meter =,,
3.85E26
JOULES PER SECOND, as total luminosity of the sun.
This is the energy at the sphere of the surface of the sun.
The inverse square law is analogous to the increased area of a sphere
at the increased distance. The density of the energy is diminished
according to the diminishing area of an enlarged sphere.
So,,, the earth's mean orbital radius from the sun being 1.496E11
meters,,
A sphere with this radius would have surface area, 4pir^2 of,,,
2.82E23 sq meters.
Luminosity of sun, surface area of sun divided by surface area of
sphere at earth's mean orbital radius, which gives the diminishment of
the density of the radiation for the distance to the earth according
to the inverse square law for energy density at distance,,,
3.85E26 Joules per second / 2.82E23 sq meters =
1369.77648 JOULES PER SECOND PER SQ METER
for the density of radiation energy at mean earth orbital radius.
This is also a rate, since the velocity of the radiation remains at c,
and to increase the rate one must increase the density of the energy
traveling through the plane of 1 sq centimeter per second.
So Martin, let's see some relevance of your discourse to anything
pertinent about the energy radiated or recieved. You just make some
half assed reference to something you think is scientific and then
pretend you have some scientific wisdom which you can't quite explain
or quantify.
In the meantime you ignore and miss all my important points,
dweezzleshit.
HAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHHA
KD
The AGWBunnies,
Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society,,,
They keep going,,, and going,,,
kdt...@earthlink.net
> On Oct 20, 9:51 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > This is also proved by the CO2 laser. The dark bands of CO2 force the
> > emissions at the bands at which CO2 is supposedly 'transparent', near
> > 10um. Any laser only uses the parrallel mirrors to augment the
> > frequencies which the lasing substance absorbs and emits.
>
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> In a CO2 laser, for example, stimulated emission selectively
> creates photons that are identical to the original photon. In
> stimulated emission, the photon that is emitted moves in the same
> direction as the photon that was absorbed.
> The laser cavity selects for photons that are emitted in a very
> specific direction. If there was no such selection, as is the case in
> the atmosphere, radiation coming in in random directions would result
> in radiation moving in random directions. In fact, radiation that
> started out moving in a specific direction would end up totally
> randomized.
> Even in a laser, there is energy lost in spontaneous emission. If
> the photon is emitted spontaneously, without stimulation by other
> photons, the radiation comes out randomized in direction and
> frequency.
> If you placed a large amount of a greenhouse gas in a CO2
> laser cavity, the laser would stop lasing. One would think, using your
> argument, that a absorbing material in the cavity couldn't interfere
> with the operation of the laser. However, absorpbing materials do
> interfere with the operation of a laser. Since the
>
You are a total punk for telling me I am wrong, when I am right. You
should be worried that politicians may listen to you and make any
decisions. But your defunct logic doesn't consider such things either.
Support your damn statements, philosopher. I damn sure do, and when
you presume me to be wrong according the the rhetoric you yourself do
not understand, you are also defunct.
Proof is required by theoretical physics and AGW to remodel our use of
carbon fuels. Good luck hiding as you do in theoretical modeling in
which no proof can be derived, or so you presume.
Here I make valid statements about the CO2 laser. That the CO2 and the
N2 are absorbing and therefore emitting radiation at the 10um bands in
which the CO2 laser operates, which is in keeping with the basic
principle of any laser, which is that the laser is actually formed by
the two parrellel mirrors which reflect frequencies back into the
lasing material which the material is favarable to absorb and emit,
and therefore bring the production of these frequencies to high
levels.
Visible or line lasers are much different than 'band' lasers which are
produced with infrared.
In order to maintain your false theory, that CO2 and N2 are
'transparent' or non-reactive to these frequencies, you and your
comrades do an incredible amount of invention of stupid little
dynamics, and then you also pretend to be grownups as you collectively
believe your imaginitive falshoods about the physics involved.
It is simple to prove this also, that you are stupid and have no
interest in distinguishing fantasy from science.
This can be proved by actual analysis of the luminesence of gases.
Helium and neon have ionization potential around 25 electron volts.
This means their first energy level of luminesence occurs near 20
electron volts. These high energy ultraviolets do not pass through
gases without being absorbed, and are the critical component in the
transfer of energy into the 2 bands of the CO2 laser which occur
around 10um.
Your theoy of the CO2 laser and your attempt to maintain your false
theory of radiation and gases, proves you defunct in any actual viable
theoretical physics or science.
I can also fully support and PROVE this statement.
The CO2 laser is called the CO2 laser because CO2 is the critical
component for it's construction. This is because CO2 has the dark
bands of non-transmission in the higher regions of the infrared, 2.7um
and 4.2um. These bands extend for a great region of the continous
spectrum. This forces CO2 to radiate absorbed energy at other
frequencies. This does not in any way affect the thermal properties of
CO2 in normal conditions, AS ALL LABORATORY ANALYSIS SHOWS.
In your analysis of the CO2 laser, you are proved DEFUNCT, because you
do not incorporate the actual fact of the luminisence of the gases. If
mirrors are used on pure CO2, an increase in the frequencies at 10
occurs. But not nearly enough for a viable band laser.
The CO2 laser requires about 50% helium or neon, 25% N2 and about 25%
CO2. It also works better with about 5% hydrogen gas.
What you miss, is the fact that the helium and neon, when excited with
the high energy electrons from the cathode, become luminesent with the
production of their principle series, which begins far into the
ultraviolet. The ultraviolet photons do not pass through gases, but
penetrate the molecules and are absorbed.
It is only by this, that the CO2 laser becomes a viable band laser in
which about 30% of the imported energy can be delivered into the beam.
In most visible lasers, one is very lucky to get even 1% of the energy
into the beam.
The high energy photons from about 20 electron volts, are absorbed by
the gases, and this energy is converted to lower frequencies and
immediately re-emitted. CO2, in not radiating at the higher infrared
bands, defeats the production of these frequencies and forces the
production of frequencies to the 10um bands.
If the nitrogen were not present, the CO2 alone would absorb too much
energy and to the point of dissassociation of the carbon and oxygen.
With the Nitrogen also absorbing and radiating, the energy is passed
out of the gas mixture and does not increase the temperature beyond a
workable level.
The energy from the cathode electrons, when absorbed by the helium or
neon, is converted to the high energy ultraviolet photons, which
cannot then pass through air or glass without being absosrbed and
converted to lower frequencies. The absorption of these ultraviolets,
which is omitted entirely from your falsified theory of this laser,
transfers the energy into the molecules which then radiate this energy
at the 10um bands, which is actually the peak intensity for Wiens law
around normal temperatures, 80F or so.
The molecules absorb and immediately radiate photons of infrared
frequencies, and ultraviolet frequencies. Thus, the emission is more
probable for the energy of absorption, although sometimes photons are
added together or split.
The mirrors augment the bands at 10um, in which the N2 absorb and
radiate. The CO2 defeats the production of frequencies of higher
infrared energies, (which for wavelength are smaller numbers).
The Nitrogen helps to absorb and radiate, to keep the temperature from
exceeding dissassociation levels. The helium or neon is critical to
the efficiency of the laser of 30%, because of their production of the
20eV photons, which cannot pass through air or glass, and therefore
the energy they carry must be converted to lower frequencies or will
continually be increasing the temperature. The energy must be supplied
with high energy electrons from the cathodes, in order to bring the
helium or neon to luminesence, without a temperature higher than the
dissassociation levels of the molecules of N2 and CO2.
Proof that you and present theoretical science are inept and defunct.
You do not have the critical information that of the high energy
ultraviolets which must occur for the gases to be luminescent.
Even a neon laser, which produces a beam in the visiable region, must
reach luminesence with the first energy level of it's principle series
which is very far into the ultravioet in which the photons cannot pass
through gases or glass. The emission which is seen in the neon laser,
are very specific lines in the visible of sharp spectra, which are of
much less energy than the principle series, BUT WHICH DO NOT APPEAR
UNTIL THE LUMINESCENT LEVEL, OR FIRST ENERGY LEVEL OF THE PRINCIPLE
SERIES IS REACHED WHICH IS NEAR 20eV.
CO2 and N2 are not 'transparent' or 'non-reactive' to the frequencies
around 10um, as the false theory of greenhouse gases MUST state. The
frequencies of the infrared are absorbed and radiated by all gases.
Calculations on the effect that only CO2 and methane absorb outgoing
infrared, and therfore are important to temperature and climate at
trace levels is the biggest bunch of bullshit, by the biggest bunch of
overgrown schoolchildren and corrupt and embezzling scientists who are
trusted by the most complacent, pampered and naive people, who are
willing to believe this farce and these lies without forcing any
demonstration of fact or proof.
And this movement is a full blown psuedo religion, with the followers
clearly defined to be insane and hostile to innocent people.
Facts which will one day come to a head with their demented wish to
destroy our energy and economic infrastructure under their false
pretenses of being concerned with the environment or welfare of any
person, other than their narcissistic and fantastical mental
masturbation.
KD
Darwin123
> On Nov 3, 6:56 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>
> This simple proof shows that these gases absorb the continous spectrum
> of the infrared from about 1-2um. This entirely subverts the theory
> that only some gases are reactive or absorb in the infrared at the
> particular bands. This entirely subverts the supposed analysis done
> for atmospheric gases.
>
You like simple proofs?
An ideal black body source can not show any emission lines or any
absorption lines. Solar spectra show emission lines superimposed on
black body spectra. Therefore, the sun can not be an ideal black body
source.
The reason a black body source can not show any spectral lines is
that radiation energy is absorbed and remitted by atoms many times
before leaving the source. shifts associated with vibration, rotations
and translational energy randomize the radiation, producing the black
body spectra.
The reason that the sun is not a perfect black body emitter is
that the density near the surface of the sun is small enough so small
enough to let some light out without being reabsorbed. The concept is
called optical depth.
I note that in the case of solar spectrum, the continuous part of
the spectrum happens to be close to that of a black body. This makes
your arguments somewhat plausible in the case of solar spectra because
this shows the light from the sun has been absorbed and remitted a few
times. This is not always a given because of pressure broadening. The
light coming from an incandescent bulb has a continuous spectrum but
is not really a black body spectrum. Basically, you are seeing
emission bands from tungsten. The light coming from the filament is
not absorbed and remitted many times before leaving. Just showing that
the spectrum is "continuous" does not indicate that the source is a
black body.
You would be more convincing if you could tell us what fraction of
the emitted energy of the sun is in spectral lines, and what fraction
of the emitted energy is in black body radiation. Then we could judge
how valid your implied approximation is. Your citing the black body
formula is not very convincing if you haven't shown how closely the
source approaches the black body formula.
Similarly, the technical part of your polemic would be more
convincing if you could tell us what portion of the earth's emitted
radiation, seen from space, is in black body radiation. You could
break it down into the portion that fits the black body formula, the
portion that shows spectral lines, and the portion that shows pressure
broadening.
One thing that seems particularly unconvincing is the
implication in some of your posts that a pressure broadened spectrum
is automatically a sign that radiation is being absorbed and remitted.
I think atmospheric modelers take pressure broadening into account
through phenomenological parameters such as albedo.
Even if the spectral line of a fluorocarbon are broadened by
pressure, this doesn't ensure that a the energy absorbed by the
molecule is randomized in the way you are claiming. A substance can
have a characteristic spectrum without have narrow emission lines.
If these global warming environmentalists are wrong, it is
important to show they are wrong. However, I am sure that their
analysis has not violated any fundamental principles in spectroscopy.
Those phenomenological constants they use can still be challenged. I
suggest that what you are describing is a rather naive misapplication
of the black body formula. This sort of thing can back fire. The worse
thing that can happen for your position is that these arguments are
presented in a court of law.
kdt...@earthlink.net
Wrong. I can quantify. You do not even attempt it.
It is very clear that the quantity of energy reaching the earth at
mean orbital radius, is ~1370 Wm-2, from a temerature of about 5780K.
Refer to my calculations in my 3rd post back. Simple Stefan's law and
inverse square law. So you show me pertinent quantification for the
spectral lines or shut the fuck up.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
You think that the spectral lines of the elements play any important
part in this quantity of energy?
There are stars which are ONLY hydrogen and a little helium. So you
are saying there is any difference in temperature due to the presence
of the elements in some stars? You are nuts.
So is the radiational temperature greater or less with the presence of
the spectral lines and absorption lines.
HAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHhahahahHAHAHhahahaha
You have no means to answer that within the law of conservation of
energy. Please don't start looking for a lie in the energy of
enthalapy for molecular bonds. Any such thing would also reach
equilibrium.
You like to say that the earth does not radiate as a blackbody. You
need to tell this to the cardinals of the church who produced the
state of the art rendering for 'Earth annual energy budget'
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
This cartoon is fully accepted as top of the line calculations and
figuring. Notice thieir connotation for 'balance' at 392Wm-2. This is
the energy of Stefan's Law, therefore Planck's radiation Law, and the
quantity for Blackbody emissions at the temperature of 57F or 13C,
which is then stated to be 'average' temperature of the earth.
Notice the complete mathematical failure of this diagram, in not
denoting if one is using the mean root fourth power, or the mean
fourth power root for the calculations. But the rinky dinky fools of
climatology, theoretical physics, and the organizations which give
their sanction to the false theory of AGW by greenhouse gases, accept
this cartoon without any such criticism on their blatant failure at
valid mathematics.
You should send THEM a note, that their value of 392Wm-2, has no value
for temperature of the earth or anything else, and they should rescind
this bullshit and make it known to the public and politicians their
severe error in the fantastical meanderings through their bullshit
thoeretics derived from the garbage of classical physics in which no
qauntificatin of energy could be achieved.
Notice also in their first graph which supposedly depicts satellite
readings with the theoretical Planck curve, that the distribution is
wrong for this temperaure, although they at least have the peak
intensity correct. But you allow such rinky dink science, also, and
have no mathematics which relate to actual energy quantities at all.
Your word streams with poorly defined terms upon which you rely, and
which you ineptly attempt to state me to be invalid, are worthless
without some forthcoming quantification.
What is the quantitive effect upon temperture of a star which does
have complex molecules in it's mixture of gases?
HAHAHAHHAHAHHhahahahahahHAHAHAHhahahhahaha
KD
The AGWBuniies,
Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society which they plan to pursue from their completely safe vantage
in their ivory towers,,,
The keep going,,, and going
kdt...@earthlink.net
When people's lives are affected, this bullshit will damn sure go to
court. Someone tell algore and his followers, THE DEBATE IS JUST
BEGINNING, and this time it will be for all the marbles.
This has nothing to do with my position. My position is taken entirely
from modern physics and chemistry. Please read the rendering on gases
from Linus Pauling, General Chemistry, from the 1950's in which he
gives a good accounting of the facts and understanding of gases.
Notice clearly, in this analysis of gases is no mention of the
property of greenhouse gases, although Arwheenieass and others
believed in this property. No scientific merit for this idea. Pauling
only refers to CO2 as a 'normal gas'.
This means that it obeys the law of partial pressures. One liter of
CO2 mixed with one liter of N2 and one liter of O2 at the same
temperature and pressure, makes exactly 3 liters of gas. No special
determination or difference for the CO2 or other normal gases at
ordinary temperatures and pressures.
Bunch of malarchy.
Any application of the 'blackbody formula' is only important in
quantification of ENERGY.
One must respect Stefan's Law, which states a specific quantity of
energy leaving the surface of a thermal body and applies also to
gases. Boltzman defined Stefan's Law in energy per sq cm, which then
if integrated for surface area, gives total radiated energy at any
specific temperature.
Distribution is defined by Planck's Radiation Law for thermal
equilibrium. If the curve is graphed in frequency, the area beneath
the curve is directly proportional to total energy. Each photon is a
packet of energy. The sum total of these packets is total energy.
All your attempts to redefine, blackbody and such is meaningless in
regards to actual energy at specific temperature. By the simple
analysis of energy transfered by a gas to solid surfaces, it is easily
determined and proved that the gases which you believe transparent to
infrared, are actually absorbing and emitting the entire continous
spectrum. This is the only means to account for the energy which a gas
can transfer to the solids, which then radiate clearly according to
Stefan's Law for temperature.
It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non-
reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and
methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate.
No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern
science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with
no scientific support.
Very simple, and clear proof, for those who may be interested in the
truth, and not only interested in repitition of non-quantifiable
rhetoric, which seeks to maintain the failed Bohr dogma of absorption
in only specific quantums.
KD
Sam Wormley
>
> It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non-
> reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and
> methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate.
> No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern
> science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with
> no scientific support.
>
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
I M @ good guy
wrote:
The last link illustrates that water vapor and O2-O3
make up 95 percent of all radiation energy transfers.
Anything else is trivial once flux is matched
to radiating temperature.
Sam Wormley
Nope--Each greenhouse gas is important in the overall climate picture.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
How important is each one?
Separately.
About 80 percent of the energy leaving
the Earth is from the atmosphere, how can
anybody deny that GHGs cool the atmosphere?
Sam Wormley
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:51:07 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>> Nope--Each greenhouse gas is important in the overall climate picture.
>
>
> How important is each one?
Similar questions to yours:
o Which of your fingers is more important?
o Which electron in a CO2 molecule is more important?
o Which enzyme in your body is most important?
Those are stooopid questions just like how important is each
greenhouse gas. They are all important!
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:51:07 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>
>>> Nope--Each greenhouse gas is important in the overall climate picture.
>>
>>
>> How important is each one?
>
>Similar questions to yours:
> o Which of your fingers is more important?
> o Which electron in a CO2 molecule is more important?
> o Which enzyme in your body is most important?
>
>Those are stooopid questions just like how important is each
>greenhouse gas. They are all important!
Yes, CO2 is important, no, it is essential if
we want food, what we eat is made from CO2
and water.
If somebody figures out how to do that without
the plant taking a few weeks or months, it could end
hunger.
But the atmosphere would be warm enough for
life without GHGs, only there could be no life as we
know it, we need CO2 and water for that.
And GHGs are also essential to cool the atmosphere.
Timothy Casey
"kdt...@yahoo.com" <kdt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e05aeb7e-89b0-4304...@l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>The point here is that burden of proof is upon those who are plying
>the concept of 'greenhouse gases'. Look in older chemistry books.
>There is no mention of such a property, although this idea was around
>since the 1860's or so with Tyndell.
.
Tyndall screwed up. He failed to distinguish absorbtion from reflection and
assumed absorbtion was total. He had contemporaries Balfour Stewart and
Gustav Kirchhoff who emphasize this point in opaque materials. It's only a
hop step and a jump to determine that transmission cannot effect material
temperature at the point of transmission - which leaves absorbtion,
reflection, and Stewarts opaque material emissivity based exclusively on
these two that do.
.
>Chemistry only says that CO2 is a normal gas at lower temperatures and
>pressures, has a heat capacity ~9/2 R,@cp, and deviates from the
>perfect gas law at higher pressures due to it's greater molecular
>diameter, which begins to affect mean free path at high pressures.
>
>NO property at all of inordinate retention of infrared radiation
>energy which would surely cause higher temperatures at equilibrium,
>and could be EASILY FORMALLY DOCUMENTED. If this property existed, it
>would be very valuable such as in double pained glass.
.
Well the way David Archer and Ian R. Plimer are describing it (Archer, 2009,
pp. 15-29; Plimer, 2009, pp.366-375 - see
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net for bibliography) it boils down to the
effect of Kirchhoff's Law. The thermal property we are looking at is
emissivity as it applies to the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation for a radiation at
a given point and not the "emissivities" that vary with depth, temperature
and pressure to include the affect of the Beer-Lambert Law on radiation at
the given depth (Eg. Rubens & Ladenburg, 1905; Hottel, 1954; Leckner, 1972;
Farag, 1976, Farag & Allam, 1981; Lallemant et al., 1996). The Smithsonian
Physical Tables list emissivities for a wide range of almost thermally
opaque materials, but have nothing for clearly thermally translucent
materials such as atmospheric gases - probably because the focus of
emissivity measurement has been in the context of flame temperature modeling
in furnaces and not statistical modeling of translucent mixtures.
.
>The real fact here is that no one has direct experimental data which
>is formally documented as scientific work used to be.
.
Bingo! As it turns out.
.
>It used to be that documentation was required so that others could
>recreate the analysis, and NO ONE was just expected to accept
>conclusions or postulates without the outline of methodology by which
>the conclusions and PROOF of facts were attained.
.
I remember all too well - but there is a cycle to this as back in the days
of Eugenics there was the same problem. We can only hope that history does
not repeat itself, eh?
.
>The fact is that no one here can submit actual scientific
>documentation of the property of greenhouse gases. This concept and
>the relative values of this property are entirely derived by invlaid
>theoretical rendering from spectroscopic readings. No valid evidence
>that these spectroscopic bands affect temperature at all.
.
Spectral behaviour does tell us that Rubens & Ladenburg (1905), Hottel
(1954), Leckner (1972), Farag (1976), Farag & Allam (1981), & Lallemant et
al. (1996) are not talking about the same emissivity as Stewart, Kirchhoff,
and Boltzman. You know how a colour is a spectral band or spectral
distribution - well pigments mix in linear relationship to sum of products
of component concentrations and emissivity. Yet this does not work for
Lallemant and friends because we are not talking about the same emissivity
as they are - or everyone has got things disastrously wrong for over a
century. For now, I'm comfortable with the former; but either way, we draw a
total blank on the Boltzman emissivities of atmospheric component gases,
which makes it impossible to predict the effects of compositional changes on
point temperatures within the gas body given radiation measurements for the
point. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) luck out as their radiative budget doesn't
match the bank balance. Tally up the atmospheric radiation that must be
dumped (excluding the greenhouse perpetual motion machine) and it's 17�C -
two degrees higher than the current global mean (as per Burroughs, 2007b, p.
124). If we remove the perpetual motion machine (which generates 324 Wm-2 ex
nihilo) from their system but keep the greenhouse effect, we get 100�C as
the mean global surface temperature. But wait there's more, with every
perpetual motion machine we get 125�C - that's some effect, but it neglects
a few things. The update, courtesy of Trenberth et al., (2009) gives us a
mean global surface temperature of 26�C. That's the mean for Summer through
Winter, day through night, and every latitude on the planet. Last I checked,
there's still ice down in Antarctica and the Amundsen South Pole Station
hasn't been shipped out to sea by runaway glaciers (which is what we will
see by the time mean global surface temperature tops 19�C - if Royer et al.,
2004 are any indication)
.
>Because the facts are the facts, analysis can PROVE this property does
>not exist. Regardless of the widely held beliefs and superstitions of
>the theoretical scientists.
.
Emissivity variations may do the trick - especially if we take emissivity
divided by effusivity as a benchmark. However, I doubt that real properties
will show sufficient differences between CO2 and other atmospheric gases to
not disprove the Greenhouse Version 2.0.
.
>This is simply a case of the fashionable admiration of the emperors
clothes,
.
Eau!
.
> and superstitious beliefs from the 19th century from before
>Planck and Einstein, when these theoreticians also beleived the sun
>was composed of burning coal.
.
So that's what they think we fossil fuel geologists are up to?!
.
:^)
kdt...@earthlink.net
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non-
> > reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and
> > methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate.
> > No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern
> > science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with
> > no scientific support.
>
>
> http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/geos105/Images/IRAbsorption.JPG
Thank you for proving that you have no direct science and that there
is no laboratory science which can support the widely held opinion
that CO2 inordinately absorbs infrared which causes higher
temperatures.
You submit some theoretical rendering for atmospheric gases, in which
there is no direct scientific establishment of facts, and then you
submit spectroscopic properties of the gases.
If you understood the term 'science', you would now submit laboratory
studies of these gases, which showed that your assumption that these
dark bands were indeed causing inordinate absorption of infrared
energy which would cause the energy of the gas to increase with the
blocked radiation which would be evident in effect upon temperature.
BUT YOU HAVE NO LABORATORY SCIENCE FOR THIS PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE
VERY VERY EASY TO DOCUMENT IF IT WERE TRUE.
But alas, those who endevour in the literary and philosphical field of
theoretical physics, enjoy their detachment from SCIENCE as they
entwine their fantastical tales in the world of theory where there is
no proof, or need to substantiate their assumptions.
FACT
CO2 has a higher heat capacity than O2 and N2.
Therefore, in a normal situation, same volume of CO2 to these gases
will reach final temperature slower. The heat capacity is a quantity
of energy the molecule must absorb for the kinetic energy of it's
motions.
FACT
There is no scientific means that the concept of inordinate absorption
of infrared radiation by particular gases is substantiated. If there
is a dark band, the molecule still radiates any absorbed energy at
other frequencies. The dark bands DO NOT AFFECT TEMPERATURE AS DIRECT
SCIENCE PROVES.
Just to make fun of you idiots that claim proficiency in theoretical
physics,
What is the law of equipartition?
This states that for each freedom of motion of a molecule, it has 1/2
value of R for the kinetic energy of this motion of this mass.
So the fact is that ALL monatomic gases have the heat capacity of
exactly 1.5R.
It is considered that in the linear motions of the molecules, there
are 3 degrees of freedom of motion, so therefore these molecules have
3 1/2s of kinetic energy that is absorbed from the environment for
each degree of temperature.
Now the molecules also have 3 degrees of spin motion which also is
motion and must absorb kinetic energy in order to occur.
So for diatomic molecules it is considered that actually only 2 axis
of spin are involved, which adds 1/2R + 1/2R to their heat capacity,
which is substantiated since symetrical diatoms have this heat
capacity of 1 value of R more than the monatomic gases.
The rotational kinetic energy of CO2, however it occurs, it what is
the heat capacity of this gas along with the linear velocity and
translational kinetic energy, and the work energy of the expansion of
the gas when it is allowed to expand.
Yet the idiots of AGW and theory, have decided that the inordinate
absorption, for which they have no scientific documentation, is due to
energy absorbed in rotation, and also in the vibrations of the two
oxygen molecules attached to the carbon atoms.
None such thing. All this literature isn't worth jack shit, or the
theorists that are ignorant of the concept of heat capacity as they
ply their fantastical and INVALID theory of absorption of energy by
the CO2 molecule.
At concentrations of less than 1%, any effect of the difference of
CO2s heat capacity is absolutely negligible. Heat capacity is not the
property of greenhouse gases.
CO2 has heat capacity of almost exactly 1 value of R greater than the
diatoms of N2 and O2. If one attributes absorption of energy by CO2 to
it's rotational energy, then what about the rotational energy of N2
and O2?
R is the value of the work energy of a gas for it's expansion due to
the increase of temperature by 1degK. Therefore, extrapolated to
absolute zero, a gas at a particular temperature, has motions of the
molecules which have a sum total of linear energy RT, which is the
molar value. It one divides this number by the number of molecules, on
derives the average energy for each molecule, though of course some of
the molcules have higher and some lower velocities.
Energy is a quantity and is never created or lost, but may change
forms according to the law of the conservation of energy. Einstein is
credited with the formalism of The Law of the Conservation of Energy
and Matter with E = mc^2.
With this, even conversion between matter and energy is quantified, so
that the complete 'conservation' of both energy and matter is fully
established. Energies of enthalpy and nuclear bonding are established
as direct conversion and conservation of energy and matter.
KD
Sam Wormley
>
> Thank you for proving that you have no direct science and that there
> is no laboratory science which can support the widely held opinion
> that CO2 inordinately absorbs infrared which causes higher
> temperatures.
>
He is a fool that lovers prove,
And leaves to sing to lives in pain.
leona...@gmail.com
kdt...@earthlink.net
num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
> "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
.
> > No valid evidence that these spectroscopic bands affect temperature at all.
>
> .
> Spectral behaviour does tell us that Rubens & Ladenburg (1905), Hottel
> (1954), Leckner (1972), Farag (1976), Farag & Allam (1981), & Lallemant et
> al. (1996) are not talking about the same emissivity as Stewart, Kirchhoff,
> and Boltzman. You know how a colour is a spectral band or spectral
> distribution - well pigments mix in linear relationship to sum of products
> of component concentrations and emissivity. Yet this does not work for
> Lallemant and friends because we are not talking about the same emissivity
> as they are - or everyone has got things disastrously wrong for over a
> century. For now, I'm comfortable with the former; but either way, we draw a
> total blank on the Boltzman emissivities of atmospheric component gases,
One cannot put all theory in the same basket.
Academic theory chose to go with the theory of Neils Bohr and
Heisenberg. Theory which Planck, Einstein and Shrodinger resisted
completely until their death.
Before Planck and Einstein, no proper theory on electromagnetic
radiation existed at all. The theory at this point was that radiation
was waves through the aether. With this, there is no place for
Planck's constant.
Together, Planck and Einstein developed the concept of the 'photon'.
According to Einstein, light is composed of packets of energy that fly
through space like a hail of shot and are composed of energy hv..
Presently, in theoretical physics, the first thing taught is that
light is both a wave and a particle. This begins the development of
the insanity in the students from which they never recover. Soon, they
beleive any contradictory and unsubstantiated thing they are taught
and lose any objectivity to do analysis or applied mathematics to
quantities.
The phenomena which is taken to show that light is a wave, can be
explained by other means within the concept of the photon of energy hv
and mass m = E/c^2
Einstein also understood that light has mass. This is where he
initially developed the formula, E = mc^2. He gained this insight from
experiments conducted in 1900 and 1903, and published papers in which
he included this in 1905.
So how can light be a wave and a particle, when a radio wave can have
wavelengths of several kilometers while a gamma photon has wavelength
of several Angstoms, yet the gamma photon has much greater mass? Gamma
photons cause nuclei to recoil when they are absorbed and emited from
nuclei.
The concept of the photon is shown in the photo-electric effect. A
wafer of two metals is made, one of a metal with low ionization
potential.
When light is shown on the wafer, electrons are ejected and electric
potential is developed. This can be demonstrated by making a pinwheel
with these wafers and placed in an evacuated bulb. When light is shown
on the pinwheel, the wafers move TOWARD from the imparted light. This
is because electrons are being ejected on the other side which propels
the pinwheel towards the light.
The metal in the wafers have an ionization potential. This is the
quantity of energy required to eject an electron. So if one controls
the frequency or color of the light, it is found that no electrons are
ejected until specific frequencies are reached, with the red having
less energy than the blues.
These photons therefore have greater energy than the ionization
potential and liberate electrons. The electrons leave the metal with a
particular velocity and kinetic energy according to their mass. They
have the energy which is the energy of the photons above that of the
ionization potential.
If the frequency of the photons is maintained at a certain level, and
the brightness or intensity of the light is increased, the electrons
are ejected with the same energy, but the number of electrons ejected
is increased.
Gases have temperatures, only according to the density of the
radiation field in which they exist. Visible frequencies pass through
normal air without being absorbed and emitted. Ultraviolet just beyond
the visible, and infrared of lower energy than 1-2um do not pass
through air, but are absorbed and their energy re-emitted.
Planck's radiation law, defines emissions according to kT/hv. It
describes a curve for distribution for which energy under the curve
obeys Stefan's Law and Wiens law for peak intensity. It pertains to
gases. kT is the average energy of a gas molecule at particular
temperatures.
The gas molecules continually absorb and radiate this energy.
The energy of photons, when absorbed by the gas molecules, can be
added to other absorbed energy or divided. There is no special values,
or quantums, for the energy of photons. At any particular temperature,
there is a probability for the electron oscillator to be at any given
energy level of hv. Therefore, according to this probability, the
level on the graph for energy transmited at this frequency. Highest
probability for the energy of an oscillator is Wiens Law, which is
4.95kT / h, or can also be denoted as .2989cm / T.
Whatever the distribution is, the overall quantity of energy being
radiated is more important. Planck's distribution only occurs at
thermal equilibrium. Something changing temperatures will not have
this distribution, BUT WILL have the overall energy consistent with
Stefan's Law.
Theoretical conjecture about emissivity and variations of the spectrum
mean nothing without consideration and accounting for overall energy,
which this density of energy traveling at c between the gas molecules,
determines temperature and average energy of the molecules which then
determines velocity of the molecules and kT.
A photon of 1.2398um or 12398 Angstroms has the energy of 1 electron
volt. So, reciprocal of wavelength x 12398 = electron volts.
KD
kdt...@earthlink.net
Whatever the hell that means. I guess it means you also don't believe
in proof as is proper within the present schools of theoretical
science.
That makes life real easy, huh. You don't have to support anything
with proof, and if someone presents proof, you can ignore it as not a
part of your science.
Just wait until people learn this is how the theoretical scientists
have derived their conclusions for AGW, while they now presume proper
science is behind all the rhetoric and scaremongering.
Without proof there is no science. Only conjecture and SURERSTITION.
I'll bet you are capable of saying,,'CO2 absorbs IR', and feel like
you in touch with science or something.
So what the hell does that mean? By theory, the important IR
frequencies that CO2 absorbs are in the band centered around 15um.
1/15 x 1.2398 = 0.083 electron volts for a photon of 15um
If the gas is around 300K, the average energy of a molecule, kT is
4.1E-21 Joules, or 0.026 electron volts.
1 eV = 0.16E-18 Joules
So a photon of 15um has 3.19 times as much energy as the average
energy, kT , of the molecules of a gas at around 300K.
If the CO2 in a mixture of gases were to inordinately absorb these
photons which would pass through what is considered, 'transparent and
non-reactive' O2, N2 or other gases, it would be the easiest thing to
note the radical increase in temperature with the addition of CO2.
Also, CO2 or CO2 in mixtures would reach much higher final
temperature, since the CO2 would be retaining energy which otherwise
would pass freely out of the ordinary gases.
THERE IS NO LABORATORY EVIDENCE AT ALL TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT CO2
ABSORBS INFRARED RADIATION INORDINATE TO OTHER GASES.
Actual facts about CO2, and proper scienctific inquiry of gases, can
prove directly this postulate to be invalid, and supporting theoretics
also invalid and without scientific merit.
KD
Sam Wormley
>
> I'll bet you are capable of saying,,'CO2 absorbs IR', and feel like
> you in touch with science or something.
>
Infrared in the 12-18µm radiation band interacts with CO2 at all
levels of the Earth's atmosphere where CO2 resides.
I wish to draw you attention to:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
Ming-Dah Chou, et al
Note that in the 15µm radiation band
CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
followed almost immediately by
CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere
is warmer than it would otherwise be.
The point is that the majority of the atmosphere is involved
through this process and vibrationally CO2 does re-radiate
in the 12-18µm radiation band... and part of the radiation does
heat the surface of the earth.
Moreover, you can really do some self education with this resource:
"Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
Bill Ward
> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>> I'll bet you are capable of saying,,'CO2 absorbs IR', and feel like you
>> in touch with science or something.
>>
>>
> Infrared in the 12-18µm radiation band interacts with CO2 at all
> levels of the Earth's atmosphere where CO2 resides.
>
> I wish to draw you attention to:
> http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/
i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
> Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
> Ming-Dah Chou, et al
>
> Note that in the 15µm radiation band
>
> CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
>
> followed almost immediately by
>
> CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
>
> In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
> infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere is
> warmer than it would otherwise be.
And the conversion is completely overwhelmed by the effects of water
vapor. LTE is LTE, a bigger trace of CO2 is insignificant.
> The point is that the majority of the atmosphere is involved through
> this process and vibrationally CO2 does re-radiate in the 12-18µm
> radiation band... and part of the radiation does heat the surface of
> the earth.
The 15u band of CO2 is centered down around 200K. Please explain how a
200K source can heat a 290K target, in view of the second law.
Sam Wormley
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:51:31 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'll bet you are capable of saying,,'CO2 absorbs IR', and feel like you
>>> in touch with science or something.
>>>
>>>
>> Infrared in the 12-18µm radiation band interacts with CO2 at all
>> levels of the Earth's atmosphere where CO2 resides.
>>
>> I wish to draw you attention to:
>> http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
>> Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
>> Ming-Dah Chou, et al
>>
>> Note that in the 15µm radiation band
>>
>> CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
>>
>> followed almost immediately by
>>
>> CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
>>
>> In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
>> infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere is
>> warmer than it would otherwise be.
>
> And the conversion is completely overwhelmed by the effects of water
> vapor. LTE is LTE, a bigger trace of CO2 is insignificant.
Bill, what has convinced you that this is true? Please articulate.
I M @ good guy
How can he mention conversion of IR EM to
kinetic energy without including the conversion
of kinetic energy to IR EM when the sky is black
and the sun is not shining.
Sam Wormley
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:51:31 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Infrared in the 12-18µm radiation band interacts with CO2 at all
>>> levels of the Earth's atmosphere where CO2 resides.
>>>
>>> I wish to draw you attention to:
>>> http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
>>> Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
>>> Ming-Dah Chou, et al
>>>
>>> Note that in the 15µm radiation band
>>>
>>> CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
>>>
>>> followed almost immediately by
>>>
>>> CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
>>>
>>> In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
>>> infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere is
>>> warmer than it would otherwise be.
>>>
>>> The point is that the majority of the atmosphere is involved through
>>> this process and vibrationally CO2 does re-radiate in the 12-18µm
>>> radiation band... and part of the radiation does heat the surface of
>>> the earth.
>>>
>>> Moreover, you can really do some self education with this resource:
>>> "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
>>> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
>
>
> How can he mention conversion of IR EM to
> kinetic energy without including the conversion
> of kinetic energy to IR EM when the sky is black
> and the sun is not shining.
>
>
How can you misinterpret the bidirectionality of <==>
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote:
Most readers will ignore it, simply because
you failed to mention that half the IR goes to space,
and the temperature of both the surface and the
atmosphere is dropping on clear nights due to
the IR energy emitted to space.
Any GHG cools the atmosphere, all GHGs cool
the atmosphere, and the solid and liquid surface is
mostly cooler than the atmosphere.
I sure hope there is a couple of hours a day
when you are not boring people with the horrors
of one or two degrees warmer temperatures that
may never happen.
Sam Wormley
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:55:50 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>> How can you misinterpret the bidirectionality of <==>
>
> Most readers will ignore it, simply because
> you failed to mention that half the IR goes to space,
> and the temperature of both the surface and the
> atmosphere is dropping on clear nights due to
> the IR energy emitted to space.
>
But not you, good guy. As you can see:
Bill Ward
I thought about mentioning the conversion is bidirectional, but I decided
not to risk confusing him.
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:51:31 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'll bet you are capable of saying,,'CO2 absorbs IR', and feel like
>>>> you in touch with science or something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Infrared in the 12-18µm radiation band interacts with CO2 at all
>>> levels of the Earth's atmosphere where CO2 resides.
>>>
>>> I wish to draw you attention to:
>>> http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/
i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
>>> Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
>>> Ming-Dah Chou, et al
>>>
>>> Note that in the 15µm radiation band
>>>
>>> CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
>>>
>>> followed almost immediately by
>>>
>>> CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
>>>
>>> In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
>>> infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere
>>> is warmer than it would otherwise be.
>>
>> And the conversion is completely overwhelmed by the effects of water
>> vapor. LTE is LTE, a bigger trace of CO2 is insignificant.
>
> Bill, what has convinced you that this is true? Please articulate.
Sure. Local thermal equilibrium (LTE) means the radiation is roughly
equal in all directions. That means energy is carried upward primarily by
convection, except for that radiated through the 10u "hole" in the WV
absorption spectrum.
Water vapor absorbs enough LWIR to establish LTE within a few meters of
the surface, so adding more CO2 has little effect. When the optical
density to space becomes low enough, the WV (and CO2) begin to radiate
the convected thermal energy to space, acting as coolants.
The change in surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 is estimated at
~0.7K, even by the IPCC, without the assumed positive feedback from WV.
Lindzen and Choi have now ruled out positive feedback in the tropical
regions, where most cooling takes place. That's consistent with the fact
the "signature" of AGW theory, a warming in the upper troposphere, has
been shown by actual radiosonde measurements, (and MSU, I think) to be
absent. The assumptions of positive feedback in the climate models are
wrong.
So CO2 has little effect on surface temperatures. It's water in all its
phases that controls the climate, not CO2. It appears likely to me water
will be found to provide a stabilizing negative feedback via cloud albedo
modulation and increased radiation temperatures (because more WV
decreases the condensation altitude). See the Miskolczi paper below.
Here's a couple of links that may help:
http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
(Dr. Noor van Andel)
http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
(Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi)
>>> The point is that the majority of the atmosphere is involved
>>> through this process and vibrationally CO2 does re-radiate in the
>>> 12-18µm radiation band... and part of the radiation does heat the
>>> surface of the earth.
>>
>> The 15u band of CO2 is centered down around 200K. Please explain how a
>> 200K source can heat a 290K target, in view of the second law.
Are you able to provide an explanation?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:51:57 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Bill Ward wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:51:31 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ok, now you have conceded lindzens/choi's results are limited to the
tropics, you are progressing. Now, please address the net warming
effects from cirrus clouds, in more northern latitudes.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
cools the atmosphere, all GHGs cool the atmosphere"
they transfer energy...
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:55:50 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>
>>> How can you misinterpret the bidirectionality of <==>
>>
>> Most readers will ignore it, simply because
>> you failed to mention that half the IR goes to space,
>> and the temperature of both the surface and the
>> atmosphere is dropping on clear nights due to
>> the IR energy emitted to space.
>>
>
> But not you, good guy. As you can see:
>
> Infrared in the 12-18µm radiation band interacts with CO2 at all
> levels of the Earth's atmosphere where CO2 resides.
What you may not realize is that all levels can radiate
at the same time with no restriction on the flux passing out
to space, while the flux passing out from the sun is rigidly
restricted.
This gives the Earth the ability to cool more at any
time the temperature increases.
> I wish to draw you attention to:
> http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
> Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
> Ming-Dah Chou, et al
Why would I care what model says when last month
here was 8 degrees below normal.
> Note that in the 15µm radiation band
>
> CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
>
> followed almost immediately by
>
> CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
>
> In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
> infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere
> is warmer than it would otherwise be.
Where did you get the word "catalyst" from, any collision
may be capable of converting em energy to kinetic energy.
> The point is that the majority of the atmosphere is involved
> through this process and vibrationally CO2 does re-radiate
> in the 12-18µm radiation band... and part of the radiation does
> heat the surface of the earth.
The premise that the atmosphere warms the "surface"
is the most inexact and weakest part of GreenHouse Gas
theory.
> Moreover, you can really do some self education with this resource:
> "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
If it is recommended by someone who is fixated with
Anthropogenic Global Warming, I pass, with an apology.
I don't know who started this thread, but CO2 is
a trace gas, and methane and ethane concentrations
are so low even their greater ability to absorb and emit
is not a real issue at all.
There is a good chance that volcanic events or
asteroid events or just coincidence of maximum snow
and cloud cover will cause climate change more globally
than any GHG.
The evidence that would reduce my inquisitive
desire to question the GISS data may not come without
a change in leadership, and computer models are even
less dependable than a crystal ball.
After experiencing the weather in the 1930s,
the blizzards in 1950 and the heat waves of 1952
and 1953, and the winter of 1962-63, and the
record low here of 22 below in 1996, why would
I even bother to read the prediction of a degree
or so change in the next 30 or 40 years?
Now that I have responded to your concern of
Hawaiian weather all over the globe, please tell me
how an Earth with a nitrogen atmosphere and NO
GHGs or water could have that atmosphere be
cooler than the one we have.
I M @ good guy
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[response at bottom]
I am inclined to surmise that most of the radiation nuts
do not consider the first rule of em radiation, and it is why
LTE is so dominate.
Maybe you can elaborate on the inverse square rule
for all the AGW "scientists".
LTE is it except where easy escape to space exists.