news.cogeco.ca wrote:
snip

IR comes from below, it is absorbed and reradiated in all directions
-
including down. Hence there is greater IR below than there is above.
Hence it is warmer below.

Very simple, very correct logic, that only the terminally stupid can
not
follow.

What is causing the heat coming
from below?
Gravity?

news.cogeco.ca wrote:

<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162259458.571163.50720@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

z wrote:

kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:

There is much made about the "absorption" bands of CO2. What
difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?

Yes, yes, lots of questions you have, grasshopper, not so much memory
for answers, yes?


"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's
calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had
grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had
failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a
little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a
simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published
his hypothesis, Knut =C5ngstr=F6m sent infrared radiation through a t=

filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as
would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the
atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely
changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The
reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the
spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that
were "saturated" - so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make
little difference.

"Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far mo=

abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared
radiation. In the spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of
the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not
affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as
CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely. After these conclusions
were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been
enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work, like Chamberlin, now considered =

plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for
decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere=

"According to a well-known estimate published in 1924, even without
ocean absorption it would take 500 years for fuel combustion to double
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"There was also the old objection, which most scientists continued to
find decisive, that the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water
vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were
capable of blocking. Callendar tried to explain that the laboratory
spectral measurements were woefully incomplete. Some other scientists
too kept an open mind on the question. But it remained the standard
view that, as an official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the
masking of CO2 absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO2
theory. Therefore, said this authority, "no probable increase in
atmospheric CO2 could materially affect" the balance of radiation."

"Few thought it worthwhile to speculate about such dubious questions,
where data were rudimentary and theory was no more than hand-waving.
Better to rest with the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was=

stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity
could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of
it, hardly worth a scientist's attention."

Here we leave the state of the art regarding
What-anthropogenic-climate-change? "science" behind, in the late 1920=

As we pass into the futuristic scientific world of the 1930s we will
answer your question, "There is much made about the "absorption" bands
of CO2. What difference is there if the CO2 is pressurized or not?".
Then you can start asking us skeptical questions that were answered in
the 1940s.

" Fundamental physics theory, and a few measurements made at low
pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid and rarified upper
atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change. The bands seen
at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, all
smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter Elsass=

during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the war and
after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into a
cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps
between the lines where radiation would get through.

"These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan
to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he
showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should
be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the
high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhil=

precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2
absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines.
Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines
with spaces for radiation to slip through."

"A key point stood out. In the network of feedbacks that made up the
climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by
itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen
in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of
CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the
greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed. Joining the
chorus were analyses of ancient climates, using geological data
entirely independent of the computer models. They found a "climate
sensitivity"- the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level
- in the same range as computer models were predicting for future
greenhouse warming. The authors concluded that continued emissions
would produce a temperature rise of several degrees during the coming
century, "a warming unprecedented in the past million years, and...
much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."

"By 2005, scientists could compare sophisticated computer estimates of
the greenhouse effect with measurements that showed warming in most of
the world's ocean basins (it was the oceans that absorbed most of any
additional heat energy). The calculations pinned down an imbalance -
the Earth was now taking in from sunlight nearly a watt per square
meter more than it was radiating back into space, averaged over the
planet's entire surface. That was enough energy to cause truly serious
effects if it continued. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies,
called it the final "smoking gun" proof of greenhouse effect warming.

"The likely consequences were explored in many studies, ranging from
complex computer models to surveys of how temperatures had actually
changed along with gas levels in the past. All agreed that the rising
level of CO2 in the atmosphere was causing global warming - probably
a rise of several degrees by the late 21st century. The consequences
would be severe, perhaps catastrophic, in many parts of the world. "

"The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall we=

now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct
effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea wate=

and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on
understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system,
and especially living creatures... most of all, humans."

<http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm>

Why so long winded and never in this bunch of crap do you show any
cause and effect. It is a fact of life that theoretical scientists have
left the definition of science behind.

Why don't you twirps shut me up right here then.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature. If .0001 change in concentration can supossedly warm the
earth into runaway temperature increase, careful laboratory experiments
with 90% or so concentrations should have some results. Any one has the
right to be a skeptic since the only valid scientific fact that can be
gained from these experiments is that CO2 has no property to cause
higher temperatures.

The answer is negative. No cause and effect can be shown. No effect on
temperature by any concentration of CO2. That CO2 can do this in the
atmosphere is pure POSTULATION.
YOu are blowing it out your *****.
You have attention deficit disorder in your pursuit of your inductive
reasoning in your pursuit of your false conclusion
You are dishonest schoolboys.
What you are asking for in the way of imposition on our economic
structure is criminal.

I repeat:
Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

Refer to the laboratory experiment in which various concentrations of
CO2 to air, with equal water vapor, causes any difference in
temperature.

You cannot. CO2 has no such property and you have no science.

KD

Exactly what part do you have trouble with? Black body radiation
theory, the IR absorbtion spectrum of CO2, or conservation of energy?
You last asked about IR absorbtion spectrum of CO2 but when I explained
it to you cracked a gasket, so you need to clarify what part of the
relatively simple and well established physics you have issues with.