Science > Physics > ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2007 05:53:58 PM |
| Object: |
' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
Prince Phil, some british ***** that directly claims to be a
scientist and propounds the rhetoric of AGW, is clearly invalid in all
of his theoretical science. At this point this can only be considered
deliberate fraud.
Absolutely intrinsic and fundamental to the current theory of AGW, is
the concept that O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared radiation. It is
rhetorically claimed without corroborating experimental evidence, that
at temperatures in which only these frequencies exist, these gases
ONLY absorb energy via collisions. Therefore it is claimed they also
do not radiate at these frequencies, and only lose energy via
collisions.
Therefore it is believed, they only transfer energy by conduction or
collsions of the molecules. It is assumed they are entirely
'transparent' to infrared frequencies and therefore with trace gases,
considerable effect occurs with the energy that is radiated from the
surface to space. The idea being that these trace gases, absorb and
retain this energy in the atmosphere, whereas this energy would leave
the atmospheric system with only O2 and N2 atmosphere.
But this is impossible and can be proved by simple experiments with N2
and it's capabilities to transfer energy. The energy it is capable of
transfering is a fourth power to temperature, while the average
velocity of the molecules and number of colllsions is increases as a
square root to velocity. The mean kinetic energy for the average
velocity of the molecules increases as a direct proportion to
temperature.
Between 300K and 1000K
Average velocity of the molecules increases 83%
Number of collisions increases 83%
Mean kinetic energy for average velocity increases 233%
Quantity of energy transfered by the gas increases 12,226%
Here, this charlatan propounds the false theoretical basis of AGW.
He entirely tries to evade the demonstration of his invalidity. He is
intent on continuing wth this fraud despit any scientific evidence to
the contrary or proof of his invalid theory. He is not willing to
either do or reference any valid laboratory data since all direct data
tends to show the invalidity of his theory.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/f9fb1640bb18d741/2f5cfed77f4156fb?rnum=321&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff9fb1640bb18d741%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_afdf59a5d1a1bfa2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/f9fb1640bb18d741/2f5cfed77f4156fb?rnum=321&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff9fb1640bb18d741%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_6252379fd3fbdb6f
KDeatherage
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makeshis move. |
13 Sep 2007 03:17:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Prince Phil, some british ***** that directly claims to be a
scientist and propounds the rhetoric of AGW, is clearly invalid in all
of his theoretical science. At this point this can only be considered
deliberate fraud.
This gives confidence that what follows will be rational. Not.
Absolutely intrinsic and fundamental to the current theory of AGW, is
the concept that O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared radiation.
Ok. They are crucial in the absence of having any effect.
It is
rhetorically claimed without corroborating experimental evidence, that
at temperatures in which only these frequencies exist, these gases
ONLY absorb energy via collisions. Therefore it is claimed they also
do not radiate at these frequencies, and only lose energy via
collisions.
"without corroborating evidence" is a lie. The rest is correct.
Therefore it is believed, they only transfer energy by conduction or
collsions of the molecules.
Ok.
It is assumed they are entirely
'transparent' to infrared frequencies and therefore with trace gases,
considerable effect occurs with the energy that is radiated from the
surface to space.
Er, what? That sequence of words is semantically and grammatically nonsensical
and therefore didn't say anything.
The idea being that these trace gases, absorb and
retain this energy in the atmosphere, whereas this energy would leave
the atmospheric system with only O2 and N2 atmosphere.
Where did you get this idea? That's not what the greenhouse gas basis for AGW
says at all. Let me explain it to you:
The earth surface is warmed by the broadband radiation from the sun that it
receives and absorbs.
Being so warmed, the earth surface emits photons in the IR region of the
spectrum, the center of that spectral region determined by the temperature of
the surface.
In the absence of greenhouse gases those Earth sourced IR photons escape off to
space and this comprises radiative cooling of the Earth. The incoming energy
and the radiated energy are the same and the surface remains in a temperature
stable equilibrium.
If greenhouse gases (defined as those molecules whose energy state can be
increased by IR photon capture) are introduced into the atmosphere then _some_
of those IR photons rather than escaping Earth are instead captured by the
molecules of those gases which are stimulated into a higher energy state by
quantum processes and then promptly re-radiated in random directions as the gas
molecules return to their original energy state.
As the concentration of these greenhouse gases increases more and more of those
earth sourced IR photons are captured and re-radiated back to be absorbed by the
earth surface. Since the original solar input flux remains unchanged at the
surface and the flux returning from the gases is increased in proportion to
their presence then the earth surface must warm to increase the energy of the
photons that do escape so as to keep the input and output energy balance. It is
the increased temperature of the surface that then warms and raises the
temperature of the air by conduction and convection.
Do you not understand this, do you find flaws with the steps or are you just
pretending it's wrong to maintain your shrill outrage for whatever may actually
motivate it?
But this is impossible and can be proved by simple experiments with N2
and it's capabilities to transfer energy. The energy it is capable of
transfering is a fourth power to temperature, while the average
velocity of the molecules and number of colllsions is increases as a
square root to velocity. The mean kinetic energy for the average
velocity of the molecules increases as a direct proportion to
temperature.
Even if this is correct it has no relevance to greenhouse gas warming.
You may notice I made no mention of N2 or O2 in the above explanation of the
greenhouse gas warming phenomenon. That's because they play no part at all in
the drama. They have no modes that can capture IR photons so merely stand by
and watch until they get bumped into moving a bit faster when they meet the
warmer earth or another molecule that has been so struck.
Between 300K and 1000K
Average velocity of the molecules increases 83%
Number of collisions increases 83%
Mean kinetic energy for average velocity increases 233%
Quantity of energy transfered by the gas increases 12,226%
Irrelevant to greenhouse gas warming. You are talking about conduction and
convection which are just the end result of the warming, not the cause.
Here, this charlatan propounds the false theoretical basis of AGW.
He entirely tries to evade the demonstration of his invalidity. He is
intent on continuing wth this fraud despit any scientific evidence to
the contrary or proof of his invalid theory. He is not willing to
either do or reference any valid laboratory data since all direct data
tends to show the invalidity of his theory.
You're crazy.
As I said elsewhere, I've no horse in this race. Greenhouse warming is one
process within a very large number of quantum, Newtonian, thermodynamic, fluid
and chemical processes which make up the global climate system. I think it
remains an open question as to the significance of greenhouse gas warming in
that larger system. (I also think it remains an open question whether warming
is actually global or only regional with a net zero.)
For christ's sake, we are considering a non-linear system with lotsa feedback
mechanisms. Can anyone say "chaotic?" (The original impetus for the study of
chaos was Lorenz seminal work on modeling climate.) Who knows what might be
causing movement in the phase space of the Earth's climate. Remember the
sensitivity of chaotic systems to minor perturbation of just about any kind.
The truth of the AGW issue may be unknowable.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
13 Sep 2007 03:11:10 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 1:17 am, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
Prince Phil, some british ***** that directly claims to be a
scientist and propounds the rhetoric of AGW, is clearly invalid in all
of his theoretical science. At this point this can only be considered
deliberate fraud.
This gives confidence that what follows will be rational. Not.
Absolutely intrinsic and fundamental to the current theory of AGW, is
the concept that O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared radiation.
Ok. They are crucial in the absence of having any effect.
It is
rhetorically claimed without corroborating experimental evidence, that
at temperatures in which only these frequencies exist, these gases
ONLY absorb energy via collisions. Therefore it is claimed they also
do not radiate at these frequencies, and only lose energy via
collisions.
"without corroborating evidence" is a lie. The rest is correct.
Therefore it is believed, they only transfer energy by conduction or
collsions of the molecules.
Ok.
It is assumed they are entirely
'transparent' to infrared frequencies and therefore with trace gases,
considerable effect occurs with the energy that is radiated from the
surface to space.
Er, what? That sequence of words is semantically and grammatically nonsensical
and therefore didn't say anything.
Which words did you have trouble understanding?
The idea being that these trace gases, absorb and
retain this energy in the atmosphere, whereas this energy would leave
the atmospheric system with only O2 and N2 atmosphere.
Where did you get this idea? That's not what the greenhouse gas basis for AGW
says at all. Let me explain it to you:
The earth surface is warmed by the broadband radiation from the sun that it
receives and absorbs.
Okay.
Being so warmed, the earth surface emits photons in the IR region of the
spectrum, the center of that spectral region determined by the temperature of
the surface.
Okay.
In the absence of greenhouse gases those Earth sourced IR photons escape off to
space and this comprises radiative cooling of the Earth. The incoming energy
and the radiated energy are the same and the surface remains in a temperature
stable equilibrium.
If greenhouse gases (defined as those molecules whose energy state can be
increased by IR photon capture) are introduced into the atmosphere then _some_
of those IR photons rather than escaping Earth are instead captured by the
molecules of those gases which are stimulated into a higher energy state by
quantum processes and then promptly re-radiated in random directions as the gas
molecules return to their original energy state.
Okay.
As the concentration of these greenhouse gases increases more and more of those
earth sourced IR photons are captured and re-radiated back to be absorbed by the
earth surface.
There is no evidence of this. But I suppose it is relatively
reasonable to assume this is the case. That is if we completely
dismiss the very real possiblity that the IR is saturated already.
Since the original solar input flux remains unchanged at the
surface and the flux returning from the gases is increased in proportion to
their presence then the earth surface must warm to increase the energy of the
photons that do escape so as to keep the input and output energy balance. It is
the increased temperature of the surface that then warms and raises the
temperature of the air by conduction and convection.
This is the theory of AGW. There is no experimental evidence that
confirms it. In fact it's never been tested. More importantly it's
never been measured.
Most importantly of all, there is no theoretica basis for quantifying
what percentage of the atmospheric warming is due to this phemonena or
to other phenomena. What percentage should we assume? Ten percent,
one percent, 0.1 percent, 0.01percent? Nobody can say. And the
professional completely avoid the subject.
What percentage of the warming in the atmosphere is due to N2 and O2?
You can't say.
It couldn't be more obvious why they are avoiding this question. The
answer would plainly demonstrate how ridiculous is this whole AGW
fiasco.
AGW is 100% propaganda and 0% science.
Do you not understand this, do you find flaws with the steps or are you just
pretending it's wrong to maintain your shrill outrage for whatever may actually
motivate it?
No, as I've explained the problem is in what you've omitted. You
can't (or won't) quantify any of this. From a scientific perspective
your explanation is worthless without quantification. If it can't be
measured it can't be tested. If it can't be tested it isn't
science.
But this is impossible and can be proved by simple experiments with N2
and it's capabilities to transfer energy. The energy it is capable of
transfering is a fourth power to temperature, while the average
velocity of the molecules and number of colllsions is increases as a
square root to velocity. The mean kinetic energy for the average
velocity of the molecules increases as a direct proportion to
temperature.
Even if this is correct it has no relevance to greenhouse gas warming.
You really can't say. Afterall you have no way of delineating what
percentage of atmospheric warming is due to greenhouse effect and what
percentage is due to other factors.
You may notice I made no mention of N2 or O2 in the above explanation of the
greenhouse gas warming phenomenon.
But they play the dominant part in warming in general. Right?
(Answer the question you evasive twit.)
That's because they play no part at all in
the drama. They have no modes that can capture IR photons so merely stand by
and watch until they get bumped into moving a bit faster when they meet the
warmer earth or another molecule that has been so struck.
Between 300K and 1000K
Average velocity of the molecules increases 83%
Number of collisions increases 83%
Mean kinetic energy for average velocity increases 233%
Quantity of energy transfered by the gas increases 12,226%
Irrelevant to greenhouse gas warming. You are talking about conduction and
convection which are just the end result of the warming, not the cause.
Here, this charlatan propounds the false theoretical basis of AGW.
He entirely tries to evade the demonstration of his invalidity. He is
intent on continuing wth this fraud despit any scientific evidence to
the contrary or proof of his invalid theory. He is not willing to
either do or reference any valid laboratory data since all direct data
tends to show the invalidity of his theory.
You're crazy.
As I said elsewhere, I've no horse in this race. Greenhouse warming is one
process within a very large number of quantum, Newtonian, thermodynamic, fluid
and chemical processes which make up the global climate system. I think it
remains an open question as to the significance of greenhouse gas warming in
that larger system. (I also think it remains an open question whether warming
is actually global or only regional with a net zero.)
For christ's sake, we are considering a non-linear system with lotsa feedback
mechanisms. Can anyone say "chaotic?" (The original impetus for the study of
chaos was Lorenz seminal work on modeling climate.) Who knows what might be
causing movement in the phase space of the Earth's climate. Remember the
sensitivity of chaotic systems to minor perturbation of just about any kind.
The truth of the AGW issue may be unknowable.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** and his chump ***** comrades need a laxative. |
15 Sep 2007 09:27:10 AM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 3:17 am, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
Prince Phil, some british ***** that directly claims to be a
scientist and propounds the rhetoric of AGW, is clearly invalid in all
of his theoretical science. At this point this can only be considered
deliberate fraud.
This gives confidence that what follows will be rational. Not.
Absolutely intrinsic and fundamental to the current theory of AGW, is
the concept that O2 and N2 do not absorb infrared radiation.
Ok. They are crucial in the absence of having any effect.
It is
rhetorically claimed without corroborating experimental evidence, that
at temperatures in which only these frequencies exist, these gases
ONLY absorb energy via collisions. Therefore it is claimed they also
do not radiate at these frequencies, and only lose energy via
collisions.
"without corroborating evidence" is a lie. The rest is correct.
Therefore it is believed, they only transfer energy by conduction or
collsions of the molecules.
Ok.
It is assumed they are entirely
'transparent' to infrared frequencies and therefore with trace gases,
considerable effect occurs with the energy that is radiated from the
surface to space.
Er, what? That sequence of words is semantically and grammatically nonsensical
and therefore didn't say anything.
The idea being that these trace gases, absorb and
retain this energy in the atmosphere, whereas this energy would leave
the atmospheric system with only O2 and N2 atmosphere.
Where did you get this idea? That's not what the greenhouse gas basis for AGW
says at all. Let me explain it to you:
The earth surface is warmed by the broadband radiation from the sun that it
receives and absorbs.
Being so warmed, the earth surface emits photons in the IR region of the
spectrum, the center of that spectral region determined by the temperature of
the surface.
In the absence of greenhouse gases those Earth sourced IR photons escape off to
space and this comprises radiative cooling of the Earth. The incoming energy
and the radiated energy are the same and the surface remains in a temperature
stable equilibrium.
If greenhouse gases (defined as those molecules whose energy state can be
increased by IR photon capture) are introduced into the atmosphere then _some_
of those IR photons rather than escaping Earth are instead captured by the
molecules of those gases which are stimulated into a higher energy state by
quantum processes and then promptly re-radiated in random directions as the gas
molecules return to their original energy state.
As the concentration of these greenhouse gases increases more and more of those
earth sourced IR photons are captured and re-radiated back to be absorbed by the
earth surface. Since the original solar input flux remains unchanged at the
surface and the flux returning from the gases is increased in proportion to
their presence then the earth surface must warm to increase the energy of the
photons that do escape so as to keep the input and output energy balance. It is
the increased temperature of the surface that then warms and raises the
temperature of the air by conduction and convection.
Do you not understand this, do you find flaws with the steps or are you just
pretending it's wrong to maintain your shrill outrage for whatever may actually
motivate it?
But this is impossible and can be proved by simple experiments with N2
and it's capabilities to transfer energy. The energy it is capable of
transfering is a fourth power to temperature, while the average
velocity of the molecules and number of colllsions is increases as a
square root to velocity. The mean kinetic energy for the average
velocity of the molecules increases as a direct proportion to
temperature.
Even if this is correct it has no relevance to greenhouse gas warming.
You may notice I made no mention of N2 or O2 in the above explanation of the
greenhouse gas warming phenomenon. That's because they play no part at all in
the drama. They have no modes that can capture IR photons so merely stand by
and watch until they get bumped into moving a bit faster when they meet the
warmer earth or another molecule that has been so struck.
Between 300K and 1000K
Average velocity of the molecules increases 83%
Number of collisions increases 83%
Mean kinetic energy for average velocity increases 233%
Quantity of energy transfered by the gas increases 12,226%
Irrelevant to greenhouse gas warming. You are talking about conduction and
convection which are just the end result of the warming, not the cause.
Here, this charlatan propounds the false theoretical basis of AGW.
He entirely tries to evade the demonstration of his invalidity. He is
intent on continuing wth this fraud despit any scientific evidence to
the contrary or proof of his invalid theory. He is not willing to
either do or reference any valid laboratory data since all direct data
tends to show the invalidity of his theory.
You're crazy.
As I said elsewhere, I've no horse in this race. Greenhouse warming is one
process within a very large number of quantum, Newtonian, thermodynamic, fluid
and chemical processes which make up the global climate system. I think it
remains an open question as to the significance of greenhouse gas warming in
that larger system. (I also think it remains an open question whether warming
is actually global or only regional with a net zero.)
For christ's sake, we are considering a non-linear system with lotsa feedback
mechanisms. Can anyone say "chaotic?" (The original impetus for the study of
chaos was Lorenz seminal work on modeling climate.) Who knows what might be
causing movement in the phase space of the Earth's climate. Remember the
sensitivity of chaotic systems to minor perturbation of just about any kind.
l> The truth of the AGW issue may be unknowable.
That is a hell of a lot of repetition of AGW rhetoric. Finalized with
an admission that you cannot meet the burden of proof necassary to
make the emission of CO2 a crime.
So all you have repeated here is surmise. Most of which can be proved
invalid by proper theoretical science.
Just what I said. You claim O2 and N2 to be transparent to infrareds.
This means that when these gases transfer energy in direct analsyses,
you are saying that they only transfer this energy by molecular
aggitation. This is directly proved false by direct science.
KD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** and his chump ***** comrades need a laxative. |
17 Sep 2007 11:50:15 AM |
|
|
On 15 Sep, 15:27, wrote:
-8<- snip ->8-
Just what I said. You claim O2 and N2 to be transparent to infrareds.
This means that when these gases transfer energy in direct analsyses,
you are saying that they only transfer this energy by molecular
aggitation. This is directly proved false by direct science.
Hi KD,
Can you explain this to me (or point me to a source that is fairly
easy-reading)? My understanding is that O2 and N2 are not capable of
absorbing energy in the IR spectrum - although I freely admit that my
knowledge in this area is limited!
KD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** and his chump ***** comrades need a laxative. |
17 Sep 2007 05:08:27 PM |
|
|
On Sep 17, 11:50 am, wrote:
On 15 Sep, 15:27, wrote:
-8<- snip ->8-
Just what I said. You claim O2 and N2 to be transparent to infrareds.
This means that when these gases transfer energy in direct analsyses,
you are saying that they only transfer this energy by molecular
aggitation. This is directly proved false by direct science.
Hi KD,
Can you explain this to me (or point me to a source that is fairly
easy-reading)? My understanding is that O2 and N2 are not capable of
absorbing energy in the IR spectrum - although I freely admit that my
knowledge in this area is limited!
This is proved by the basic kinetic theory of gases and Stefans Law. A
gas will bring a solid substance to the same temperature at which it
exists. It is possible to set up an experiment in which N2 is heated
and the source of the heat is not in direct line with a metal plate,
which is situated to be in contact with a particular gas in an air
duct on one side, and to radiate away from the air duct to the other
side.
The gas brings the metal to it's temperature in which the metal
radiates according to Stefans Law. Now if the volume is allowed to
expand and the pressure remains constant and the temperature is
increased, the gas will reach a higher temperature, it will have the
same pressure, and it will conduct greater energy to the metal, which
will increase according to Stefans Law.
The pressure of the gas is the same although the molecular velocities
have increased at higher temperature. The expansion of the gas has
reduced it's density, so the number of collsions has decreased,
proportional to the increase of the velocities in order that pressure
remains the same. The molecular aggitation or possible transfer of
energy by collsions has not increased, yet the energy being transfered
has increased.
NO possiblity that the energy is only being transfered by the
collsions of the molecules. There is a radiation field of the
infrareds that is trapped within the gas, which is being absorbed and
emitted by the gas molecules. The transfer of this radition field and
it's absorption by the metal is the only means to explain the transfer
of energy which is directly measured as the radiation emitted from the
metal.This is not different for CO2, N2 or other normal gases. Heat
capacities have slight effect.
There are many other direct experiments that could be done with
radiation, temperature and gases to likewise prove this point.
Infrareds travel from molecule to molecule and are absorbed and
reemitted by gas molecules. Only the visible and near visible
frequencies pass through the air as transparent. And with these there
is a portion that are absorbed.
This is the critical point to disproving the basic theory of grenhouse
gases. The highly funded and fanatical movement of AGW does their best
to suppress valid science. References which used to exist of the
opacity of the atmosphere and even valid radiation formula are not to
be found on the internet.
KD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** and his chump ***** comrades need a laxative. |
15 Sep 2007 09:36:46 AM |
|
|
On Sep 15, 7:27 am, wrote:#1"That is a hell of a lot
of repetition of AGW rhetoric.
Then he wrote #2 :"Most of which can be proved invalid by proper
theoretical science."
So you can prove cloudsat observations as being invalid, by using
theoretical science, ok you have proven your lack of intellect,
understanding of the scientific method as well as your ignorance, as
what you just said is theory will disprove the latest observations
from our satellites, maybe you should take out the "AGW" in sentence
#1, and replace it with "climate change denials" and place that at the
bottom of you posts....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** and his chump ***** comrades need a laxative. |
16 Sep 2007 07:50:44 AM |
|
|
On Sep 15, 9:36 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:27 am, wrote:#1"That is a hell of a lot
of repetition of AGW rhetoric.
Then he wrote #2 :"Most of which can be proved invalid by proper
theoretical science."
So you can prove cloudsat observations as being invalid, by using
theoretical science, ok you have proven your lack of intellect,
understanding of the scientific method as well as your ignorance, as
what you just said is theory will disprove the latest observations
from our satellites, maybe you should take out the "AGW" in sentence
#1, and replace it with "climate change denials" and place that at the
bottom of you posts....
HAHAHAAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAH
Maybe someone should teach you English, dipshit.
Theoretical interpretations are not direct science.
http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-00/ceos1/science/dg/dg20.htm
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig1.gif
Here are two graphs which contain data from satellite readings. These
are the same graph. One is later. They are reversed in direction so as
to avoid easy recognition that they are exactly the same graph.
Both of these are compared to theoretical curves for earth's radiation
which are fraudulent. The first one is very frraudulent, and the one
that Sir Phil of ***** still is basing his theory upon. It shows a
false high intensity of earth's radiation near 15um. By this, it shows
that the 'absorption' band of CO2 is directly in the main intensity of
earth's radiation which it is not.
The second graph shows a more accurate highest intensity near 10um,
which is what is theoretically predicted by Wiens Law, and is read by
satellites. The earth radiates almost all of it's energy in a band
around 10um.
The intensity of the radiation falls off very quickly between 10um and
15um. These values should be about 2.25 times different or distance
from the bottom of the graph, which should be reading relative energy
at each frequency.
When one sees this and understands this, one sees the very serious
fraud of the first graph. What is made to appear to be a severe trough
in earth's radiation at 15um, is only the natural falling off of the
relative energy at each frequency which occurs between 10um and 15um
around 300K.
The theoretical applications within both of these graphs are both
extremely fraudulent. Sir Phil of ***** and his comrades have used
these to commit high treason in Britain. Now they wish to use this
same fraud to commit their sedition and direct acts of subversive
warefare upon the nation and society of the US. At some point there
will be reckoning for these crimes.
KDeatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** and his chump ***** comrades need a laxative. |
16 Sep 2007 09:02:23 AM |
|
|
On Sep 16, 5:50 am, wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:36 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:27 am, wrote:#1"That is a hell of a lot
of repetition of AGW rhetoric.
Then he wrote #2 :"Most of which can be proved invalid by proper
theoretical science."
So you can prove cloudsat observations as being invalid, by using
theoretical science, ok you have proven your lack of intellect,
understanding of the scientific method as well as your ignorance, as
what you just said is theory will disprove the latest observations
from our satellites, maybe you should take out the "AGW" in sentence
#1, and replace it with "climate change denials" and place that at the
bottom of you posts....
HAHAHAAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAH
Maybe someone should teach you English, dipshit.
Theoretical interpretations are not direct science.
http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-00/ceos1/science/dg/dg20.htm
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig1.gif
Here are two graphs which contain data from satellite readings. These
are the same graph. One is later. They are reversed in direction so as
to avoid easy recognition that they are exactly the same graph.
Both of these are compared to theoretical curves for earth's radiation
which are fraudulent. The first one is very frraudulent, and the one
that Sir Phil of ***** still is basing his theory upon. It shows a
false high intensity of earth's radiation near 15um. By this, it shows
that the 'absorption' band of CO2 is directly in the main intensity of
earth's radiation which it is not.
The second graph shows a more accurate highest intensity near 10um,
which is what is theoretically predicted by Wiens Law, and is read by
satellites. The earth radiates almost all of it's energy in a band
around 10um.
The intensity of the radiation falls off very quickly between 10um and
15um. These values should be about 2.25 times different or distance
from the bottom of the graph, which should be reading relative energy
at each frequency.
When one sees this and understands this, one sees the very serious
fraud of the first graph. What is made to appear to be a severe trough
in earth's radiation at 15um, is only the natural falling off of the
relative energy at each frequency which occurs between 10um and 15um
around 300K.
The theoretical applications within both of these graphs are both
extremely fraudulent. Sir Phil of ***** and his comrades have used
these to commit high treason in Britain. Now they wish to use this
same fraud to commit their sedition and direct acts of subversive
warefare upon the nation and society of the US. At some point there
will be reckoning for these crimes.
KDeatherage
Incorrect, cited a reanalysis of data, arrived at a different
conclusion from a previous analysis, but what citation you provided
and called "later" is 9 years older than the cloudsat data I provided,
so you might want to catch up a little before you make your illogical
and incorrect statements of ignorance as you did not prove any
observations invalid..... Secondly it is completely illogical to assume
that because you can allege a fraudulent actions of data analysis from
a person, that you somehow have declared the observations from a
satellite that gathered the data invalid (which had nothing to do with
the analysis) unless of course you like or have a need to blame your
computer when you come across information that demonstrates your
ignorance....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
13 Sep 2007 11:48:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:17:25 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com>
wrote:
Where did you get this idea? That's not what the greenhouse gas basis for AGW
says at all. Let me explain it to you:
Another AGW robot reads from the script provided by his
control?
The earth surface is warmed by the broadband radiation from the sun that it
receives and absorbs.
You missed a few things, the entire atmosphere also absorbs
broadband radiation from the sun, including the trace gases.
Being so warmed, the earth surface emits photons in the IR region of the
spectrum, the center of that spectral region determined by the temperature of
the surface.
And that doesn't address how the atmosphere cools,
or how much the atmosphere cools on clear nights.
In the absence of greenhouse gases those Earth sourced IR photons escape off to
space and this comprises radiative cooling of the Earth.
Cooling of the surface and the greenhouse gases, but
can IR photons escape from the N2 or O2?
The incoming energy
and the radiated energy are the same and the surface remains in a temperature
stable equilibrium.
What about the atmosphere? The atmosphere is where all
past temperature measurements have been recorded.
If greenhouse gases (defined as those molecules whose energy state can be
increased by IR photon capture) are introduced into the atmosphere then _some_
of those IR photons rather than escaping Earth are instead captured by the
molecules of those gases which are stimulated into a higher energy state by
quantum processes and then promptly re-radiated in random directions as the gas
molecules return to their original energy state.
Right, but at least half are radiated upward.
As the concentration of these greenhouse gases increases more and more of those
earth sourced IR photons are captured and re-radiated back to be absorbed by the
earth surface.
At least half are still radiated upward. And being it is
IR, apparently the N2 and O2 are ignored.
Since the original solar input flux remains unchanged at the
surface
A fabrication!
and the flux returning from the gases is increased in proportion to
their presence then the earth surface must warm to increase the energy of the
photons that do escape so as to keep the input and output energy balance.
You are really skimming on the atmospheric physics,
and ignoring the 98 percent of the atmosphere comprised
of N2 and O2.
It is
the increased temperature of the surface that then warms and raises the
temperature of the air by conduction and convection.
Nonsense, the surface is almost always colder than
the air except for rocks and well drained sandy areas and
man made buildings, pavement, parking lots, etc.
Do you not understand this,
Unless you can show how a colder surface and much
colder greenhouse gases can warm air near the surface that
is usually warmer, your explanation is not understandable.
do you find flaws with the steps
I do, and there are many things that seem to work a
certain way, but actually work in exactly the opposite way.
or are you just
pretending it's wrong to maintain your shrill outrage for whatever may actually
motivate it?
We all would appreciate everyone writing without obscenities
or vulgarity.
You may notice I made no mention of N2 or O2 in the above explanation of the
greenhouse gas warming phenomenon. That's because they play no part at all in
the drama. They have no modes that can capture IR photons so merely stand by
and watch until they get bumped into moving a bit faster when they meet the
warmer earth or another molecule that has been so struck.
But they are warmed a lot by the sun.
Irrelevant to greenhouse gas warming. You are talking about conduction and
convection which are just the end result of the warming, not the cause.
Until a process that is logical and rational and that
cannot be disproven is found, the climate and any greenhouse
effect should be studied, more experimental scientists are
needed, and all the fortune tellers fired.
The fact that nights cool less when humidity is high
and/or there are clouds may be another trick of nature to
fool us all. So please have an open mind and think
about each part of the process and all the factual information
that can be obtained.
Perhaps you should ask somebody near a tropical
rain forest to take the temperature of the soil beneath a big
tree around the clock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makeshis move. |
14 Sep 2007 04:38:32 AM |
|
|
Whata Fool wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:17:25 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com>
wrote:
Where did you get this idea? That's not what the greenhouse gas basis for AGW
says at all. Let me explain it to you:
Another AGW robot reads from the script provided by his
control?
What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about some really simple
physical principles.
The earth surface is warmed by the broadband radiation from the sun that it
receives and absorbs.
You missed a few things, the entire atmosphere also absorbs
broadband radiation from the sun, including the trace gases.
What proportion of the incoming radiation do you think is absorbed by the gases?
Looks to me like it makes it through for the most part. IR is absorbed some
on the way in by the greenhouse gases which are present in trace amounts and
thus contribute little to the specific heat of the atmosphere so that the
warming of it due to their absorption isn't significant. The atmosphere is
heated by contact with the earth surface, not by radiation from the sun.
I didn't miss it, you see, I ignored it because it is eminently ignorable in the
relative size of its effect.
Being so warmed, the earth surface emits photons in the IR region of the
spectrum, the center of that spectral region determined by the temperature of
the surface.
And that doesn't address how the atmosphere cools,
or how much the atmosphere cools on clear nights.
Right. No need to. We are talking about things that affect the warming, not
the later cooling but the presence of greenhouse gasses also inhibits the night
time cooling in the same way that it inhibits the day time cooling. Some of the
photons that would escape don't so the cooling rate is slower.
In the absence of greenhouse gases those Earth sourced IR photons escape off to
space and this comprises radiative cooling of the Earth.
Cooling of the surface and the greenhouse gases, but
can IR photons escape from the N2 or O2?
Yes. The IR photons ignore the N2 and O2 completely. Those molecules have no
modes for quantum mechanical absorption of IR. They don't notice it.
The incoming energy
and the radiated energy are the same and the surface remains in a temperature
stable equilibrium.
What about the atmosphere? The atmosphere is where all
past temperature measurements have been recorded.
Because of convection mixing, the air which it warms is a better indicator of
earth surface temperature than one could obtain by actually measuring the
surface in small area samples (like a bulb thermometer would do.) The latter
would be very susceptible to very local surface conditions whereas the
measurement in the air near it represents an averaging over a lot of surface area.
If greenhouse gases (defined as those molecules whose energy state can be
increased by IR photon capture) are introduced into the atmosphere then _some_
of those IR photons rather than escaping Earth are instead captured by the
molecules of those gases which are stimulated into a higher energy state by
quantum processes and then promptly re-radiated in random directions as the gas
molecules return to their original energy state.
Right, but at least half are radiated upward.
Yes. It is the half that don't which raise concern.
As the concentration of these greenhouse gases increases more and more of those
earth sourced IR photons are captured and re-radiated back to be absorbed by the
earth surface.
At least half are still radiated upward.
Yes, and half aren't.
And being it is IR, apparently the N2 and O2 are ignored.
Yes.
Since the original solar input flux remains unchanged at the
surface
A fabrication!
What changes it? Yes, there is some scattering (absorption/emission) on the way
in but if there were much, the atmosphere wouldn't be so strikingly transparent.
Remember that all the energy of all the photons coming in (that aren't
reflected back) eventually become heat at the Earth surface. Some of the
incoming are scattered back out by the air, especially in the IR, but that
represents a small portion of the total incoming energy. The situation is
different on the way out because what the earth radiates out has a _much_
different spectrum than what the sun radiates in. The later is "black" body,
with a peak location determined by surface temperature and concentrated around
that peak in the spectral region that the greenhouse gases are efficient at
scattering.
and the flux returning from the gases is increased in proportion to
their presence then the earth surface must warm to increase the energy of the
photons that do escape so as to keep the input and output energy balance.
You are really skimming on the atmospheric physics,
and ignoring the 98 percent of the atmosphere comprised
of N2 and O2.
Because it is eminently ignorable. It plays no part in the physical process
being described. It shoots blanks.
It is
the increased temperature of the surface that then warms and raises the
temperature of the air by conduction and convection.
Nonsense, the surface is almost always colder than
the air except for rocks and well drained sandy areas and
man made buildings, pavement, parking lots, etc.
Where did you get that idea? It isn't true.
Do you not understand this,
Unless you can show how a colder surface and much
colder greenhouse gases can warm air near the surface that
is usually warmer, your explanation is not understandable.
Don't need to show something that is based on incorrect premises.
do you find flaws with the steps
I do, and there are many things that seem to work a
certain way, but actually work in exactly the opposite way.
'Fraid that's a glittering generality that doesn't say much of anything. My
high school freshman year rhetoric teacher tore apart my first paper for such
silliness. I never forgot the lesson.
or are you just
pretending it's wrong to maintain your shrill outrage for whatever may actually
motivate it?
We all would appreciate everyone writing without obscenities
or vulgarity.
Huh?
You may notice I made no mention of N2 or O2 in the above explanation of the
greenhouse gas warming phenomenon. That's because they play no part at all in
the drama. They have no modes that can capture IR photons so merely stand by
and watch until they get bumped into moving a bit faster when they meet the
warmer earth or another molecule that has been so struck.
But they are warmed a lot by the sun.
No they are not. They are heated by contact with the earth,
conduction/convection, not solar radiation.
Irrelevant to greenhouse gas warming. You are talking about conduction and
convection which are just the end result of the warming, not the cause.
Until a process that is logical and rational and that
cannot be disproven is found, the climate and any greenhouse
effect should be studied, more experimental scientists are
needed, and all the fortune tellers fired.
I never said they shouldn't be studied. Quite the contrary. However, given the
complexity and the nature of the overall system involved I don't expect any
definitive answer, ever.
The fact that nights cool less when humidity is high
and/or there are clouds may be another trick of nature to
fool us all. So please have an open mind and think
about each part of the process and all the factual information
that can be obtained.
That's the point. I'm only describing one process among many and telling how it
works. How things turns out when they all play together I really haven't a
clue. All I'm trying to show is that one cannot say that there is no physical
basis for CO2 moderated warming as a process. One can argue its significance
but not it's existence. Not with a physicist anyway.
Perhaps you should ask somebody near a tropical
rain forest to take the temperature of the soil beneath a big
tree around the clock.
You can't extrapolate some special conditions to a general principle. You must
consider all the surfaces involved (somehow.) If you do, you will find that the
average surface temperature is higher than the air above it and thus heat moves
from ground to air.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
14 Sep 2007 02:27:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:38:32 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com>
wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:17:25 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com>
wrote:
Where did you get this idea? That's not what the greenhouse gas basis for AGW
says at all. Let me explain it to you:
Another AGW robot reads from the script provided by his
control?
What on earth are you talking about?
I like your incredulous approach, it's pretty original for
a global warming disciple. :-)
I was talking about some really simple
physical principles.
I have no trouble with being simple, and I have read all of
Einstein's papers on thermal energy, bur go ahead anyway.
The earth surface is warmed by the broadband radiation from the sun that it
receives and absorbs.
You missed a few things, the entire atmosphere also absorbs
broadband radiation from the sun, including the trace gases.
What proportion of the incoming radiation do you think is absorbed by the gases?
Almost a fourth, more or less, but N2 and O2 can absorb
UV and possible some visible wavelengths.
In 1974, in a small booklet on fabricating large segmented
solar energy concentrating mirrors and master molds for mass
production, I established the standard for nominal solar insolation
at the surface at 1000 watts per square meter, I thought that was
a nice round number, and hundreds of aerospace and large
equipment manufacturers wrote me asking for information, and
I think those letters are reason enough to for me to claim credit
for the standard. (I still have most of the letters).
Looks to me like it makes it through for the most part.
About 1,000 / 1,367 more or less, it varies a lot by location,
humidity, time of day and cloud cover.
IR is absorbed some
on the way in by the greenhouse gases which are present in trace amounts and
thus contribute little to the specific heat of the atmosphere so that the
warming of it due to their absorption isn't significant.
Specific heat is a term for "heat capacity", I don't know
how you are using it.
IR can be absorbed by clouds, and this is very evident in
the thunderheads billowing upward at fantastic rates.
The atmosphere is
heated by contact with the earth surface, not by radiation from the sun.
Not ever entirely "not by radiation from the sun".
The only time the surface ever adds heat to the atmosphere
is when the surface is warmer than the air, which in probably, at
least, 90 percent of the world, so you statement is waaaaaaaaay
off, at least most of any day.
I didn't miss it, you see, I ignored it because it is eminently ignorable in the
relative size of its effect.
Ignoring anything might cause ignorance.
Do you have a link that compares surface temperature
(of the water, vegetation, or moist soil) with the temperature
of the are a few feet above the surface?
Don't get discouraged about continuing to explain, we
need some new input, with good data like that.
Being so warmed, the earth surface emits photons in the IR region of the
spectrum, the center of that spectral region determined by the temperature of
the surface.
And that doesn't address how the atmosphere cools,
or how much the atmosphere cools on clear nights.
Right.
Why are you agreeing?
No need to.
Sure there is a need, the air here during much of
August was in the 90s F, and at night the temperature
fell about 30 degrees F or more.
And all of that air did not contact the surface,
simply because the surface was much colder than the
air, and warm air does not move downward very easy.
We are talking about things that affect the warming,
Maybe you are, and maybe the climatologists are,
and maybe the IPCC is, and maybe the world socialists
engaged in promoting global warming to engage in more
global control.
not
the later cooling but the presence of greenhouse gasses also inhibits the night
time cooling in the same way that it inhibits the day time cooling. Some of the
photons that would escape don't so the cooling rate is slower.
Over the last 75 years that I have been comparing air
and surface temperatures, it still cools the same, or more,
not less.
In the absence of greenhouse gases those Earth sourced IR photons escape off to
space and this comprises radiative cooling of the Earth.
Cooling of the surface and the greenhouse gases, but
can IR photons escape from the N2 or O2?
Yes. The IR photons ignore the N2 and O2 completely. Those molecules have no
modes for quantum mechanical absorption of IR. They don't notice it.
But they do come in contact with the very small percentage
of trace gases, absorbing the excess thermal energy.
In every discussion of this, the global warming disciples
have wanted to say that trace gases absorb and re-emit downward,
but they try to ignore the absorption of IR by N2 and O2 contacting
the trace gases.
The incoming energy
and the radiated energy are the same and the surface remains in a temperature
stable equilibrium.
What about the atmosphere? The atmosphere is where all
past temperature measurements have been recorded.
Because of convection mixing, the air which it warms is a better indicator of
earth surface temperature than one could obtain by actually measuring the
surface in small area samples (like a bulb thermometer would do.) The latter
would be very susceptible to very local surface conditions whereas the
measurement in the air near it represents an averaging over a lot of surface area.
Not really, and that is not the reason weather stations
measure and record air temperatures, they do it because it
is the air temperature that people feel and the air temperature
that affects buildings and machines out in the open.
The surface temperature does not vary as much or
as rapid (except for rocks with low specific heats and things
made by man). There may be some leaves that warm a
little warmer than the air in direct sunlight.
If greenhouse gases (defined as those molecules whose energy state can be
increased by IR photon capture) are introduced into the atmosphere then _some_
of those IR photons rather than escaping Earth are instead captured by the
molecules of those gases which are stimulated into a higher energy state by
quantum processes and then promptly re-radiated in random directions as the gas
molecules return to their original energy state.
Right, but at least half are radiated upward.
Yes. It is the half that don't which raise concern.
It is a concern of scientists don't include it in the
calculations because it reduces the downward radiation
by half or more.
As the concentration of these greenhouse gases increases more and more of those
earth sourced IR photons are captured and re-radiated back to be absorbed by the
earth surface.
At least half are still radiated upward.
Yes, and half aren't.
And being it is IR, apparently the N2 and O2 are ignored.
Yes.
Since the original solar input flux remains unchanged at the
surface
A fabrication!
What changes it? Yes, there is some scattering (absorption/emission) on the way
in but if there were much, the atmosphere wouldn't be so strikingly transparent.
Solar insolation is know quite accurately in the PV and
solar collector industry.
Remember that all the energy of all the photons coming in (that aren't
reflected back) eventually become heat at the Earth surface. Some of the
incoming are scattered back out by the air, especially in the IR, but that
represents a small portion of the total incoming energy.
You are trying to argue IR affected by air in two directions!
The situation is
different on the way out because what the earth radiates out has a _much_
different spectrum than what the sun radiates in. The later is "black" body,
with a peak location determined by surface temperature and concentrated around
that peak in the spectral region that the greenhouse gases are efficient at
scattering.
And then at least half of that is re-emitted upward.
and the flux returning from the gases is increased in proportion to
their presence then the earth surface must warm to increase the energy of the
photons that do escape so as to keep the input and output energy balance.
You are really skimming on the atmospheric physics,
and ignoring the 98 percent of the atmosphere comprised
of N2 and O2.
Because it is eminently ignorable. It plays no part in the physical process
being described. It shoots blanks.
It absorbs any thermal energy the "greenhouse gases"
absorb that is not instantly re-radiated. And since all the
"greenhouse gases" are total immersed in N2 and O2 with
a relative concentration of about 98 air to 2 GHG, each time
there is absorption, there is a chance of transfer of thermal
energy to air.
It is
the increased temperature of the surface that then warms and raises the
temperature of the air by conduction and convection.
Nonsense, the surface is almost always colder than
the air except for rocks and well drained sandy areas and
man made buildings, pavement, parking lots, etc.
Where did you get that idea? It isn't true.
Take two identical thermometers and measure it,
I have measured it, and anything wet is always cooler than
the air in a stable situation.
Do you not understand this,
Unless you can show how a colder surface and much
colder greenhouse gases can warm air near the surface that
is usually warmer, your explanation is not understandable.
Don't need to show something that is based on incorrect premises.
You do need to make simple measurements and learn to
check things for yourself, that is why college physics and chemistry
courses have accompanying lab classes.
do you find flaws with the steps
I do, and there are many things that seem to work a
certain way, but actually work in exactly the opposite way.
'Fraid that's a glittering generality that doesn't say much of anything. My
high school freshman year rhetoric teacher tore apart my first paper for such
silliness. I never forgot the lesson.
What the hell is a rhetoric teacher?
or are you just
pretending it's wrong to maintain your shrill outrage for whatever may actually
motivate it?
We all would appreciate everyone writing without obscenities
or vulgarity.
Huh?
You haven't read any insults, forged IDs, obscenities,
or vulgarities in alt.global-warming?
You may notice I made no mention of N2 or O2 in the above explanation of the
greenhouse gas warming phenomenon. That's because they play no part at all in
the drama. They have no modes that can capture IR photons so merely stand by
and watch until they get bumped into moving a bit faster when they meet the
warmer earth or another molecule that has been so struck.
But they are warmed a lot by the sun.
No they are not. They are heated by contact with the earth,
conduction/convection, not solar radiation.
Above you said solar energy was scattered?
Irrelevant to greenhouse gas warming. You are talking about conduction and
convection which are just the end result of the warming, not the cause.
Until a process that is logical and rational and that
cannot be disproven is found, the climate and any greenhouse
effect should be studied, more experimental scientists are
needed, and all the fortune tellers fired.
I never said they shouldn't be studied. Quite the contrary. However, given the
complexity and the nature of the overall system involved I don't expect any
definitive answer, ever.
We will have a definitive answer about the running real
time climate, and as long as very few all time temperatures are
NOT broken, I won't worry about it.
The fact that nights cool less when humidity is high
and/or there are clouds may be another trick of nature to
fool us all. So please have an open mind and think
about each part of the process and all the factual information
that can be obtained.
That's the point. I'm only describing one process among many and telling how it
works. How things turns out when they all play together I really haven't a
clue. All I'm trying to show is that one cannot say that there is no physical
basis for CO2 moderated warming as a process. One can argue its significance
but not it's existence. Not with a physicist anyway.
Show me some physics. Have you ever owned a
desert water bag? When it contains water, it is about 20
or 30 degrees cooler than the air in desert daytime conditions,
do you need a physicist to explain that?
Perhaps you should ask somebody near a tropical
rain forest to take the temperature of the soil beneath a big
tree around the clock.
You can't extrapolate some special conditions to a general principle. You must
consider all the surfaces involved (somehow.) If you do, you will find that the
average surface temperature is higher than the air above it and thus heat moves
from ground to air.
Bob
The average surface temperature is not higher than the air,
unless you are a city boy and you never go for a walk in the
park.
I learned all about, both, clear sky radiative cooling and
evaporative cooling when I first took a girl for a walk amongst
the pines in a warm southern state.
I don't know the details about those two processes
where the ocean is concerned, but I never found the water
of the Pacific warm enough to swim in south of Santa Barbara,
I don't know about north of there.
The Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and the other seas
may be warmer than the air at times, I don't know.
Please do not preach from a script, or repeat hearsay,
the moist surface is always cooler than the air above it, and
the high atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is supposedly
dominated by CO2 is very cold compared to the surface, which
allows the surface to cool rather well.
As of this moment, I have to consider CO2 as possibly
cooling the Earth more as it's concentration increases.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
15 Sep 2007 09:05:57 AM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 2:27 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
You missed a few things, the entire atmosphere also absorbs
broadband radiation from the sun, including the trace gases.
What proportion of the incoming radiation do you think is absorbed by the gases?
Almost a fourth, more or less, but N2 and O2 can absorb
UV and possible some visible wavelengths.
In 1974, in a small booklet on fabricating large segmented
solar energy concentrating mirrors and master molds for mass
production, I established the standard for nominal solar insolation
at the surface at 1000 watts per square meter, I thought that was
a nice round number, and hundreds of aerospace and large
equipment manufacturers wrote me asking for information, and
I think those letters are reason enough to for me to claim credit
for the standard. (I still have most of the letters).
Looks to me like it makes it through for the most part.
About 1,000 / 1,367 more or less, it varies a lot by location,
humidity, time of day and cloud cover.
1000Wm-2 is the maximum at solar noon at sea level at the equator
under optimal conditions.
I have heard AGWists say that the sun does not radiate appreciable
radiation at wavelengths longer than 2.7um. The solar constant
contains greater energy up to about 7um than the radiation from the
earth.
They only use invalid graphs of both the sun's energy distribution and
the earth's energy distribution. They damn sure need to be held
accountable by this direct fraud, which can be proved by actual direct
experimetation.
I was taught in astrophysics that the atmosphere is OPAQUE beyound the
near infrareds or about 1um. Even other AGWists on this channel have
pointed out that with a simple heat lamp and diffraction grating, one
can show that the air is opaque from 2um.
The sun radiates about 50% of it;s energy in visible, 9% in UV and 41%
in infrared. The atmosphere does contain a radiation field and
radiates heat towards the earth. So this means virtually no
tranmission in the infrareds, if a portion of the 1000 is atmospheric
radiation.
The air is transparent to visible frequencies. Although some of the
visible light is absorbed, most of it makes it to the surface. Even at
high angles to the sun. The lower energy infrareds are almost
completely absorbed by the atmosphere and especially the lower
atmosphere at very great angles to the sun. The higher energy and
dangerous UV are blocked by the atmosphere. But most of the UV makes
it to the surface with the sun at zenith. Much more of this UV is
blocked at angles to the sun by the lower atmosphere.
Infrared devices see through smoke, clouds and dust, with which
visible light does not transfer as transparent. The infrareds are
trasmitting from molecule to molecule anyway, and can be read through
the non-transparent gases and particles.
Only 1% of the solar constant is absorbed in the stratosphere. This is
only about 14Wm-2. The top of the stratosphere is 27F while the bottom
of the stratosphere is -70F. This can only be explained by the
infrareds from the sun that are absorbed as the atmosphere becomes
thicker, and converted to lower energy infrareds which do not escape
through the gases directly.
I still wonder why this basic fact of 1000Wm-2 is such a hidden fact
in AGW. If you wish to know how much heat a tub of water will absorb
from solar energy, you need this peritent value. No average of 342
will help whatsoever, or their considerations that the sun averages
168W while the atmosphere averages 324W to the surface.
KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditioner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
15 Sep 2007 12:31:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:05:57 -0700, wrote:
I was taught in astrophysics that the atmosphere is OPAQUE beyound the
near infrareds or about 1um.
You must be using a word wrong, opaque means NO
light gets through, and beyond is usually interpreted as higher
frequency. I don't know of any wavelength the atmosphere
doesn't allow light to pass except UV being reduced.
The sun radiates about 50% of it;s energy in visible, 9% in UV and 41%
in infrared. The atmosphere does contain a radiation field and
radiates heat towards the earth. So this means virtually no
tranmission in the infrareds, if a portion of the 1000 is atmospheric
radiation.
That needs to be expanded a lot, it doesn't make any sense
at all to consider any source of energy other than the sun, the core
of the Earth, burn combining or nuclear.
Once any process involving the atmosphere is considered
an energy source, the energy in can never equal the energy out.
The air is transparent to visible frequencies. Although some of the
visible light is absorbed, most of it makes it to the surface. Even at
high angles to the sun. The lower energy infrareds are almost
completely absorbed by the atmosphere and especially the lower
atmosphere at very great angles to the sun. The higher energy and
dangerous UV are blocked by the atmosphere. But most of the UV makes
it to the surface with the sun at zenith. Much more of this UV is
blocked at angles to the sun by the lower atmosphere.
Infrared devices see through smoke, clouds and dust, with which
visible light does not transfer as transparent. The infrareds are
trasmitting from molecule to molecule anyway, and can be read through
the non-transparent gases and particles.
I think you are wrong about infrared seeing through
any opaque gas, that is why radar is used.
Only 1% of the solar constant is absorbed in the stratosphere. This is
only about 14Wm-2. The top of the stratosphere is 27F while the bottom
of the stratosphere is -70F. This can only be explained by the
infrareds from the sun that are absorbed as the atmosphere becomes
thicker, and converted to lower energy infrareds which do not escape
through the gases directly.
No, there are other reasons that can explain the warmer
very high atmosphere. If you were trained in astrophysics,
you should know the high atmosphere of the sun is much hotter
than the surface of the sun.
I still wonder why this basic fact of 1000Wm-2 is such a hidden fact
in AGW. If you wish to know how much heat a tub of water will absorb
from solar energy, you need this peritent value. No average of 342
will help whatsoever, or their considerations that the sun averages
168W while the atmosphere averages 324W to the surface.
I don't understand why the start with the solar constant and
divide by 4, because the polar regions get very little energy from the
sun.
And I don't understand why they expect to reach an
equilibrium when using multiple energy sources when there
is only one energy source they recognize.
Energy in and energy out should be just that, and
the computer models are simply a waste of time and money.
Now watch a couple of people whine "Please don't talk against
AGW or computer models, that is how I make a living".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil of ***** makes his move. |
16 Sep 2007 01:20:20 AM |
|
|
On Sep 15, 10:31 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:05:57 -0700, wrote:
I still wonder why this basic fact of 1000Wm-2 is such a hidden fact
in AGW. If you wish to know how much heat a tub of water will absorb
from solar energy, you need this peritent value. No average of 342
will help whatsoever, or their considerations that the sun averages
168W while the atmosphere averages 324W to the surface.
I don't understand why the start with the solar constant and
divide by 4, because the polar regions get very little energy from the
sun.
Fool, thats basic geometry. The amount of energy received is equal to
the cross section of the earth * solar flux density. You only get
that 1kW per m^2 at noon on the equator. You divide by 4 because
thats the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its cross section.
And I don't understand why they expect to reach an
equilibrium when using multiple energy sources when there
is only one energy source they recognize.
Thats just because it's the nature of any system to move towards
equilibrium.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil makes his move. |
16 Sep 2007 11:46:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:20:20 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:31 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:05:57 -0700, wrote:
I still wonder why this basic fact of 1000Wm-2 is such a hidden fact
in AGW. If you wish to know how much heat a tub of water will absorb
from solar energy, you need this peritent value. No average of 342
will help whatsoever, or their considerations that the sun averages
168W while the atmosphere averages 324W to the surface.
I don't understand why the start with the solar constant and
divide by 4, because the polar regions get very little energy from the
sun.
Fool, thats basic geometry. The amount of energy received is equal to
the cross section of the earth * solar flux density. You only get
that 1kW per m^2 at noon on the equator. You divide by 4 because
thats the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its cross section.
Well, it's wrong, and it is stupid, the sun angles of
the sun does not equal half of half.
Basic geometry doesn't fit the real Earth with all the
variations of various kinds.
Excuse me again for saying anything that might affect
you freeloader job.
And I don't understand why they expect to reach an
equilibrium when using multiple energy sources when there
is only one energy source they recognize.
Thats just because it's the nature of any system to move towards
equilibrium.
And there enough self controlling mechanisms to make
global warming a rather lengthy process if it ever occurs, the
more likely problems are not connected with climate.
A program on the historical great disasters suggested
that the cold temperatures 600 years ago very likely made
the plagues more deadly than they would have been in
a warmer climate.
Note that the tropics don't usually get temperatures
as high as the temperate zones, and the amount of energy
needed to melt a lot of ice is so great that ordinary storms
will have destroyed seashore property several times before
the owners will need to worry about sea level rise.
I would suggest that a young reactionary like you
should be working to improve energy and transportation
devices instead of trying to impress lurkers with your
genius and math abilities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil makes his move. |
17 Sep 2007 09:34:21 AM |
|
|
In article <tnmqe3t2otgnkt826mf8sd8hnkgukq8sqv@4ax.com>,
Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:20:20 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:31 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:05:57 -0700, wrote:
I still wonder why this basic fact of 1000Wm-2 is such a hidden fact
in AGW. If you wish to know how much heat a tub of water will absorb
from solar energy, you need this peritent value. No average of 342
will help whatsoever, or their considerations that the sun averages
168W while the atmosphere averages 324W to the surface.
I don't understand why the start with the solar constant and
divide by 4, because the polar regions get very little energy from the
sun.
Fool, thats basic geometry. The amount of energy received is equal to
the cross section of the earth * solar flux density. You only get
that 1kW per m^2 at noon on the equator. You divide by 4 because
thats the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its cross section.
Well, it's wrong, and it is stupid, the sun angles of
the sun does not equal half of half.
Basic geometry doesn't fit the real Earth with all the
variations of various kinds.
Hmm. Which (all) of the following do you disbelieve:
The earth is nearly a sphere
The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2
The earth presents a (nearly) circular disk to the sun
(as the sun and moon, for example, do to us)
The area of a circular disk is pi*r^2
The earth can only (top of atmosphere) intercept energy on
the face towards the sun
The ratio between area of a circular disk and area of a sphere of
same radius is 1/4
[trim]
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil makes his move. |
17 Sep 2007 11:43:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:34:21 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:
Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
Fool, thats basic geometry. The amount of energy received is equal to
the cross section of the earth * solar flux density. You only get
that 1kW per m^2 at noon on the equator. You divide by 4 because
thats the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its cross section.
Well, it's wrong, and it is stupid, the sun angles of
the sun does not equal half of half.
Basic geometry doesn't fit the real Earth with all the
variations of various kinds.
Hmm. Which (all) of the following do you disbelieve:
The earth is nearly a sphere
Ok.
The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2
Ok.
The earth presents a (nearly) circular disk to the sun
(as the sun and moon, for example, do to us)
Ok.
The area of a circular disk is pi*r^2
Ok.
The earth can only (top of atmosphere) intercept energy on
the face towards the sun
Right.
The ratio between area of a circular disk and area of a sphere of
same radius is 1/4
[trim]
Wrong assumption, one of the weaknesses of many
mathematicians is not being fluent in trig.
The solar insolation not only becomes less at higher
latitudes because of angle spreading, but also becomes less
or even a total reflection at near 90 degrees.
This is something that a model can be built so the
premise can be checked by measurement, I am astonished
that anybody thinks the solar insolation is simply the same
proportion as the area.
And the time in total darkness allows the poles to
lose so much heat the water freezes, and any snow becomes
an insulator and a reflector in addition to albedo reduction.
Could I assume the people that are certain they
are smarter are the dumbest? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Grumbine" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil makes his move. |
18 Sep 2007 09:08:06 AM |
|
|
In article <7vate354htvm82fnqmq0cdbthem2526ea5@4ax.com>,
Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:34:21 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:
Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
Fool, thats basic geometry. The amount of energy received is equal to
the cross section of the earth * solar flux density. You only get
that 1kW per m^2 at noon on the equator. You divide by 4 because
thats the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its cross section.
Well, it's wrong, and it is stupid, the sun angles of
the sun does not equal half of half.
Basic geometry doesn't fit the real Earth with all the
variations of various kinds.
Hmm. Which (all) of the following do you disbelieve:
The earth is nearly a sphere
Ok.
The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2
Ok.
The earth presents a (nearly) circular disk to the sun
(as the sun and moon, for example, do to us)
Ok.
The area of a circular disk is pi*r^2
Ok.
The earth can only (top of atmosphere) intercept energy on
the face towards the sun
Right.
The ratio between area of a circular disk and area of a sphere of
same radius is 1/4
[trim]
Wrong assumption, one of the weaknesses of many
mathematicians is not being fluent in trig.
Who said I'm a mathematician? Just looking at how much energy
the earth can intercept. It can intercept pi*r^2 from the sun,
but has a surface area of 4*pi*r^2.
The solar insolation not only becomes less at higher
latitudes because of angle spreading, but also becomes less
or even a total reflection at near 90 degrees.
Looks like you're skipping the matter of what the earth
intercepts in favor of being confused about what happens
after it reaches the earth.
Since I'm not the master of trig that you claim to
be, I like to keep things simple. One simple thing, in accord
with the first law, is to figure out how much energy enters
your system. This is simply solar constant time the area
doing the intercepting.
For the earth to be in thermal balance, even approximately,
about as much energy must be leaving as entering. While it
only intercepts the pi*r^2 from the sun, it radiates from all
4*pi*r^2 of the surface. Folks in the field think this means
the outgoing radiation is effectively from 4 times greater an
area than the incoming passes through.
For the folks not visualizing this well:
Get yourself a globe. Then cut out a disk of paper with the
same radius as your globe. Obviously, the globe itself is
curved and adding up the energy per unit area is going to be
difficult because the surface curves. It can be done, but you'll
need calculus for it. Or, you can put the disk between the sun
and your globe earth, face on to the sun, and notice that every
light ray that eventually reaches the surface of the earth also
passes through the disk, and no light ray that hits the disk
would fail to pass on to the surface of the earth. Area of
the disk is easy to compute, and every part of the disk gets
the same energy from the sun so it's easy to tally the energy
that reaches the top of the atmosphere from the sun.
What happens once the solar energy reaches the top of the
atmosphere begins the climate story. But you'll hardly get
far if, like Fool, you don't get the right amount of energy
to the top of the atmosphere.
This is something that a model can be built so the
premise can be checked by measurement, I am astonished
that anybody thinks the solar insolation is simply the same
proportion as the area.
And the time in total darkness allows the poles to
lose so much heat the water freezes, and any snow becomes
an insulator and a reflector in addition to albedo reduction.
Could I assume the people that are certain they
are smarter are the dumbest? :-)
You seem to be doing a lot of assuming.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whata Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: ' Nitrogen is the Primary Greenhouse Gas, Phil makes his move. |
18 Sep 2007 11:01:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:08:06 -0000, (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:
Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
Wrong assumption, one of the weaknesses of many
mathematicians is not being fluent in trig.
Who said I'm a mathematician? Just looking at how much energy
the earth can intercept. It can intercept pi*r^2 from the sun,
but has a surface area of 4*pi*r^2.
But while the solar energy in real time (essentially
parallel rays because the sun is 1100 times the diameter
of the Earth) may be split half and half with the lighted and
dark side, the center area of the lighted side gets direct
sun mostly, but the other half of the lighted area does not
get the full solar insolation.
The solar insolation not only becomes less at higher
latitudes because of angle spreading, but also becomes less
or even a total reflection at near 90 degrees.
Looks like you're skipping the matter of what the earth
intercepts in favor of being confused about what happens
after | | | | | | | | | | | | |
