3 simple questions about the Greenhouse effect
griffo...@yahoo.com.au
How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
come up with these percentages?
I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
by both water vapour and co2. Why cant scientists determine the % of
these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
the GHE, rather than just a range?
Again...Im told that the more co2 you add the less is the temperature
increasing effect of the last unit you add. There is a 'saturation'
effect in play. Temperature response to additional co2 isnt linear,
its logarithmic. This makes sense, especially when someone uses the
analogy of adding coloured dye to a clear glass of water; initially
when you add a little dye you get a large discolouration effect; the
more you add the less discolouration effect you get, until you get
virtually no effect whatsoever no matter how much dye you add. This
may seem like a silly question (but im not a scientist so im allowed
ask 'em), WHY should temperature response to co2 increase but
logarithmic and not linear?
griffo...@yahoo.com.au
"WHY should temperature response to co2 increase but
logarithmic and not linear?"
^^typo
Should say:
WHY should temperature response to co2 increase BE
logarithmic and not linear?
kT
Crickey!
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
raylopez99
In many models CO2 increase is in fact logarithmic, based on normal
statistics and based on power law formulas (which increase
logarithmically, if you change the axis).
BTW, the founder of the "CO2 increases air temperature" theory is a
certain Swedish scientist named Arrhenius, who also discovered the
formula for your example of dye diffusing through a glass of water--
and found that it is in fact proportional to the concentration of the
dye, and thus is in fact logarithmic ( e.g., Y(x) = k*X^n, where
n=concentration factor, k= a constant, so log(Y) = K + n*log(x),
simplifying.
PS--please flee this forum--it's only for flaming, not learning. Go
to Wikipedia to study GW or go to About.com. Unless you're here just
to flame, in which case, welcome to the club, as-whole.
RL
Philip H. Hart
> On Mar 23, 5:38 am, griffotipp...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 11:40 pm, griffotipp...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > "WHY should temperature response to co2 increase but
> > logarithmic and not linear?"
>
> > ^^typo
>
> > Should say:
>
> > WHY should temperature response to co2 increase BE
> > logarithmic and not linear?
Alas, your questions cannot be answered in terms that would be
comprehensible to you, unless you have completed some years of study
in the relevant sciences and are familiar with the hundred or so
concepts and a thousand or so jargon words that make up the present
study of climate science.
Like Ray has told you, just come here for the flame wars - or go and
study science at your nearest uni.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> I am told that co2 is 9 to 26% of the greenhouse effect (3 - 9 oC).
> How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> come up with these percentages?
Scientist didn't detemine it. Politicians stated it. It isn't base
on research or evidence. It's base on what they think people will be
dumb enough to believe without asking any questions. And they were,
for the most part, getting away with it until about a year ago when
myself, James, O'hara and others here in this NG started asking
questions.
> I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
> contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> by both water vapour and co2.
Good luck finding any kind of quantitative, evidence based,
verification of this supposition.
> Why cant scientists determine the % of
> these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
> the GHE, rather than just a range?
Preliminary efforts in this regard showed nothing dramatic.
Consequently the GW cultists abandoned this approach.
GW whackos fear nothing more than conceptual clarity.
Joe Fischer
>I am told that co2 is 9 to 26% of the greenhouse effect (3 - 9 oC).
>How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
>come up with these percentages?
Possibly only because the percentage of water vapor
varies so much, but I don't think you can directly convert
"effect" to temperature.
>I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
>contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
>by both water vapour and co2. Why cant scientists determine the % of
>these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
>thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
>the GHE, rather than just a range?
At a constant temperature and relative humidity
they probably can.
>Again...Im told that the more co2 you add the less is the temperature
>increasing effect of the last unit you add. There is a 'saturation'
>effect in play. Temperature response to additional co2 isnt linear,
>its logarithmic. This makes sense, especially when someone uses the
>analogy of adding coloured dye to a clear glass of water; initially
>when you add a little dye you get a large discolouration effect; the
>more you add the less discolouration effect you get, until you get
>virtually no effect whatsoever no matter how much dye you add. This
>may seem like a silly question (but im not a scientist so im allowed
>ask 'em), WHY should temperature response to co2 increase but
>logarithmic and not linear?
Temperature is determined not only by the
amount of heat, but also by the mass of the molecules,
heavier molecules move slower (but still many miles
per hour) than lighter molecules.
And the amount of heat that a certain chemical
molecule can hold depends on the specific heat, if
I am not mistaken, Einstein developed a formula
to predict the specific heat of chemical elements,
or at least some types.
And water vapor can act as either a cooling
medium by evaporation, or by shielding the sun if
clouds form (I think clouds are water droplets), and
a stronger warming medium if the clouds prevent
heat from being radiated to the black sky as it is
on a clear night (there is no dew or frost when the
sky is cloudy).
A clear understanding of the role of water
vapor still doesn't allow the role of water vapor to
be specified as a constant, the same way CO2
or CH4 can.
And the 9 percent is probably not CO2
alone, that is more like the total for all the trace
gases except water vapor (only O2 and N2
are not trace gases).
And this seems to be the reason the
role of water vapor is not made prominent,
it really is the dominant factor in 90 percent
of the atmosphere, and it is misinterpreted
for that reason and under estimated relative
to the CO2 effect.
Water vapor is not dominant above
about 60,000 feet, but 90 percent of the
atmospheric mass is below 60,000 feet.
I am very concerned when physical
properties are misinterpreted because it
can have disastrous effects, truth is very
important in science.
Joe Fischer
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> Good luck finding any kind of quantitative, evidence based,
> verification of this supposition.
Well you know it's hard to prove the impossible. You would think that
someone could at least provide a first order computer model showing
that warming is even possible from additional carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
Lloyd
> On Mar 23, 5:40 am, griffotipp...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > I am told that co2 is 9 to 26% of the greenhouse effect (3 - 9 oC).
> > How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> > come up with these percentages?
>
> Scientist didn't detemine it. Politicians stated it. It isn't base
> on research or evidence. It's base on what they think people will be
> dumb enough to believe without asking any questions. And they were,
> for the most part, getting away with it until about a year ago when
> myself, James, O'hara and others here in this NG started asking
> questions.
>
Uh, you and your ilk came here and posted lies. You didn't ask
questions. Like the lie in the first 2 sentences above.
> > I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
> > contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> > by both water vapour and co2.
>
> Good luck finding any kind of quantitative, evidence based,
> verification of this supposition.
>
> > Why cant scientists determine the % of
> > these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> > thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
> > the GHE, rather than just a range?
>
> Preliminary efforts in this regard showed nothing dramatic.
> Consequently the GW cultists abandoned this approach.
>
> GW whackos fear nothing more than conceptual clarity.
You fear losing your blood money.
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Roger Coppock
> How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> come up with these percentages?
>
> I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
> contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> by both water vapour and co2. Why cant scientists determine the % of
> these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
> the GHE, rather than just a range?
At a given location and time they can measure this quite well.
The problem comes from estimating this globally over a period
of many years.
>
> Again...Im told that the more co2 you add the less is the temperature
> increasing effect of the last unit you add. There is a 'saturation'
> effect in play. Temperature response to additional co2 isnt linear,
> its logarithmic. This makes sense, especially when someone uses the
> analogy of adding coloured dye to a clear glass of water; initially
> when you add a little dye you get a large discolouration effect; the
> more you add the less discolouration effect you get, until you get
> virtually no effect whatsoever no matter how much dye you add. This
> may seem like a silly question (but im not a scientist so im allowed
> ask 'em), WHY should temperature response to co2 increase but
> logarithmic and not linear?
It's call infrared "band saturation."
There is only so much energy the Earth radiates in
any given portion of the infrared spectrum. Once
that is absorbed and scattered, there is no more.
Unfortunately, band saturation isn't going to
save us from global warming. There is more than
enough energy available to do lots of damage.
griffo...@yahoo.com.au
>
> And the 9 percent is probably not CO2
> alone, that is more like the total for all the trace
> gases except water vapor (only O2 and N2
> are not trace gases).
>
>From the various text books and scientific sources i have consulted so
far they all give a range of 9-26% for co2 alone. They give about
15%-36% for all greenhouse gases, discounting water vapour and clouds.
Thats what im being told. They all seem to be rather consistent on
this point. I just want to get a clue how they are actually getting
these figures.
griffo...@yahoo.com.au
> On Mar 23, 5:40 am, griffotipp...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > I am told that co2 is 9 to 26% of the greenhouse effect (3 - 9 oC).
> > How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> > come up with these percentages?
>
> > I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
> > contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> > by both water vapour and co2. Why cant scientists determine the % of
> > these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> > thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
> > the GHE, rather than just a range?
>
> At a given location and time they can measure this quite well.
> The problem comes from estimating this globally over a period
> of many years.
Im looking at graphs like this one:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1393.jpg
The above is a pretty poor graph. I've seen better in text books.
These kinds of graphs describe the amount of IR radiation being
emitted by the surface (red line) and the amount escaping the system
higher in the atmosphere (blue). The difference between the two lines
is the greenhouse effect it would seem to me.
Now we apparently know what wavelengths the various gases in the
atmosphere absorb via laboratory experiments. We take that knowledge
and look at the various graphs like the above, which i think are
derived from satellite measurements (atleast the blue one is). We see
c02 absorbs from i think 12-18 microns (i think???) and this would
mean about 9-26% (3-9 oC) by looking at such graphs and doing a few
calculations. There is an overlap with water vapour at certain
wavelengths, hence the range of 9-26%.
This is how i believe they are working things out....errrr???
> > Again...Im told that the more co2 you add the less is the temperature
> > increasing effect of the last unit you add. There is a 'saturation'
> > effect in play. Temperature response to additional co2 isnt linear,
> > its logarithmic. This makes sense, especially when someone uses the
> > analogy of adding coloured dye to a clear glass of water; initially
> > when you add a little dye you get a large discolouration effect; the
> > more you add the less discolouration effect you get, until you get
> > virtually no effect whatsoever no matter how much dye you add. This
> > may seem like a silly question (but im not a scientist so im allowed
> > ask 'em), WHY should temperature response to co2 increase but
> > logarithmic and not linear?
>
> It's call infrared "band saturation."
> There is only so much energy the Earth radiates in
> any given portion of the infrared spectrum. Once
> that is absorbed and scattered, there is no more.
>
> Unfortunately, band saturation isn't going to
> save us from global warming. There is more than
> enough energy available to do lots of damage.
But there is a degree of saturation none-the-less. Assuming first
that temperature response to c02 increase is a linear thing. And
accepting that c02 comprises just 9% of the GHE, which is roughly 3
oC. If we then double atmospheric co2, we would get another 3 oC
just from doubling co2...without even counting feedbacks. But I think
the IPCC says something like 2.5 oC (mid range figure) warming for a
doubling of c02...and thats with feedbacks. For c02 doubling alone
they calculate something like 1.2 oC. So obviously there is saturation
somewhere or other.
I believe thats the standard line above. Im still not completely
certain how they are working all this stuff out. Itd be nice to
know....More reading i guess!!!!!!!
Joe Fischer
It must depend on what it is that percentage is for,
and how it is used in the model.
Greenhouse gas numbers are only for trying to
mimic the observed average temperatures with those
derived from a model, and if water vapor and clouds
are discounted, and local sea surface temperatures are
not considered, then the percentages are different than
if all things are considered.
The total thermal heat content of the top 3.5
meters of the ocean is more than the total heat content
of the entire atmosphere.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only
388 / 1000000 and where there is cloud cover, in the
daytime, it could be considered to be zero, but at night,
the cloud cover has a far greater potential for holding
heat in than all the greenhouse gases.
And when the Sea Surface Temperature is
looked at, the ocean becomes the biggest factor.
http://podaac-www.jpl.nasa.gov/sst/images/reynolds.gif
Control of local air temperatures are more important
than greenhouse gases, and it is water vapor and the
temperature of the ocean, and the plus or minus effect
of evaporation, precipitation and cloud cover according
to daylight or night that regulates the local air temperature
and modeling all of this complex regulating effect and the
big heat sink and source of the heat from the ocean is
not possible using only the greenhouse gas effects alone.
Rather than study greenhouse gas theory, search
google for air temperature control or air temperature
regulation.
Greenhouse gas theory is just a simple explanation
of the general reason the surface of the Earth does not
fluctuate or be colder than it would be without those gases,
which means only N2 and O2, and no water.
It is not even rational to try to model realistic climate
conditions on the basis of average surface temperature,
and that is the problem.
The greenhouse gas theory is a general reason
for a warmer planet, it is not a method of determining
the local temperatures, and an average temperature
is meaningless.
Rather than devoting all study time to greenhouse
gases, include reading articles like;
http://www.arm.gov/science/research/show.php?id=R00074
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>But there is a degree of saturation none-the-less. Assuming first
>that temperature response to c02 increase is a linear thing. And
>accepting that c02 comprises just 9% of the GHE, which is roughly 3
>oC. If we then double atmospheric co2, we would get another 3 oC
>just from doubling co2...without even counting feedbacks. But I think
>the IPCC says something like 2.5 oC (mid range figure) warming for a
>doubling of c02...and thats with feedbacks. For c02 doubling alone
>they calculate something like 1.2 oC. So obviously there is saturation
>somewhere or other.
>
>I believe thats the standard line above. Im still not completely
>certain how they are working all this stuff out. Itd be nice to
>know....More reading i guess!!!!!!!
In a nutshell, the leaders of the IPCC projects are
fixated on the greenhouse gas effect, which really is not
the reason for the temperature anyplace on Earth.
All greenhouse theory says is that the temperature
at 40 degrees North Latitude can NOT be below freezing
unless cold air from the arctic moves down across the
region.
That is it as far as greenhouse theory goes, nothing
more can be pinpointed.
It is sad when one person becomes fixated on some
shallow idea, but when a large political group tries to force
that fixation on the whole world and demands near impossible
tasks by everybody, possibly even denying them the means
to keep warm, it is not just sad, it is insane.
The attitude of the most vocal and abusive AGW pushers
here is evidence enough that they are not only perverted, but
also depraved.
Joe Fischer
Philip H. Hart
As ahaha...hanson... would say "thanks for all the laughs, Joe".
Especially this quote of a Joe Fischer post above:
"Temperature is determined not only by the amount of heat, but also by
the mass of the molecules, heavier molecules move slower (but still
many miles per hour) than lighter molecules."
That has to win the Stupidest Piece of Science Gobbledegook prize of
all time.
Roger Coppock
Then this belief of yours is currently generally accepted
scientific practice. Here's the web site of an organization
that you may find interesting:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program
http://www.arm.gov/
Joe Fischer
>>Joe Fischer
>
>As ahaha...hanson... would say "thanks for all the laughs, Joe".
And you are hanson?
>Especially this quote of a Joe Fischer post above:
>"Temperature is determined not only by the amount of heat, but also by
>the mass of the molecules, heavier molecules move slower (but still
>many miles per hour) than lighter molecules."
>
>That has to win the Stupidest Piece of Science Gobbledegook prize of
>all time.
Actually, it is the only plain word description of
molecular heat physics posted.
Joe Fischer
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Temperature is determined not only by the
> amount of heat, but also by the mass of the molecules,
> heavier molecules move slower (but still many miles
> per hour) than lighter molecules.
>
This is a misconception. A closer study of the 'kinetic theory of
gases', reveals that this is not true. The heavier molecules absorb
the same energy at a lower velocity. Therefore the perfect gas law is
possible.
(also see kinetic theory of gases in this text)
Any gas, except the few abnormal gases, obey the perfect gas law at
low pressure. At higher pressure, differences in radius affect mean
free path and deviations occur.
The pressure of a gas is due to the collective momentum of the
molecules against the side of a vessel. The number of collisions
multiplied by the velocity of the molecules determines pressure. The
number of collisions increases as a direct proportion to velocity.
Therefore pressure is velocity x number of collisions. Mean kinetic
energy increases as a square to velocity. Therefore the velocity
increases inverse to the square of the mean kinetic energy kT, which
is direct proportion to temperature. Inverse square of velocities, x
inverse square of number of collisions = 1. (square root x square root
= 1)
Therefore pressure increases also as a direct proportion to
temperature. This applies to all gases. A good example are the inert
gases which are molecules of only one atom. These weigh very much
differently. But are indistinguishable for temperature, and even heat
capacity. Heat capacity is the energy that must be absorbed from the
environment in order for the molecules to have the kinetic energy of
motion. The heavier molecules absorb the same energy as lighter
molecules at lower velocity.
The same if you pushed on a truck or a car with the same force. The
lighter car would move faster than the heavier truck. But their
kinetic energy would be the same and the force they would deliver as
they collided into a wall would be the same and in accordance with the
force that was delivered to incur their motion.
Deatherage
Joe Fischer
>On Mar 23, 11:59 am, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>> Temperature is determined not only by the
>> amount of heat, but also by the mass of the molecules,
>> heavier molecules move slower (but still many miles
>> per hour) than lighter molecules.
>
>This is a misconception. A closer study of the 'kinetic theory of
>gases', reveals that this is not true. The heavier molecules absorb
>the same energy at a lower velocity. Therefore the perfect gas law is
>possible.
Isn't that what I said, certainly it is the same energy,
it is just like billiard balls having different masses (weight),
if a heavy ball hits a lighter ball, the energy of each is
changed, resulting in each having the same "temperature"
after (enough) collisions.
A lighter molecule needs a higher velocity to exert
the same pressure on the sides of a container, a heavier
molecule has a lower velocity at the same temperature.
Hydrogen molecules move fastest of all at the
same temperature, but an advanced description of this
should be more precise as to the relative speeds.
Note that the speed of sound depends on this,
and once the gas/medium is specified, such as air,
then the speed of sound depends on temperature.
>http://books.google.com/books?id=EpxSzteNvMYC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&vq=heat+capacity&dq=Linus+Pauling&sig=IXeExwzS_DzN7sH-6kN3HQSqgEU
>
>(also see kinetic theory of gases in this text)
>
>Any gas, except the few abnormal gases, obey the perfect gas law at
>low pressure. At higher pressure, differences in radius affect mean
>free path and deviations occur.
>
>The pressure of a gas is due to the collective momentum of the
>molecules against the side of a vessel. The number of collisions
>multiplied by the velocity of the molecules determines pressure. The
>number of collisions increases as a direct proportion to velocity.
>Therefore pressure is velocity x number of collisions. Mean kinetic
>energy increases as a square to velocity. Therefore the velocity
>increases inverse to the square of the mean kinetic energy kT, which
>is direct proportion to temperature. Inverse square of velocities, x
>inverse square of number of collisions = 1. (square root x square root
>= 1)
Ok, I guess, it should be obvious that there needs
to be a specific relationship of energy to all the factors,
temperature, molecular mass, velocity, and maybe other
things, like specific heat of various chemical elements
and compositions.
>Therefore pressure increases also as a direct proportion to
>temperature. This applies to all gases. A good example are the inert
>gases which are molecules of only one atom. These weigh very much
>differently. But are indistinguishable for temperature, and even heat
>capacity. Heat capacity is the energy that must be absorbed from the
>environment in order for the molecules to have the kinetic energy of
>motion. The heavier molecules absorb the same energy as lighter
>molecules at lower velocity.
The heavier molecules have the lower velocity,
the lighter ones have the higher velocity, but chances are
momentum formulas are not used, kinetic energy formulas
are more likely used.
>The same if you pushed on a truck or a car with the same force. The
>lighter car would move faster than the heavier truck. But their
>kinetic energy would be the same and the force they would deliver as
>they collided into a wall would be the same and in accordance with the
>force that was delivered to incur their motion.
>Deatherage
I guess that's right, but in a head on collision,
the lighter vehicle can be accelerated backwards by
the heavy truck, so be careful about using the brick
wall analogy.
A gnat flying into the windshield of a big truck
suffers more than if he flies into a brick wall.
And the number of accidents, and severity of
injuries would be less if more people knew that the
stopping distance on dry pavement is a square
function of velocity, and is derived using the kinetic
energy formula.
Applying all this to the atmosphere helps in
understanding what has to happen if a molecule
absorbs energy, while all three energy transfer
processes are ready to proceed, radiation has to
hurry, else conduction (the collisions) will probably
transfer [the/part of] energy to other molecules.
Convection doesn't have priority until there
is time for buoyancy of a number of molecules to
occur. While radiation can be fast, it may not
all happen at once, and collisions happen often,
and it is not a simple matter to describe/anticipate
whether or not radiation wins out before conduction
occurs in collisions.
Joe Fischer
Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder
Hanging Exxon's Tillerman for Mass Murder
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/58a4d69ec69d19e5
Death-Rag said: Somtimes I talk neccessary analyses psuedo
evalutation
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/086634847d9203b3
Death-Rag said: resposibility SKEPTISM wern't grenhouse gases recieved
analyses intitial grenhouse gases.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/cb3146cdcedd19dd
Death-Rag said: awfull funny grenhouse sevaral quantiies per secind
grenhouse theory, appication mathmatics laboratoy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3840a64f8bf17935
Death-Rag said: apptitude parasitc validilty repitition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/aa4c1b9fc293bd82
Death-Rag said: continous specta oscilator oscilator intenstiy
intenstity continulally abiltity Moderen particuilate
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/15926ce35b797481
Death-Rag said: analyses horsehit analyses guilability criticise
disgard raditation Phobiacs transfering ofthe analyses conhesive
grenhouse 'grenhouse gases' analyse pervasivness 'grenhouse theory'.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5597a473e27cacb8
Death-Rag said: vapoer anlyses transfering dissapated recieving
equivelent inabliltty continully transfering recieved grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/4a38a6c8e3b292b3
Death-rag said: notalbly medieavel deliberatly discusion brillliant
hypothessis' electromagntic GRENHOUSE equipartion deleoped raditation
quanlification popstulate YOu analyses temperture occuring recieving
falsly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6abb9edf7934e28d
Death-Rag said: continully eluciadated arrises grenhouse fuctuations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/442155a915794499
Death-Rag said: fulctuation 'science communtiy' aggrees
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/663a6c3e99db32e7
Death-Rag said: Crankpot grenhouse Farenheit bouyant continous
equivelent radition transfering dissapated habital grenhouse grenhouse
gase empircal arguement acutal
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/04221b76dbe700f5
Death-Rag said: continous radition radites frauduent scientifc
analyses restricition My limited education in physics grenhouse
genertation continous mokecules grenhouse freqeucnies radition fouth
power equivelent recieving discription dissapates phyisicists.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2281f2fbe1a4ec80
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory religous fanatics analyses arguements
analyses discusion instead of insultive characterzations Alvagadros
number insultive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5673cdd6199a93b0
Death-Rag said: A true analyses grenhouse gases neccasary to adjuct
occuring culmulative.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0b561a597665319e
Death-Rag said: vegitation Grenhouse gase theory grenhouse gases,
grenhouse gases rule cocentrations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/953c4c4f50d37db0
Death-Rag said: transfering recieve dumbnest recieved grenhouse
dildo.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/db1dd2300c052d7d
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory transfering composium themelses
grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227b4dd47714bfe8
Death-Rag said: This is a vey serious matter, severly uneccasarilly
grenhouse theory. 'grenhouse' gases anlyses recieved fouth power
recieving recievese grenhouse establishement.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5f7cf0a57c32ba35
Death-Rag said: neccesities grenhouse gases intitial theory of
grenhouse gases
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/91115ba9958bbb82
Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition
recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary
recieved raditation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3b1987f4ba6567a6
Death-Rag said: The analyses evaportation, inductrialization occured.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/161b7a7d02ffb63c
Death-Rag said: inagurated succedded nobel favoratism committiess
benifited widespead modifing.
Philip H. Hart
And you are illiterate?
>
> >Especially this quote of a Joe Fischer post above:
> >"Temperature is determined not only by the amount of heat, but also by
> >the mass of the molecules, heavier molecules move slower (but still
> >many miles per hour) than lighter molecules."
>
> >That has to win the Stupidest Piece of Science Gobbledegook prize of
> >all time.
>
> Actually, it is the only plain word description of
> molecular heat physics posted.
Bwahahahahahahaha........................... molecular heat
physics......................Bwahahahahahaha...........plain word
description............Bwahahahahahaha.........................
Philip H. Hart
> On 24 Mar 2007 09:51:20 -0700, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >On Mar 23, 11:59 am, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
> >> Temperature is determined not only by the
> >> amount of heat, but also by the mass of the molecules,
> >> heavier molecules move slower (but still many miles
> >> per hour) than lighter molecules.
>
> >This is a misconception. A closer study of the 'kinetic theory of
> >gases', reveals that this is not true. The heavier molecules absorb
> >the same energy at a lower velocity. Therefore the perfect gas law is
> >possible.
>
> Isn't that what I said, certainly it is the same energy,
> it is just like billiard balls having different masses (weight),
> if a heavy ball hits a lighter ball, the energy of each is
> changed, resulting in each having the same "temperature"
> after (enough) collisions.
>
> A lighter molecule needs a higher velocity to exert
> the same pressure on the sides of a container, a heavier
> molecule has a lower velocity at the same temperature.
>
> Hydrogen molecules move fastest of all at the
> same temperature, but an advanced description of this
> should be more precise as to the relative speeds.
>
> Note that the speed of sound depends on this,
> and once the gas/medium is specified, such as air,
> then the speed of sound depends on temperature.
>
>
>
Wow, this discussion is worthy of Dirac, Bose, Fermi, Feynman,
Einstein - I don't think.
You two should collaborate on a book - university physics undergrads
will fall over themselves to buy copies. Lots of useful examples on
how to flunk freshman year and then get to sponge off your parents for
another 12 months while repeating.
Joe Fischer
>On Mar 24, 11:43 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2007 09:51:20 -0700, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >On Mar 23, 11:59 am, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>> >> Temperature is determined not only by the
>> >> amount of heat, but also by the mass of the molecules,
>> >> heavier molecules move slower (but still many miles
>> >> per hour) than lighter molecules.
>>
>> >This is a misconception. A closer study of the 'kinetic theory of
>> >gases', reveals that this is not true. The heavier molecules absorb
>> >the same energy at a lower velocity. Therefore the perfect gas law is
>> >possible.
>>
>> Isn't that what I said, certainly it is the same energy,
>> it is just like billiard balls having different masses (weight),
>> if a heavy ball hits a lighter ball, the energy of each is
>> changed, resulting in each having the same "temperature"
>> after (enough) collisions.
>
>Wow, this discussion is worthy of Dirac, Bose, Fermi, Feynman,
>Einstein - I don't think.
What do you think they talked about, magic radiation?
>You two should collaborate on a book - university physics undergrads
>will fall over themselves to buy copies. Lots of useful examples on
>how to flunk freshman year and then get to sponge off your parents for
>another 12 months while repeating.
It is in the books, maybe not in 3rd grade, try a
college library, grade school libraries are for adolescents.
Joe Fischer
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
Philip H. Hart
<Crackpot.Zombie.Hor...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> ...
Thanks. But I had already realised he was a crackpot. My interest both
in him and in kdeathrage was to test them to see if they understood
irony. Both failed, BTW.
fredf...@spamcop.net
> ...
> Heatcapacityis the energy that must be absorbed from the
> environment in order for the molecules to have the kinetic energy of
> motion.
Heat capacity is formally defined as the product of specific heat
and density.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
professed
GW whacko as he appears to fear clarity) wrote:
> On Mar 23, 5:40 am, griffotipp...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > I am told that co2 is 9 to 26% of the greenhouse effect (3 - 9 oC).
> > How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> > come up with these percentages?
>
> Scientist didn't detemine it. Politicians stated it. It isn't base
> on research or evidence. It's base on what they think people will be
> dumb enough to believe without asking any questions. And they were,
> for the most part, getting away with it until about a year ago when
> myself, James, O'hara and others here in this NG started asking
> questions.
It follows directly form infrared molecular spectroscopy, that
is the study of how molecules absorb and emit light in the infrared
region of the spectrum--coupled with the application of the law
of conservation of energy.
>
> > I am told that the reason for the 9 to 26% range for co2's
> > contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> > by both water vapour and co2.
>
> Good luck finding any kind of quantitative, evidence based,
> verification of this supposition.
Your luck will be greatly improved if you look for a textbook
on infrared molecular spectroscopy.
>
> > Why cant scientists determine the % of
> > these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> > thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
> > the GHE, rather than just a range?
>
> Preliminary efforts in this regard showed nothing dramatic.
> Consequently the GW cultists abandoned this approach.
There are two clear ways to approach the problem. One
is to determine how much greenhouse effect would remain
if only one greenhouse gas were removed. The other
is to determine how much greenhouse effect would
remain if all but one greenhouse gas were removed.
That gives you two different answers. Some people may
want to average them, so now you have three.
But water has a very high boiling point compared to other
greenhouse gases. Therefor its concentration in the
atmosphere is highly variable. Since there is a lot of
uncertainty as to how much water vapor is in the
atmosphere and how it is distributed geographically,
seasonally, and diurnally, it is very difficult to accurately
do the two different problems described in the previous
paragraph.
OK?
>
> GW whackos fear nothing more than conceptual clarity.
Don't be afraid.
--
FF
johns
scientists are not all that well informed about
the physics. The atmosphere is transparent
to visible light, and it is energy from visible light
that is absorbed by the ground .. heating it.
As the ground warms, it transmits heat-light
at infrared wavelengths, and the atmosphere
is not as transparent to those wavelengths,
so they absorb them as heat, and the ground
stays warm. That is exactly the same thing
that happens when winter sunlight warms
the inside of your car. The windshield is
transparent to visible light .. heating the
car seats .. which re-radiate that energy
in the IR, and glass is not transparent to
IR .. so the car heats up. THAT is how a
greenhouse works too. Now, the question
.... is Global Warming caused by visible
light coming through a super-transparent
atmosphere ? ... or is Global Warming
caused by pollutants in the air which absorb
IR from the sun, and it is the atmosphere
which is actually heating up. The latter is
kind of stupid, considering the planet rotates
and cools at night. The former could easily
be measured by thermometers in the ground.
Neither one makes much sense. So the
effect is probably much more dynamic ..
like increased evaporation of water from
the oceans ... and greatly increased
snowfall in the mountains ... heading us
for a mechanically induced ( man-made )
Ice Age. Global Warming should actually
make the ocean levels drop, even while the
polar ice is melting.
johns
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
> On Mar 23, 11:59 am, Joe Fischer <j...@BigScreenComputers.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Mar 2007 05:40:14 -0700, griffotipp...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > Temperature is determined not only by the
> > amount of heat, but also by the mass of the molecules,
> > heavier molecules move slower (but still many miles
> > per hour) than lighter molecules.
>
> This is a misconception. A closer study of the 'kinetic theory of
> gases', reveals that this is not true. The heavier molecules absorb
> the same energy at a lower velocity. Therefore the perfect gas law is
> possible.
>
You say nothing about how the heat is applied to generate the
pressure. Infrared energy is measured in joules, but some gases are
transparent to it, thus no heating, no kinetics, no pressure increase.
Other gases are opaque to IR, thus they absorb joules of energy,
convert it to kinetic energy, pass it to neighbors in the manner in
which you describe.
You must must include the form of energy which goes into heating the
gases in the real world. The real world is not some abstract
hypothetical theory.
A common blackbody IR radiation frequency is 10.7 microns, the
frequency built into satellite detectors to observe H2O vapor
concentrations shown as clouds.
A length of 10.7 microns is smaller than the dot on the end of this
sentence. If that length is spun every which way around it's center
the ends define a spheroid shape.
Using the Ideal Gas law we can compute the number of air molecules in
a sphere whose diameter is 10.7 microns. Using the accurately measured
amount of CO2 in the air of 381 parts per million we can compute the
fraction of air in a spheroid 10.7 microns in diameter which is CO2.
The computed answer is: 6,769,010 molecules of CO2.
We can perform the same computations for all the photon wavelengths of
blackbody radiation to determine the energy absorption potential of
air at different wavelengths of IR radiation.
Joules is an abstract term. Nobody has ever seen a joule in the
laboratory or in the real world. Photons are real items and nobody can
see anything without them -- our eyes are sensors for some wavelengths
of photons, and we have prothetic eyes to see wavelengths that our
natural eyes cannot see,
Photons are real. Joules are abstractions only meaningful when coupled
to real things. IR photons are real and are seen by satellites with
artificial eyes tuned to 10.7 microns. Nearly every photograph of the
top of a hurricane you have ever seen was taken with a 10.7 micron
sensor.
The gases take up energy in the only three ways allowed by the
universe: (1) Conduction, (2) Convection, and (3) Radiation.
It makes a difference which form of heating energy is applied, and it
makes a difference which form of heating any gas molecule can respond
to. All fluids (including gas or liquid) use convection to spread
heat, which is differences in pressure within the vessel. All would
use conduction, which is contact of gas molecules at the wall of the
container. Some energies, no matter how many joules would be totally
ineffective: microwaves, sound energy, TV waves.
TV radiation passes through the air without heating it. TV stations
broadcast at 100,000 watts, 360,000,000 joules, without heating the
air.
One must be aware that different chemistries are different because
they are not the same, and cannot be all lumped together as the same.
CO2 is a different chemistry from other parts of the air. It responds
to specific photons that other air chemistry molecules do not. It
converts energy, photons, joules (abstraction), into heat which is
real and measurable. It only selectively converts photons it has a
sensitivity for and not others.
As stated above, conduction is a primary heat transfer means for most
elements and compounds (good heat insulators, like asbestos, being
among the rarer exceptions). Some gases are chosen a preferred because
they have exceptional molecule-to-molecule heat transfer properties,
which is why the choice of gas for Solar Stirling Engines is not air,
and it is not most gases which are cheaply available -- but instead
Solar Stirling Engines uses hydrogen gas as the preferred heat
transfer working gas because of unique chemical properties not shared
by other gases. Rapid heat-up, rapid-cool-down, are required for Solar
Stirling Engines.
You are careless and reckless in your statements. After being
corrected in public you continue to promulgate falsified statements.
That demonstrates a deep dishonest intent on your part to deceive.
Joe Fischer
>....
>> GW whackos fear nothing more than conceptual clarity.
>
>Don't be afraid.
He worded that badly, he should have said,
"GW whackos fear conceptual clarity more than anything".
Joe Fischer
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
> fear conceptual clarity more than anything
>
> Joe Fischer
Don't be afraid.
davee
chemical reactions
and many other things to occur like Ozone to be manufactured from
Oxygen the energy provided for this reaction is from UVb rays. Energy
is transferred to chemical kinetic energy. Particles like carbon and
dust and smog and smoke and water vapour all help to reflect, absorb,
and convert from potential energy to kinetic energy. IR is not heat.
heat is a result of IR absorption. Nitrogen N the element is more
reactive than Oxygen O , Nitrogen gas N2 the bond is that strong that
only denitrifying bacteria can break it down so Nitrogen gas is inert
for all intents, so any reference to it as part of the atmosphere, its
filler 80 percent of it. STP standard temperature and pressure
293K at sea level at one atmosphere only works at sea level, one mole
of any gas is supposed to occupy the same equivalent volume as any
other gas (dont blame me those are the rules)
Carbon dioxide when made from combustion of any carbon
compounds ,Trees ,biofuels, fossil fuels, for every tonne of carbon
burnt a tonne of oxygen gas from the atmosphere is consumed, there is
also hydrogen in many of these compounds and for every tonne of
hydrogen half a tonne of oxygen from the atmosphere is consumed and
water vapour results also. these are exothermic reactions which add
heat to the system. All living things respire, convert carbon to
carbon dioxide. Trees and phyto plankton absorb red and blue light and
convert the carbon dioxide back to oxygen and carbon chains and water
vapour.
the water system from the Ice floes to the clouds is a huge heat pump
transferring
energy all around the planet.
that bit about the day night bit cooling and heating "sorry pal thats
been happening for
billions of years" and according to enthalphy should be getting more
chaotic and random.
The other source of warming is the gravity of planets the moon and the
sun interacting with earth pulling at it from all directions , this
turns Earth and many other planets and moons inside out. Analogy is
placing a thick frozen soup in a pot a slowly heating it till it boils
and then reducing the heat to a simmer.
Jet Planes flying high up in the atmosphere are our biggest and most
pressing danger
50 bucks on the ozone layer.
johns
That is right ... but here we go ..
conspiracy theory. They'll eat us up
for that.
johns
kT
> What I've read about GHE tells me that these
> scientists are not all that well informed about
> the physics.
Answer to all three question :
You are a crackpot.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
johns
the police will get you. Keep it up kid. The
laws of Internet harrassment are swinging
our way, and you are too stupid to realize
that shooting off your immature mouth is
creating a record of evidence. Keep it coming,
prick. Now, it is a felony in Australia.
johns
kT
> And answer to you. I will get your name and
> the police will get you.
Oooh, the internet police. I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of it.
> Keep it up kid. The
> laws of Internet harrassment are swinging
> our way, and you are too stupid to realize
> that shooting off your immature mouth is
> creating a record of evidence.
You said :
> Global Warming should actually
> make the ocean levels drop, even while the
> polar ice is melting.
I responded : You are a crackpot.
Breaking News : Extremely low tides in the Bahamas.
You're right, sea level is falling.
> Keep it coming,
You're the one with the crackpot reasoning. Bring it on.
> prick. Now, it is a felony in Australia.
Hey, you just harassed me back. You're busted.
I'm not in Australia, I'm in the Atlantic Ocean.
You are a crackpot and I mean that in the most generous manner.
I'm sorry you find reality so inconvenient. Will you accept an apology?
Bill Ward
> johns wrote:
>
>> And answer to you. I will get your name and the police will get you.
>
> Oooh, the internet police. I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of it.
>
>> Keep it up kid. The
>> laws of Internet harrassment are swinging our way, and you are too
>> stupid to realize that shooting off your immature mouth is creating a
>> record of evidence.
>
> You said :
>
>> Global Warming should actually
>> make the ocean levels drop, even while the polar ice is melting.
>
> I responded : You are a crackpot.
>
> Breaking News : Extremely low tides in the Bahamas.
>
> You're right, sea level is falling.
>
>> Keep it coming,
>
> You're the one with the crackpot reasoning. Bring it on.
>
>> prick. Now, it is a felony in Australia.
>
> Hey, you just harassed me back. You're busted.
>
> I'm not in Australia, I'm in the Atlantic Ocean.
Clearly not deep enough.
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
> Clearly not deep enough.
Crackpot Bill Ward in a Nuts hell, ignore.
alanm...@yahoo.com
> How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> come up with these percentages?
>
> contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> these wavelengthsco2absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> thereby come up with a more definite figure forco2'scontribution to
> the GHE, rather than just a range?
>
> increasing effect of the last unit you add. There is a 'saturation'
> effect in play. Temperature response to additionalco2isnt linear,
> analogy of adding coloured dye to a clear glass of water; initially
> when you add a little dye you get a large discolouration effect; the
> more you add the less discolouration effect you get, until you get
> virtually no effect whatsoever no matter how much dye you add. This
> may seem like a silly question (but im not a scientist so im allowed
> ask 'em), WHY should temperature response toco2increase butlogarithmicand not linear?
There would be some interference among CO2 molecules, so with the
interference, the increase would be expected to be sublinear. As to
why it doesn't fall off as
(x)^0.75 or some other obscure ratio, I figure the theoretical
argument went something like this:
1/ e = 0.367879... is the limit as x goes to infinity of ( 1- 1/
x)^x
(1/e)^n is the limit as x goes to infinity of (1 -
n/x)^x
Photons being reflected from Earth's surface will be intercepted by a
specific
CO2 molecule a certain fraction of the time, say n/x. With X CO2
molecules in the atmosphere, each having an equal chance of catching
the photon, the probability that the photon will escape into space
without being captured by a molecule is
( 1 - n/x)^x. With X quite large, and n/x quite small, that chance
of capture is just
1/(e^n).
Double the number of CO2 molecules, and the probabilty that the
photon escapes capture by each molecule is ( 1- n/x)^2x = (1- n/x)^x
squared.
Since (1- n/x )^x = 1/(e^n), (1-n/x)^x squared = (1/(e^2n) .
The log of (1/e^2n) is just half of the log of (1/e^n) . That's
where the logarithmic effect of CO2 comes from.
- A. McIntire
Futureman
news:1178840259.9...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
All of your arguments are bogus, based on the assumption (bogus) that
molecules at room temperature are virginal (bogus) and can absorb one
photon at a time (bogus), and must emit one if they receive another one
(bogus).
70 degrees Fahrenheit, 21 C, is 294 degrees K, chock full of so much
energy that oxygen has transitioned two phases from solid to liquid to
gas. So too have the other gases. Any material in the universe found in
the gasous state is chock full of lots of photons, more than you can
think about. They are in no-way virgins.
Satellites use the 10.7 micron frequency for IR photographs of weather,
so I use that 10.7 micron wavelength as an example. A length of 10.7
microns (smaller than the period at the end of this sentence) taken as
the diameter of a sphere would contain 6,769,010 molecules of CO2 if that
sphere was filled with air at normal temperatures and air pressure.
It is just as appropriate to talk of CO2 molecules per photon as it is to
say photons per CO2 molecule.
Trying to picture the quantum world using billiard balls models or wee
little solar systems is a fools errand that leads you to say stupid
things as we saw above.
It may be hard for you to comprehend the internal machinery of atoms, but
when a photon is absorbed it no longer exists as such. There is not one
atom in the universe above zero degrees Kelvin that doesn't contain the
energy quanta of many photons.
Infrared, like television, is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. TV
waves are not solar systems or billiard balls either. You can use metal
of certain kinds to screen or block TV waves, or you can use it to
conduct them through cables and distribute them to paying customes along
a route. You can even use the exact same cables simultaneously to route
internet communications in the opposite directions as the incoming TV
waves. Isn't that a miracle? Isn't that about 100 times beyond your
understanding of Electromagnetic Radiation?
Now try to get used to the fact that you know nothing of any importance
about anything of any importance, and nobody who is not almost as dumb as
you are cares to bother to try to explain your many mistakes to you.
Because you are a hostile anti-social homicidal killer willing to murder
the entire planet, really, even other killers don't find you very
attractive or worth explaining things to you. You might try working on
your people skills: once you can fake sincerity the rest is easy.
davee
Satelite TV,
FM/AM Radio,
Cellphones,
WiFi networks
GPS
yah dee yah dee Yah, baby!
Attenuation, permeability, permitivity, enthalphy, entropy,
relativity, Ow.
The Attenuation curve will change depending on component gases and
particles which all energy in the form. Density you are my density ,
Mc Fly.
Free Space. What is your definition of free space?
WE made numbers and number systems to match what we See. Schrodingers
Cat!
This spectrum ends for each of us from our present perspective, which
we nominate.
Who said our number system was the right one?
davee
the rule it be of variable length.
Not fixed!
Not Stepped!
OH!
Woe is me!
variable length dependant on variable space.
variable space means variable time.
whoops, violation!!!
what now?
what to do!
OH no!
Oh Know!
alanm...@yahoo.com
> > - A.McIntire
>
> All of your arguments are bogus,
Okay, I concede that I was speculating on how the logarithmic factor
was derived. Let's see your derivation.- A. McIntire
>
> 70 degrees Fahrenheit, 21 C, is 294 degrees K,
(cut)
What's that got to do with anything? I was speculating on where the
logarithmic factor came in- A. McIntire
> Satellites use the 10.7 micron frequency for IR photographs of weather,
> so I use that 10.7 micron wavelength as an example. A length of 10.7
> microns (smaller than the period at the end of this sentence) taken as
> the diameter of a sphere would contain 6,769,010 molecules of CO2 if that
> sphere was filled with air at normal temperatures and air pressure.
>
> It is just as appropriate to talk of CO2 molecules per photon as it is to
> say photons per CO2 molecule.
>
> Trying to picture the quantum world using billiard balls models or wee
> little solar systems is a fools errand that leads you to say stupid
> things as we saw above.
>
(cut)
Okay, present your argument on where the logarithmic factor comes
from-
A. McIntire
davee
davee
> all of nature displays a square law or log function.
E=mc2, e=1/2mv2, p=I2r, ans so on
alanm...@yahoo.com
> How do scientists determine this? What experiments do they perform to
> come up with these percentages?
>
> contribution to the GHE is because certain IR wavelengths are absorbed
> these wavelengths co2 absorbs, and the % water vapour absorbs, and
> thereby come up with a more definite figure for co2's contribution to
> the GHE, rather than just a range?
>
> increasing effect of the last unit you add. There is a 'saturation'
> itslogarithmic. This makes sense, especially when someone uses the
> analogy of adding coloured dye to a clear glass of water; initially
> when you add a little dye you get a large discolouration effect; the
> more you add the less discolouration effect you get, until you get
> virtually no effect whatsoever no matter how much dye you add. This
> may seem like a silly question (but im not a scientist so im allowed
There would be some interference among CO2 molecules, so with the
interference, the increase would be expected to be sublinear. As to
why it doesn't fall off as
(x)^0.75 or some other obscure ratio, I figure the theoretical
argument went something like this:
1/ e = 0.367879... is the limit as x goes to infinity of ( 1- 1/
x)^x
(1/e)^n is the limit as x goes to infinity of (1 -
n/x)^x
Photons being reflected from Earth's surface will be intercepted by a
specific layer of the atmosphere containing CO2 molecules a certain
fraction of the time, say n/x. With X layers of atmosphere, each
having an equal chance of catching the photon, the probability that
the photon will escape into space
without being captured by a molecule is
( 1 - n/x)^x. With X quite large, and n/x quite small, that chance
of capture is just
1/(e^n).
Double the number of CO2 molecules, and the probabilty that the
photon escapes capture by each molecule is ( 1- n/x)^2x = (1- n/x)^x
squared.
Since (1- n/x )^x = 1/(e^n), (1-n/x)^x squared = (1/(e^2n) .
The log of (1/e^2n) is just half of the log of (1/e^n) . That's
where the logarithmic effect of CO2 comes from.
- A. McIntire
davee
At some distance from your relative zero reference, infinity. Is this
infinity, the same from my zero reference?
And where is zero?
So our terrestrial boundary is the surface of our originating
destination, Earth. Where
gases meets either solids or liquid (namely solute water and salts)
the oceans and seas or solid land.
what effects of terrestrials such as mutual gravity from near end
gravity sources and counter balanced by far end gravity sources to
attenuation constants and distortion to measurement when quantised.
But argue away for the end is nigh!
Please Dr Hawking if Richard Bransen offers you two tickets outa here,
can I have the other one!
alanm...@yahoo.com
Okay, so you concede you are a complete ignoramus and have no idea
what I'm talking about- A. McIntrie
kdt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arizona/yuma/
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/texas/austin/
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ewx/html/cli/ausnorm.htm
These two cities are about the same latitude and elevation. They have
extremely great differences in water vapor content year round.
The spectroscopic evidence of the water vapor is here, but there is no
evidence whatsever of effect of bolstering temperature. Even in
nighttime temperature drop.
The basic grenhouse theory stipulates 100 - 200 Wm-2 of radiative
forcing from water vapor. No evidence of it here.
This is clear proof that it does not happen at the surface. So where
does this magical thing happen that all the followers of the doomsday
theory believe in so much??
If these great differences in water vapor cannot show the effect of
'grenhouse' gases on temperature, why should anyone believe that
change of 1/10000 of CO2 should be such terrible threat to the
temperature stability of the earth??
The scientists of climatology appear to have no interest in actual
scientific rendering of their postulate. Perhaps they will not like
the conclusions of those that do render them to science.
K Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an
air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney.
davee
> Okay, so you concede you are a complete ignoramus and have no idea
> what I'm talking about- A. McIntrie
Ditto because you bite eh owwwww!
kdt...@yahoo.com
These basic facts entirely disprove the concept that grenhouse gases
affect temperature of the earth. I know that that is not what many
enjoy to believe. Those with carreers in AGW are certainly not
interested in direct science. Those with monetary investement do not
care what the science shows, they wish to ram their fraud through
anyway.
There is no valid claim of 4Wm-2 returned to the surface from
grenhouse gases and this is direct proof. Therefore it is also
completely impossible that grenhouse gases have any capability to
cause warming of the oceans. Any indication of warming ocean
temperatures is proof of another and natural cause of temperature
fluctuations other than anthropogenic causes.
davee
No single component can be considered in isolation from any other.
and this has been admitted by the general science community for
example,
how does space dust and debris which falls continuously from space
affect readings of spectral components (filter like action ie opaque).
and when it finally lands the increasing density and weight of the
planet over millenia change earths gravity and its relationship with
the rest of the cosmos (enthalpy and entropy model).
Drill a hole in the ground anywhere on the planet and check out the
sedimentary layering for thickness and isotope content is it uniform?
There is no doubt in my mind that humans and especially jet stream
aircraft travel is the biggest culprit (since 1950) of our current
shifting weather patterns, but humans should not be considered in
isolation from nature.
Earths natural system I believe will maintain equilibrium no matter
what humankind does we may not however all survive this change.
kdt...@yahoo.com
Climate is temperature over long periods. What change are you talking
about? Fluctuations are natural. The mass of the earth, atmosphere and
ocean is very great. There is no science to support that humans are
affecting overal temperature at all.
But it is all just words and postualtion if you cannot quantify or
mathematically prove your idea. We could say that cow farts are going
to cause the earth to tilt over. But if you cannot mathematically
establish this, it is nonsense.
There is enough data and means to check this postulate of CO2 caused
warming. But the simple scientific approach is not taken with this
data or investigations. The initial assumptions and definition of
words is taken as foregone, and the logical points are built upon
these assumptions.
Although they have no direct science, these scaremongers claim to have
enough certainty of doom to insist upon complete control of the use of
energy. Any dissent is not very lightly tolerated within this psuedo-
science business of milking the taxpayer and demanding economic
control.
The AGW movement has succeeded because they always claim to be working
on something that may affect humanity greatly. Thus they scare
administrators into funding. They enjoy this and are not about to
admit to any science that sheds doubt upon their propounded beliefs of
the catastrophe from which they aim to save everybody and all the
funding this brings to find out if it is TRUE?
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an
air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney.
Whata Fool
wrote:
>how does space dust and debris which falls continuously from space
>affect readings of spectral components (filter like action ie opaque).
>and when it finally lands the increasing density and weight of the
>planet over millenia change earths gravity
Thats good thinking, but maybe the space dust falling
isn't space dust, maybe it is carbon falling from CO2 decomposing
in strong sunlight as ozone is created.