Water Vapor Is Not A Feedback
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
where the water vapor is?
Where the water vapor is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
Where the "heat" is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
*
This theory goes as follows and begins now.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and
then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and
belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
And oh... water vapor is not a feedback.
So can we please no longer speak of [it] as a feedback.
Roger Coppock
> And oh... water vapor is not a feedback.
> So can we please no longer speak of [it] as a feedback.
Oh, and . . .
War is peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
> where the water vapor is?
>
>
> Where the "heat" is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
>
> *
>
> This theory goes as follows and begins now.
> All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and
> then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and
> belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
>
> And oh... water vapor is not a feedback.
> So can we please no longer speak of [it] as a feedback.
Here's a link to one of the high priest of the superstition of global
warming, James E Hansen, and his insane science.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/26/14778
Our public tax money is paying for this. Nothing on this page is
scientifically derived. You would think they had some laboratory basis
for all these figures. All these numbers of radiative forcing are
derived theoretically by assuming that the Planck curve is absolutely
rigid and that if there is a dark region of the continous spectra of a
molecule, it will absorb a quantity of energy that would otherwise
pass freely through a completely transparent atmosphere. In reality
the atmosphere is opaque from 2um and these dark emission bands do not
affect temperature at all.In no laboratory experiment does any of
these molecules cause a higher temperature at all. This is only a
theoretical premise which they artificially depict as scientific data.
And you are right, water vapor is not a grenhouse gas. It has
absolutely no property to keep heat from escaping the atmosphere.
Although water vapor is an abnormal gas, it will not retard escaping
radiation and cause a higher final temperature. If any of these gases
could do that there would be many applications for this property.
Hey grenhouse nuts including dickhead J Hansen from NASA. Refer any
laboratory data that shows an actual retention of heat by a grenhouse
gas that causes a higher temperature. If you cannot you have
absolutely no sciencel. Your hoax experiment in the glass only shows
the favorablity of transfering some frequencies by the glass. This
shows no property of the gas to cause a higher temperature as full
investigation reveals.
Deatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
Eric Swanson
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
>where the water vapor is?
>
>Where the water vapor is:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
That's a 1 day "snapshot" of water vapor.
>Where the "heat" is:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
That's an anomaly of the 10 year average temperature (1995-2004) relative to
a base period of 1940-80. The comparison of these two figures has no meaning.
>And oh... water vapor is not a feedback.
>So can we please no longer speak of [it] as a feedback.
Another dumb Repuglican troll proves it doesn't have a clue about science.
I suppose that's to be expected from one hurt beyond repair.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Coppock
> Here's a link to one of the high priest of the superstition of global
> warming, James E Hansen, and his insane science.
> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/26/14778
This article from October 2001 underestimates global warming.
In its conclusion, it says:
"Current trends and projections of climate forcings
lead us to predict global warming for several decades
at a rate 0.15 ± 0.05°C per decade."
According to Hansen's own global land and sea mean
surface temperatures, the current, to year 2006,
observed rate is .26K per decade, and that rate is rising.
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2006.jpg
(Am I the only one who's noticed that the most alarmist
predictions of global warming in the last decade tend to
be underestimates?)
kdt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In article <1170293133.885724.199...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
> >where the water vapor is?
>
> >Where the water vapor is:
>
> That's a 1 day "snapshot" of water vapor.
>
> >Where the "heat" is:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
>
> That's an anomaly of the 10 year average temperature (1995-2004) relative to
> a base period of 1940-80. The comparison of these two figures has no meaning.
>
> >And oh... water vapor is not a feedback.
> >So can we please no longer speak of [it] as a feedback.
>
> Another dumb Repuglican troll proves it doesn't have a clue about science.
> I suppose that's to be expected from one hurt beyond repair.
Why don't you refer the laboratory data in which any of the so called
grenhouse gases or any combination thereof can cause any higher final
temperature whatsoever. The reason that you cannot in any way refer to
any direct data that these gases have the ability to cause higher
temperatures is because they do not.
It is just a figment of your imagination.
It is just a belief you enjoy that there are grenhouse gases.
You have no interest in science or physics or the truth in nature.
You enjoy too much the superstition of AGW to be interested in
science.
This blank space is left here intentionally for your reference to
laboratory analyses which shows your concept of grenhouse gases to be
valid. If you leave it blank, it is the reference to the laboratory
data which proves this concept to be a complete hoax.
your laboratory data here:
____________________________________________
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> absolutely no sciencel. Your hoax experiment in the glass only shows
> the favorablity of transfering some frequencies by the glass. This
> shows no property of the gas to cause a higher temperature as full
> investigation reveals.
I'm not sure if I totally agree with everything you've stated, but
that high school like experiment that shows carbon dioxide warming in
a bottle is highly flawed. Besides being overly simplistic in respect
to such things as convection, among other things, a glass enclosure is
not the vacuum of space. Even if it did totally pass infrared
radiation it is not immune to heat absorption by conduction.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> absolutely no sciencel. Your hoax experiment in the glass only shows
> the favorablity of transfering some frequencies by the glass. This
> shows no property of the gas to cause a higher temperature as full
> investigation reveals.
I'm not sure if I totally agree with everything you've stated, but
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> >If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
> >where the water vapor is?
>
> >Where the water vapor is:
>
> That's a 1 day "snapshot" of water vapor.
Well here then, indulge yourself to any other day or month you want.
http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/myd08m_menu.html
> >Where the "heat" is:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
>
> That's an anomaly of the 10 year average temperature (1995-2004) relative to
> a base period of 1940-80. The comparison of these two figures has no meaning.
The comparison of these figures would have a great deal of meaning
even if they were remotely accurate. They prove that water vapor is
not merely a feedback.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>> >If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
>> >where the water vapor is?
>>
>> >Where the water vapor is:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005....
>>
>> That's a 1 day "snapshot" of water vapor.
>
>
>Well here then, indulge yourself to any other day or month you want.
>
>http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/myd08m_menu.html
Well, these images don'toffer even a yearly average, now do they?
Let alone an anomaly computation.
>> >Where the "heat" is:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
>>
>> That's an anomaly of the 10 year average temperature (1995-2004) relative to
>> a base period of 1940-80. The comparison of these two figures has no meaning.
>
>The comparison of these figures would have a great deal of meaning
>even if they were remotely accurate. They prove that water vapor is
>not merely a feedback.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges, as the saying goes.
You have "proved" nothing, as you have offered no realistic comparison.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> You are trying to compare apples and oranges, as the saying goes.
> You have "proved" nothing, as you have offered no realistic comparison.
Tell me Eric; do eat a lot of TV dinners?
Let's see, the water vapor is primarily in the tropics; no surprise
there. The (very modest) warming is occurring in the higher
latitudes, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, and where there is
less water vapor in the air. Carbon dioxide, a non-condensing gas
under these conditions, is assumed to be well mixed. Looks like a
pretty short proof to me.
Eric Swanson
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>> You are trying to compare apples and oranges, as the saying goes.
>> You have "proved" nothing, as you have offered no realistic comparison.
>
>Tell me Eric; do eat a lot of TV dinners?
What does tht have to do with the price of corn in Mexico?
>Let's see, the water vapor is primarily in the tropics; no surprise
>there. The (very modest) warming is occurring in the higher
>latitudes, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, and where there is
>less water vapor in the air. Carbon dioxide, a non-condensing gas
>under these conditions, is assumed to be well mixed. Looks like a
>pretty short proof to me.
Looks like a clear example of unscientific thinking. If you were to
compare the average temperature with the average water vapor content of
the atmosphere, you might be able to show some relationship, but you didn't
even get that far.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> What does tht have to do with the price of corn in Mexico?
Yeah, what's up (or not down) with those Mexican corn prices.
> compare the average temperature with the average water vapor content of
> the atmosphere, you might be able to show some relationship, but you didn't
> even get that far.
I'm not trying to show "some" relationship. I said that it shows that
water vapor is not merely a feedback (warming implied) to carbon
dioxide warming.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You need to let that cute little QM idea go of waves and specific
energy levels dictating everything. If you study QM very much you
learn that there are not enough particles in the universe to have the
neccassary encoding potential to encode all the information that QM
attributes to be encoded in all the special energy levels in an atom.
QM tries to distinguish IR waves. The concept of waves actually has no
real meaning to the discreet particle of a photon like Einstein
pointed out in the only paper for which he won a nobel prize,,'the
light quantum hyposthesis' (1905)
Infrared radiation is identical to visible radiation only with less
energy and less mass in the photons. The energy that is composed into
a photon is determined only by the energy the oscillator has absorbed
in that split second from last emission and is therefore only a
probability for which energy the oscillator will be in at the time of
emission. There is too much made of the specific intervals of visible
light. This only occurs with rarified gases, and at energies near the
ionization potential. ALL GASES UNDER PRESSURE EMIT EXACTLY THE SAME
frequencies of light through the UV, visible, and infrared in the
continous spectra which has all frequencies of hv. Infrared radiation
in continous spectra. All molecules have bands of higher and lower
emission which do not affect their heat characteristics.
Well show me the laboratory analysis that supports the idea of
grenhouse gases. Fill a box up with grenhouse gases only, water, vapor
methane and CO2 and show me any difference in temperature. This can be
done at temperatures up to 120F although most of the atmosphere is
much cooler. The radiation of the earth is centered at 9.6um. The
distribution of the frequencies around this maximum does not affect
the quantity of energy that is transfered
Final temperature that is reached would indicate a property of any of
these gases, or any combination of these gases to inordinately absorb
infrared frequencies. Fill up a gymnasium. If the little experiment in
the glass shows radiative forcing, it could surely be demonstrated in
larger volume area much better. The time to reach final temperature is
affected by heat capacity. Heat capacity in no way affects final
temperature.
The initial theorem of heat and light energy developed by Kirchov,
from which the work of Bolzman,Stefan,Wien and Planck developed the
radiation law states that ' the emmisivity of a substance is not a
product of the substance, but of the energy of the radiation field."
Otherwise substances would not reach the same temperature in an oven.
Just look at how stupid this is. That experiment of CO2 in the glass
was first published in 1860. Now it has undoubtly become the very most
scientific experiment of our time, since it is supposed to be telling
us to strangle ourselves from the production of CO2 before we die from
global warming. And it is not even a scientific investigation. If
neutral materials of enclosure can be found, it proves there is no
innate property of CO2 to retain heat.
This idea of grenhouse gases was maybe some cult somewhere and
rejected by the valid scientists and chemists until it was determined
by space probes that Venus was hoter than it should be in the 1960's.
And then the fictional writing of physics to support this end
conclusion began in earnest. It is more probable that the high
temperatures of venus are from the contradictory effect of the earth
and sun on it's spin.
Why was it not a central part of the German schools of physics that
developed any real physics concerning heat and radiation?? Did Planck
just over look this??
If this idea were true, and that these gases absorb so much
differently, there would be striking contrast in the temperatures
reached by the atmospheric gases O2 and N2 and various concentrations
of these gases. IT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE LABORATORY. IT IS
ENTIRELY A THEORETICAL CONCLUSION THAT GRENHOUSE GASES CAN RETAIN HEAT
AND CAUSE HIGHER TEMPERATURE.
Perhaps there are reactions in these gases to specific narrow bands of
frequencies and in close conditions, but in no way in a general
radiation of heat energy as the earth does and in the pressure
conditions of the atmosphere do these gases retain heat any
differently than O2 and N2. In the conditions of the atmosphere,in
which pressure remains the same and the gases can expand, O2 , N2 and
CO2 have almost the same heat capacity. There is only assumption of
the effect of the low emission bands in gas molecules. The truth is
that at low pressure all gases are the same. At high pressure,
diameter of the molecules affects the gases. There are a few abnormal
gases. These are abnormal because of specific reactions between the
molecules.
CO2 is a normal gas that has critical temperature below normal
atmospheric temperatures like O2 and N2 and therefore is a common gas
like they are. It is a symmetrical molecule like O2 and N2 and
therefore very much the same compared to asymetrical gas molecules.
The energy inducted into a gas can be measured.
The temperature of the gas can be measured.
The amount of energy absorbed affects the pressure or volume.
Show me some laboratory data that shows grenhouse gases can retain
energy and cause higher temperature.
Why do you even believe this perversion of any known valid chemistry
just because they say so and you have no empirical data whatsoever for
this conclusion???
In the meantime you can measure the energy from the sun recieved at
the surface and calculate and measure the temperatures at the surface
and lower atmosphere and prove that grenhouse gases are not in anyway
increasing average temperatures according to received radiation.
Their calculation of 255K and 33C effect of grenhouse gases is so
bogus that it may get an award for pinnacle of human stupidity.
Science Fraud Buster
> where the water vapor is?
>
The heat is greatest on the equator for the simple reason that light
penetrates perpendicularly through the least atmosphere there.
The Equatorial heat evaporates water moisture as any dimwit knows.
The equatorial heat is transferred globally and increases cold places
to slightly less cold, as any dimwit would expect.
The temperature ANOMALY is an ANOMALY of half a degree, hardly enough
to evaporate a lot of water way up north, and especially hard to
evaporate water where the land is and water is not, as any dimwit
would could figure out without embarrassing himself in public.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> The heat is greatest on the equator for the simple reason that light
> penetrates perpendicularly through the least atmosphere there.
Yes, the average insolation of the Sun's radiation is greatest at the
equator. This is related to why carbon dioxide emissions might be of
concern.
> The Equatorial heat evaporates water moisture as any dimwit knows.
More specifically? Conductive, convective, and/or radiation heat
produces water vapor. Yes, yes, go on.
> The equatorial heat is transferred globally and increases cold places
> to slightly less cold, as any dimwit would expect.
Equatorial heat? What about all that global warming heat? You know
the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide which traps all that
reradiated infrared radiation that would normally have escaped into
space but now because of some kind of feedback might cause global
catastrophe. So what you're saying is that water vapor really is the
primary greenhouse gas that is heating the globe. Wow, that's kind of
like what I was saying too.
> The temperature ANOMALY is an ANOMALY of half a degree, hardly enough
> to evaporate a lot of water way up north, and especially hard to
Great! So global warming isn't a problem after all.
Eric Swanson
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
No, you wrote:
"The comparison of these figures would have a great deal of meaning
even if they were remotely accurate. They prove that water vapor is
not merely a feedback."
The two figures are not a proof of any such claim.
Next, you will probably want to prove that 1 + 1 = 10...
VistaKing
> If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
> where the water vapor is?
It is.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Water_Vapor_Mean.2005.030.jpg
You have to have a source of evaporation for there to be evaporation.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Where the "heat" is:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg
Wrong discription. Your map doesn't who where the heat is, but shows where
the heat rise is.
Different thing completely.
If you can't even get that right, then it's as if you are venturing an
opinon on Calculus whithout knowing even how to add.
VistaKing
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Let's see, the water vapor is primarily in the tropics; no surprise
> there. The (very modest) warming is occurring in the higher
> latitudes, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, and where there is
> less water vapor in the air. Carbon dioxide, a non-condensing gas
> under these conditions, is assumed to be well mixed. Looks like a
> pretty short proof to me.
Only a proof of your ignorance.
The temperature variance map you present tells you nothing about the
absolute temperatre at any point, and that is what drives evaporation, not
the difference between todays temp and the long term average.
Stupid... Stupid... AmeriKKKan.
VistaKing
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I'm not trying to show "some" relationship. I said that it shows that
> water vapor is not merely a feedback (warming implied) to carbon
> dioxide warming.
Sorry, you can't conclude any such thing since you are trying to compare
total water vapour to a change in temperature rather than the absolute
temperature.
Stupid... Stupid... AmeriKKKan...
VistaKing
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I'm not sure if I totally agree with everything you've stated, but
> that high school like experiment that shows carbon dioxide warming in
> a bottle is highly flawed.
Ah because of your foolish comparison of total water vapour content to
change in temperature?
You might as well try to compare the total gasoline content of your car with
your instantaneous speed and then spout a similar conclusion. "Speed
doesn't change the amount of gas in my tank".
You are certainly a candidate for the most scientifically illiterate
AmeriKKKan yet. Almost on a par with the ones who claim that right now the
earth is in it's winter season.
Ahahahahahahahahha
AmeriKKKan morons...
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> The two figures are not a proof of any such claim.
> Next, you will probably want to prove that 1 + 1 = 10...
But 1 + 1 does equal 10. Just as 11 + 1 = 100. In base two of
course.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/topics?hl=en
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> Sorry, you can't conclude any such thing since you are trying to compare
> total water vapour to a change in temperature rather than the absolute
> temperature.
No I'm not; and which linear scale you use is irrelevant.
> Stupid... Stupid... AmeriKKKan...
Oh, you're an American. Which kind, North, Central, or South?
Eric Swanson
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>> The two figures are not a proof of any such claim.
>> Next, you will probably want to prove that 1 + 1 = 10...
>
>But 1 + 1 does equal 10. Just as 11 + 1 = 100. In base two of course.
Darned, it got the trick question.
Perhaps the troll will try to understand the math errors it has made.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> The temperature variance map you present tells you nothing about the
> absolute temperatre at any point, and that is what drives evaporation, not
Is that anything like Absolute Vodka? Sorry, you're talking
gibberish. Try these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_vaporization
> the difference between todays temp and the long term average.
Does this have anything to do with wind chill? Deviation from average
high or low?
http://www.weather.com/maps/news/forecastsummary/uscurrentwindchill_large.html?from=wxcenter_maps
VistaKing
> > Sorry, you can't conclude any such thing since you are trying to compare
> > total water vapour to a change in temperature rather than the absolute
> > temperature.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> No I'm not; and which linear scale you use is irrelevant.
Good Christ you are fucking stupid.
Taking a difference changes the offset of the value, not the scale of the
measurement.
Ahahahahah... It is absolutely amazing that anyone would have to explain
this to you but the rate of evaporation of ocean water is a nice positive
function of absolute temperature. The rate of evaporation is not
proportional to the temperature difference between this year and last yaear,
or this year and the average for last year.
Water molecules, my little Shit for Brains AmeriKKKan, don't know what
year it is, or have a memory of what last years evaporation was like.
Ahahahahahahah Stupid Dumb fucking AmreiKKKans.
VistaKing
> > The temperature variance map you present tells you nothing about the
> > absolute temperatre at any point, and that is what drives evaporation,
not
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Is that anything like Absolute Vodka? Sorry, you're talking
> gibberish. Try these.
Look Dung Eater, if you don't know what absoute temperature is, you,
ahahahahahahah are in no way qualified to even lick the feet of of a trained
scientist.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Does this have anything to do with wind chill? Deviation from average
> high or low?
Ahahahahahahahahahaha....... Stupid Dumfuck AmeriKKKan.
VistaKing
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I'm not sure if I totally agree with everything you've stated,
Who the fuck cares. You have proven yourself to be dumber than dirt.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Even if it did totally pass infrared
> radiation it is not immune to heat absorption by conduction.
Contuction from what? The lamp that's a foot away? Ahahahahahahahah....
They aren't in physical contact, hence there can be no conduction.
Aahahahahahahahahahah... Stupid, Shit Licking AmeriKKKans.
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> Taking a difference changes the offset of the value, not the scale of the
> measurement.
Oh, ok, if you say so. Look here; this has pretty pictures.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/temperature_scale.html
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> > > The temperature variance map you present tells you nothing about the
> > > absolute temperatre at any point, and that is what drives evaporation,
>
> not
Um... you're critiquing yourself.
> Ahahahahahahahahahaha....... Stupid Dumfuck AmeriKKKan.
Yes, yes, you already mentioned you're an American.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> In article <1170432974.140121.174...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >> The two figures are not a proof of any such claim.
> >> Next, you will probably want to prove that 1 + 1 = 10...
>
> >But 1 + 1 does equal 10. Just as 11 + 1 = 100. In base two of course.
>
l> Perhaps the troll will try to understand the math errors it has
made.
l>
l> --
l> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
l> --------------------------------------------------------------
That's an awfull funny statement when you consider.
You assholes begin with the average of 235 Wm-2 and then say grenhouse
gases boost this 33C. Your initial average of energies would stipulate
an average of temperatures at least sevaral degrees cooler. Then in
order to boost the temperature average 33C you would need energies to
support temperatures above this range to get the average boost. Since
energy is proportional as a fourth power to temperature, you assholes
are completely far off anything remotely similar to reality by this
point. That asshole J Hansen at NASA and you other bone cold stupid
idiots sit around adding and subtracting Wm-2 as simple quantiies that
are directly proportional to your temperature. Wm-2 is a rate of
energy transfer, or the quantity of energy in Joules per secind that
passes through the plane of 1 sq cm, in which the radiation passes
through this plane at the velocity of light. Your simplistic and
childish system of averages, simplifies this rate of energy transfer
to a simple quantity by according it directly to surface area.
This is so simple and stupid, that I can't believe. I was lucky enough
to have been taught and seen these calculations done correctly by a
proper astrophysicist. Believe me, this calculation requires much
higher math and applications than this.
You idiots take, total solar constant, 1370,,divide by 4 for surface
area to radiative area,,,,= 342 subtract .31 for reflected light
from clouds, ice and normal reflection to 235Wm-2, which registers a
temperature of -19C, 254K, or -2F,,and you are done. You claim to have
performed the application of mathematics and physics and to have
calculated the mean temperature of the earth,
SIMPLISTIC LYING FRAUDULENT IDIOTS.
And then you start adding up completely theoretical little chunks of
Wm-2 in your freaky little grenhouse theory, with no valid appication
of mathmatics or physics, or direct laboratoy data for a damn thing
you add up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
hahacrackpotshahahahahahacrackpotshahahahahacrackpotshahahahahahhaahcrackpotshahahahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones
> ... assholes
> ... assholes
> .... That asshole
> SIMPLISTIC LYING FRAUDULENT IDIOTS.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
hahacrackpotshahahahahahacrackpotshahahahahacrackpotshahahahahahhaahcrackpotshahahahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
> Deatherage
Based on three assumptions, the Carbon Energy Economy is over in 41
years:
(1) Today 1700 MW PV
(2) Doubling installed reduces the price 19%
(3) Growth rate 25%/yr - 3 yrs to double
The date that the entire consumption of electricity from PV occurs can
be projected to exact month in the future.
Download spreadsheet
http://www.hydrogenfreedom.info/scenario_1.xls
Text Version
http://www.hydrogenfreedom.info/scenario_1.html
Thirty-two years and six months, July 2039, 1,851,556,663 kW PV, cost
will then be $1.01/watt
A double capacity is figured, which is accomplished in thirty-five
years, and the cost will be 85 cents per watt.
Hydrogen Economy fourfold increase in PV, accomplished in 41 years, in
2048, cost of PV 60 cents per watt installed.
Three years later the production will have increased to double all the
energy of every form currently used, costs will be 50 cents.
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.global-warming, sci.environment,
alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.bush,
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
> On Jan 31, 7:25 pm, hurt_beyond_rep...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > If water vapor is a feedback, wouldn't that feedback be the greatest
> > where the water vapor is?
>
>
>
> > This theory goes as follows and begins now.
> > All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and
> > then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and
> > belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
>
> > And oh... water vapor is not a feedback.
> > So can we please no longer speak of [it] as a feedback.
>
> Here's a link to one of the high priest of the superstition of global
> warming, James E Hansen, and his insane science.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/26/14778
>
> Our public tax money is paying for this. Nothing on this page is
> scientifically derived. You would think they had some laboratory basis
> for all these figures. All these numbers of radiative forcing are
> derived theoretically by assuming that the Planck curve is absolutely
> rigid and that if there is a dark region of the continous spectra of a
> molecule, it will absorb a quantity of energy that would otherwise
> pass freely through a completely transparent atmosphere. In reality
> the atmosphere is opaque from 2um and these dark emission bands do not
> affect temperature at all.In no laboratory experiment does any of
> these molecules cause a higher temperature at all. This is only a
> theoretical premise which they artificially depict as scientific data.
>
> And you are right, water vapor is not a grenhouse gas. It has
> absolutely no property to keep heat from escaping the atmosphere.
> Although water vapor is an abnormal gas, it will not retard escaping
> radiation and cause a higher final temperature. If any of these gases
> could do that there would be many applications for this property.
>
> Hey grenhouse nuts including dickhead J Hansen from NASA. Refer any
> laboratory data that shows an actual retention of heat by a grenhouse
> gas that causes a higher temperature. If you cannot you have
> absolutely no sciencel. Your hoax experiment in the glass only shows
> the favorablity of transfering some frequencies by the glass. This
> shows no property of the gas to cause a higher temperature as full
> investigation reveals.
>
Because you are unable to simple physics, even though many people have
tried to explain physics in the simplest terms and provided you with
simple experiments to try yourself you persist in believing that
"The contents of this web site prove that quantum theory is invalid
with a study that can be recreated very simply and inexpensively. An
analyses of quantum theory itself shows that it does not obey the
basic principles of a science or common sense. It's initial
theoretical premise, (from Heisenberg), is that it's theoretical
models need not conform to known physical principles. Therefore, the
main branch of quantum theory, which is particle theory, is the most
expensive fraud ever committed. It's contribution to science is only a
bunch of unexplained streaks in photographic plates, and pseudo-
mathematical scribbles that have no relevance to physics. "
Of course if your correct that means that digital cameras with CCD or
CMOS sensors don't work, Neon lights don't work and the FCC requires
that all but "Clear Channel" radio stations shutdown due to a change
in the ionosphere is just a left-wing conspiracy. An of course you're
the only person who has figured out what everybody else in science
cannot see because they are involved in the same elaborate fraud.
Reality check time!
rpa...@eas.slu.edu
Here we go again. Try a google search for global energy balance. the
first one I found was
earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/energybalance/index.html
another
www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i.html
and other
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/paleo/Lectures/Lecture_2.pdf
The real problem is that all of these descriptions of the global
energy assume you believe that physics as described in any text book
you choose is consistent and correct. Since you say it isn't then
anything on these websites is wrong and your correct.
VistaKing
the
> > measurement.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Oh, ok, if you say so. Look here; this has pretty pictures.
>
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/temperature_scale.html
And you think pictures of thermometers are supportive of your childishly
ignorant assertion how exactly?
Fucking illiterate AmeriKKKans.
VistaKing
> > > > The temperature variance map you present tells you nothing about
the
> > > > absolute temperatre at any point, and that is what drives
evaporation,
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Um... you're critiquing yourself.
Quite impossible since I am not responding to my own posts. I'm
responding to your childish stupidity.
> > Ahahahahahahahahahaha....... Stupid Dumfuck AmeriKKKan.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Yes, yes, you already mentioned you're an American.
Wrong again FuckTard...
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
>
> Quite impossible since I am not responding to my own posts.
You can edit all you want, but the record shows you made fun of your
own statement. That's embarrassing.
> I'm responding to your childish stupidity.
Perhaps if I inject a "FuckTard" now and then I'll sound more
sophisticated.
VistaKing
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> You can edit all you want, but the record shows you made fun of your
> own statement. That's embarrassing.
Wrong again FuckTard. It was your lack of response in this instance that
was being laughed at.
<hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Perhaps if I inject a "FuckTard" now and then I'll sound more
> sophisticated.
It certainly would elevate your apparent intellect from absolute zero.
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
> That's an awfull funny statement when you consider.
>
> You assholes begin with the average of 235 Wm-2 and then say grenhouse
> an average of temperatures at least sevaral degrees cooler. Then in
> idiots sit around adding and subtracting Wm-2 as simple quantiies that
> energy transfer, or the quantity of energy in Joules per secind that
> Wm-2 in your freaky little grenhouse theory, with no valid appication
> of mathmatics or physics, or direct laboratoy data for a damn thing
> you add up.
hahacrackpotshahahahahahacrackpotshahahahahacrackpotshahahahahahhaahcrackpotshahahahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: awfull funny grenhouse sevaral quantiies per secind
grenhouse theory, appication mathmatics laboratoy
hahacrackpotshahahahahahacrackpotshaha