| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2007 11:44:39 AM |
| Object: |
GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
1 gallon of heptane C7 H16 => a few gallons
of CO2 and H20 when burned.
How does that compare to 1 little old farm pumping
out 1000's of gallons a day of H20 as water vapor?
The "Governator" (Schwarznegger) is encouraging
Calf. to switch to the "Hydrogen Economy" but,
that move won't put a dent in greenhouse gases,
because H2O is a comparable GreenHouse Gas, (GHG).
(The actually spectral physics of H2O vs CO2 as
being what's worse is a tough call).
It's more than Joe farmers sprinkler, many thousands
of processes dump stream into the atmosphere,
examples like steel production and nuclear reactor
stacks. ((Nuclear reactor stack clouds are nifty to see
from an airplane, they look like mushroom clouds)).
If we integrate the H2O human activity adds to GHG's,
CO2 is a drop in the bucket (pun intended).
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Regards
Ken
.
|
|
| User: "Szczepan Bialek" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 02:52:17 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote
news:1180716279.262832.225620@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
1 gallon of heptane C7 H16 => a few gallons
of CO2 and H20 when burned.
How does that compare to 1 little old farm pumping
out 1000's of gallons a day of H20 as water vapor?
The "Governator" (Schwarznegger) is encouraging
Calf. to switch to the "Hydrogen Economy" but,
that move won't put a dent in greenhouse gases,
because H2O is a comparable GreenHouse Gas, (GHG).
(The actually spectral physics of H2O vs CO2 as
being what's worse is a tough call).
It's more than Joe farmers sprinkler, many thousands
of processes dump stream into the atmosphere,
examples like steel production and nuclear reactor
stacks. ((Nuclear reactor stack clouds are nifty to see
from an airplane, they look like mushroom clouds)).
If we integrate the H2O human activity adds to GHG's,
CO2 is a drop in the bucket (pun intended).
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Ladies and Gents understand H2O satisfactorily. See:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/531/2
They should understand better the SO2 and fly ash. You have more water in
the air (sticky) because in the air is lack of the natural nuclei for rain:
SO2 and fly ash. They are removed from the smoke in the all wealthy country.
So you have clean air but sticky.
Regards
S*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 11:46:15 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 12:52 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrotenews:1180716279.262832.225620@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
1 gallon of heptane C7 H16 => a few gallons
of CO2 and H20 when burned.
How does that compare to 1 little old farm pumping
out 1000's of gallons a day of H20 as water vapor?
The "Governator" (Schwarznegger) is encouraging
Calf. to switch to the "Hydrogen Economy" but,
that move won't put a dent in greenhouse gases,
because H2O is a comparable GreenHouse Gas, (GHG).
(The actually spectral physics of H2O vs CO2 as
being what's worse is a tough call).
It's more than Joe farmers sprinkler, many thousands
of processes dump stream into the atmosphere,
examples like steel production and nuclear reactor
stacks. ((Nuclear reactor stack clouds are nifty to see
from an airplane, they look like mushroom clouds)).
If we integrate the H2O human activity adds to GHG's,
CO2 is a drop in the bucket (pun intended).
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Ladies and Gents understand H2O satisfactorily. See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/531/2
Interesting article. I'd like to suggest a few points,
see what you guys think,
1) Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
2) The water cycle of evaporation to rain is powered
by the Sun.
3) As the Sun warms up it warms up the Earth and
the water cycle is energized.
4) An energized water cycle results from a warm Sun.
5) Water vapor is a GreenHouse Gas.
That's to start...let's look at Dr. Bialek's other points.
They should understand better the SO2 and fly ash. You have more water in
the air (sticky) because in the air is lack of the natural nuclei for rain:
SO2 and fly ash. They are removed from the smoke in the all wealthy country.
I think your thesis is that pollution dry's the air by
providing "nucleating dust" for rain and snow, that's
agreeable, so we have a complicating factor like,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_effects
So you have clean air but sticky.
6) At some point, the energized water cycle should
produce a "negative" feed-back" by increased cloud
that reflects sunlight.
7) Dr. Bialek points out that pollution (dust) is rather
like "cloud seeding" effectively destroying clouds and
partially inhibiting the negative feed-back that clouds
provide to cool the Earth.
Regards
S*
Thanks and Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Szczepan Bialek" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 02:31:59 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker"
"Szczepan Bialek"
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Ladies and Gents understand H2O satisfactorily.
See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/531/2
Interesting article. I'd like to suggest a few points,
see what you guys think,
1) Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
2) The water cycle of evaporation to rain is powered
by the Sun.
3) As the Sun warms up it warms up the Earth and
the water cycle is energized.
4) An energized water cycle results from a warm Sun.
5) Water vapor is a GreenHouse Gas.
That's to start...let's look at Dr. Bialek's other points.
They should understand better the SO2 and fly ash. You have more water in
the air (sticky) because in the air is lack of the natural nuclei for
rain:
SO2 and fly ash. They are removed from the smoke in the all wealthy
country.
I think your thesis is that pollution dry's the air by
providing "nucleating dust" for rain and snow,
The first step are clouds. The rain and snow fall or not. It depends on
additional factors.
that's agreeable, so we have a complicating factor like,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_effects
So you have clean air but sticky.
6) At some point, the energized water cycle should
produce a "negative" feed-back" by increased cloud
that reflects sunlight.
In normal natural conditions when the SO2 and fly ash are in air. Now we
have the sticky air and decreased cloud (about 4%).
7) Dr. Bialek points out that pollution (dust) is rather
like "cloud seeding" effectively destroying clouds and
partially inhibiting the negative feed-back that clouds
provide to cool the Earth.
The natural constituents of the smoke from burning of biomas are not like
the artifical dust used in clouds destroing.
Ladies and Gents we need to understand SO2 and fly ash better.
The most important is to know that the ash is alkaline and SO2 acidic. Then
they are together no acid rain. People started with remowing of ash. In the
result the acid rain appeared.
Regards
S* (without Dr)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 02:53:50 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 12:31 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker"
"Szczepan Bialek"
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Ladies and Gents understand H2O satisfactorily.
See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/531/2
Interesting article. I'd like to suggest a few points,
see what you guys think,
1) Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
2) The water cycle of evaporation to rain is powered
by the Sun.
3) As the Sun warms up it warms up the Earth and
the water cycle is energized.
4) An energized water cycle results from a warm Sun.
5) Water vapor is a GreenHouse Gas.
That's to start...let's look at Dr. Bialek's other points.
They should understand better the SO2 and fly ash. You have more water in
the air (sticky) because in the air is lack of the natural nuclei for
rain:
SO2 and fly ash. They are removed from the smoke in the all wealthy
country.
I think your thesis is that pollution dry's the air by
providing "nucleating dust" for rain and snow,
The first step are clouds. The rain and snow fall or not. It depends on
additional factors.
that's agreeable, so we have a complicating factor like,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_effects
So you have clean air but sticky.
6) At some point, the energized water cycle should
produce a "negative" feed-back" by increased cloud
that reflects sunlight.
In normal natural conditions when the SO2 and fly ash are in air. Now we
have the sticky air and decreased cloud (about 4%).
That (4%) sounds reasonable too me.
7) Dr. Bialek points out that pollution (dust) is rather
like "cloud seeding" effectively destroying clouds and
partially inhibiting the negative feed-back that clouds
provide to cool the Earth.
The natural constituents of the smoke from burning of biomas are not like
the artifical dust used in clouds destroing.
But they still nucleat, yes?
Ladies and Gents we need to understand SO2 and fly ash better.
The most important is to know that the ash is alkaline and SO2 acidic. Then
they are together no acid rain.
Understood. I figure your using H2O + SO2 => H2SO4,
for acidity. OTOH dust is an oxidized carbon, what's
the best best "alkaline dust"?
People started with remowing of ash. In the
result the acid rain appeared.
I'm listening.
Regards
S* (without Dr)
LOL, you sound like a Dr^2 to me though some take
that as an insult, so I'll switch to "Mr.Bialek"
Regards
Mr. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 09:40:15 PM |
|
|
With just unleded gas ,,the price would be 1/2 because import gas is as
good as any.
Price gougers smat ***** oil bosses nead the green house gas excuse .
Fact is only 25 million acres burn and the planet neads 88 million burnt
evry year.
Smokey the bear fucked up. He should burn a few forest . ( 25 million
usa ) .
Smokey puts out and prevents forest fires.
Now we dont have enouph polution to get te rain we nead.
We just wount get none ,,untill the trees dry the ***** out and they all
fucking burn .
The dought and small ineffective rains will continue untill it gets
hot and dry and the forest burn ,,then the humid air will rain for 40
days and 40 nights and put all the fires out.
Not burning is like saving up fuel for a real BIG burn anyway.
These controle freeks use propaganda with no math inventory of all the
earths polutions and gasses.
100 million bbl oil is only 33 millionton carbon.
1800 million ton is required for normal rains .
400 million ton polutions is the worlds curent output. Its 1400 mllion
ton short because 25 millin acres burnt instead of 88 million acres.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Szczepan Bialek" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
03 Jun 2007 03:15:19 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote (copy from Google) - on my server no yours and tj
Frazir's posts.
That (4%) sounds reasonable too me.
7) Dr. Bialek points out that pollution (dust) is rather
like "cloud seeding" effectively destroying clouds and
partially inhibiting the negative feed-back that clouds
provide to cool the Earth.
The natural constituents of the smoke from burning of biomas are not like
the artifical dust used in clouds destroing.
But they still nucleat, yes?
To be precise they nucleat the condensation of water vapour. In the air are
many types of nuclei. But the SO2 and fly ash are also the nutrients for
plants.
Ladies and Gents we need to understand SO2 and fly ash better.
The most important is to know that the ash is alkaline and SO2 acidic.
Then
they are together no acid rain.
Understood. I figure your using H2O + SO2 => H2SO4,
for acidity. OTOH dust is an oxidized carbon, what's
the best best "alkaline dust"?
In the biomas are plenty of elements. So in the fly ash are also CaO, MgO
and so on.
People started with remowing of ash. In the
result the acid rain appeared.
I'm listening.
Regards
S* (without Dr)
LOL, you sound like a Dr^2 to me though some take
that as an insult, so I'll switch to "Mr.Bialek"
Sory for my English.
I have read everywhere that SO2 is the toxin. Yes, it is. But for the
moulds. We must burn sulphur. Tj Frazir wrote: "Fact is only 25 million
acres burn and the planet neads 88 million burnt
evry year". My intuition tels me that the remowing of SO2 and fly ash is an
error. I only encourage to study this aspect. You have avaiable all
necessary data. In XX century all was recorded. There were the three
different situations:
!. Emission of the smoke with SO2 and fly ash by 1950
2. Emission with SO2 by 1980
3. Emission without the both
Regards
S*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
03 Jun 2007 04:46:48 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 11:46 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:52 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrotenews:1180716279.262832.225620@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
1 gallon of heptane C7 H16 => a few gallons
of CO2 and H20 when burned.
How does that compare to 1 little old farm pumping
out 1000's of gallons a day of H20 as water vapor?
The "Governator" (Schwarznegger) is encouraging
Calf. to switch to the "Hydrogen Economy" but,
that move won't put a dent in greenhouse gases,
because H2O is a comparable GreenHouse Gas, (GHG).
(The actually spectral physics of H2O vs CO2 as
being what's worse is a tough call).
It's more than Joe farmers sprinkler, many thousands
of processes dump stream into the atmosphere,
examples like steel production and nuclear reactor
stacks. ((Nuclear reactor stack clouds are nifty to see
from an airplane, they look like mushroom clouds)).
If we integrate the H2O human activity adds to GHG's,
CO2 is a drop in the bucket (pun intended).
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Ladies and Gents understand H2O satisfactorily. See:http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/531/2
Interesting article. I'd like to suggest a few points,
see what you guys think,
1) Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
2) The water cycle of evaporation to rain is powered
by the Sun.
3) As the Sun warms up it warms up the Earth and
the water cycle is energized.
4) An energized water cycle results from a warm Sun.
5) Water vapor is a GreenHouse Gas.
That's to start...let's look at Dr. Bialek's other points.
They should understand better the SO2 and fly ash. You have more water in
the air (sticky) because in the air is lack of the natural nuclei for rain:
SO2 and fly ash. They are removed from the smoke in the all wealthy country.
I think your thesis is that pollution dry's the air by
providing "nucleating dust" for rain and snow, that's
agreeable, so we have a complicating factor like,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_effects
So you have clean air but sticky.
6) At some point, the energized water cycle should
produce a "negative" feed-back" by increased cloud
that reflects sunlight.
7) Dr. Bialek points out that pollution (dust) is rather
like "cloud seeding" effectively destroying clouds and
partially inhibiting the negative feed-back that clouds
provide to cool the Earth.
Regards
S*
Thanks and Regards
Ken S. Tucker- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arizona/yuma/
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/texas/austin/
I'd like to hear an explanation of this data. These two cities are
about the same latitude and elevation. One has extremely greater water
content in the air. If the actual solar radiation at the surface is
measured, the temperatures induced are not shown to be increased by
specific atmospheric gases.
Low temperatures of these cities is about the same. Certainly no big
difference in Yuma with the low water content. In any laboratory
analyses, any gases will have the same effect of reducing nightitme
temperatue drop. Special effect of CO2 or water vapor cannot be
demonstrated. Where is the grenhouse effect?
The effect on spectral distribution of atmospheric radiation does not
affect overal energy transfer or temperature. Certainly the minute
concentrations of CO2 do not affect temperature either. This can be
demonstrated likewise by concentrations of CO2 and temperature
readings from ice cores.
KD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
01 Jun 2007 12:00:44 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
Don't discount the oceans and the greater and greater area
of surface water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
01 Jun 2007 12:54:23 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 10:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
Don't discount the oceans and the greater and greater area
of surface water.
Exactly, that's another positive feedback.
Consider solving the global warming problem
where human kind had no roll, this is global
cooling...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
that's solar radiance dependant.
Note: though solar radiance is difficult to measure
with precision, it appears the Sun had a heat burp.
Suppose we were to compute climate change on
the sole basis of "solar radiance", we would likely
get increased humidity with slow ocean warming
and an expel of CO2 as the ocean water warms.
But following that argument the increased atmospheric
CO2 becomes an effect, not a cause.
In juxtaposition to Sam's enquiry, we have, literally
evaporated the Aral Sea,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea
by the process of irrigation.
The process converted most of the Aral sea into
water vapor, the irrigated lands are dry, the H2O
went somewhere.
The US sits on some gigantic aquifier that has
suffered depletion,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifier#North_America
that is annually converted to water vapor for spinklers.
Here's the partial diff equation: if we banned all
hydro-carbon use, and let irrigation techniques
remain the same, human kind input into GHG's
would remain fairly constant. Maybe we should
think about sub-soil irrigation techiques (?).
I think, (hard to prove conclusively) we might be subject
to a solar radiance issue coming out the Maunder
Minimum, and it's echo effects on Earth's climate,
it's certainly not linear, it's quite bouncy, like water
sloshing in a disturbed pail.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
01 Jun 2007 12:03:07 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 12:44 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
CO2 seems to minor player, check out H2O,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Have any of you guys ever been to the US?
Well we've driven across it quite a few times,
and I was really impressed by their sprinklers,
I'm talking big farms. Another thing I noticed on
hot days was the air was sticky, quite humid,
now I wonder how much that contributes to
global humidity. Have a look at the humidity
graph for Boulder Colorado in the above link.
1 gallon of heptane C7 H16 => a few gallons
of CO2 and H20 when burned.
How does that compare to 1 little old farm pumping
out 1000's of gallons a day of H20 as water vapor?
The "Governator" (Schwarznegger) is encouraging
Calf. to switch to the "Hydrogen Economy" but,
that move won't put a dent in greenhouse gases,
because H2O is a comparable GreenHouse Gas, (GHG).
(The actually spectral physics of H2O vs CO2 as
being what's worse is a tough call).
It's more than Joe farmers sprinkler, many thousands
of processes dump stream into the atmosphere,
examples like steel production and nuclear reactor
stacks. ((Nuclear reactor stack clouds are nifty to see
from an airplane, they look like mushroom clouds)).
If we integrate the H2O human activity adds to GHG's,
CO2 is a drop in the bucket (pun intended).
Ladies and Gents we need to understand H2O better.
Regards
Ken
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the amount in the
atmosphere continually fluctuates even on a daily basis. If carbon
dioxide did the same, it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dwib" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
01 Jun 2007 12:57:33 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 12:03 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the amount in the
atmosphere continually fluctuates even on a daily basis. If carbon
dioxide did the same, it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I got into a discussion with someone about CO2 being a greenhouse gas
but he stumped me with a comment about "saturation".
CO2 has these huge absorption bands in the IR but (and I'm looking at
my super-duper atmospheric spectrum wall chart) it's a BIG
absorption. I mean, it looks like CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR
light. So what does it matter if CO2 concentrations go up and the
absorption increases to 99.9999%?
I didn't know how to counter this arguement. Any ideas? Or is this
guy correct and CO2 conc. is a paper tiger?
Dwib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
01 Jun 2007 02:52:23 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 10:57 am, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:03 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the amount in the
atmosphere continually fluctuates even on a daily basis. If carbon
dioxide did the same, it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I got into a discussion with someone about CO2 being a greenhouse gas
but he stumped me with a comment about "saturation".
CO2 has these huge absorption bands in the IR but (and I'm looking at
my super-duper atmospheric spectrum wall chart) it's a BIG
absorption. I mean, it looks like CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR
light. So what does it matter if CO2 concentrations go up and the
absorption increases to 99.9999%?
I didn't know how to counter this arguement. Any ideas? Or is this
guy correct and CO2 conc. is a paper tiger?
Dwib
Don't know for sure, but I think I agree (I need to
cross the "i's" and dot the "t's"), but there is a
parallel thread in the group Sci.physics.foundations,
wherein Dr. Francis supports your thesis.
My personal reasoning supports both of your PoV's.
If I have a standard set of sunglasses, that reduce
light by 1/2, then if I wear one on top of the other
I would reduce the light to 1/4, IOW"S (1/2)^n.
So adding more sunglasses dimishes the effect
of blocking or retaining heat, so if I wear 8 or 10
sets, we have a "saturation" effect, beyond which
adding GHG's will have small nominal effect, is that
agreeable?
If I understand correctly, we have actually reached
that saturation of CO2 and H2O, and changes will
make very little difference.
That returns to the idea that the Sun is actually
going through a heating cycle, which is evident,
and the human caused GHG's is mostly BS.
Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we need to
deploy resources properly. Let's work the problem
and respect causal inputs.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "smallpond" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
01 Jun 2007 04:34:09 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 3:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:57 am, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:03 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the amount in the
atmosphere continually fluctuates even on a daily basis. If carbon
dioxide did the same, it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I got into a discussion with someone about CO2 being a greenhouse gas
but he stumped me with a comment about "saturation".
CO2 has these huge absorption bands in the IR but (and I'm looking at
my super-duper atmospheric spectrum wall chart) it's a BIG
absorption. I mean, it looks like CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR
light. So what does it matter if CO2 concentrations go up and the
absorption increases to 99.9999%?
I didn't know how to counter this arguement. Any ideas? Or is this
guy correct and CO2 conc. is a paper tiger?
Dwib
Don't know for sure, but I think I agree (I need to
cross the "i's" and dot the "t's"), but there is a
parallel thread in the group Sci.physics.foundations,
wherein Dr. Francis supports your thesis.
My personal reasoning supports both of your PoV's.
If I have a standard set of sunglasses, that reduce
light by 1/2, then if I wear one on top of the other
I would reduce the light to 1/4, IOW"S (1/2)^n.
So adding more sunglasses dimishes the effect
of blocking or retaining heat, so if I wear 8 or 10
sets, we have a "saturation" effect, beyond which
adding GHG's will have small nominal effect, is that
agreeable?
If I understand correctly, we have actually reached
that saturation of CO2 and H2O, and changes will
make very little difference.
That returns to the idea that the Sun is actually
going through a heating cycle, which is evident,
and the human caused GHG's is mostly BS.
Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we need to
deploy resources properly. Let's work the problem
and respect causal inputs.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
If the CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR, I wonder what is making my
skin
warm when I stand in the sunlight. Any idea?
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 11:20:04 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 2:34 pm, smallpond <smallp...@juno.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:57 am, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:03 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the amount in the
atmosphere continually fluctuates even on a daily basis. If carbon
dioxide did the same, it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I got into a discussion with someone about CO2 being a greenhouse gas
but he stumped me with a comment about "saturation".
CO2 has these huge absorption bands in the IR but (and I'm looking at
my super-duper atmospheric spectrum wall chart) it's a BIG
absorption. I mean, it looks like CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR
light. So what does it matter if CO2 concentrations go up and the
absorption increases to 99.9999%?
I didn't know how to counter this arguement. Any ideas? Or is this
guy correct and CO2 conc. is a paper tiger?
Dwib
Don't know for sure, but I think I agree (I need to
cross the "i's" and dot the "t's"), but there is a
parallel thread in the group Sci.physics.foundations,
wherein Dr. Francis supports your thesis.
My personal reasoning supports both of your PoV's.
If I have a standard set of sunglasses, that reduce
light by 1/2, then if I wear one on top of the other
I would reduce the light to 1/4, IOW"S (1/2)^n.
So adding more sunglasses dimishes the effect
of blocking or retaining heat, so if I wear 8 or 10
sets, we have a "saturation" effect, beyond which
adding GHG's will have small nominal effect, is that
agreeable?
If I understand correctly, we have actually reached
that saturation of CO2 and H2O, and changes will
make very little difference.
That returns to the idea that the Sun is actually
going through a heating cycle, which is evident,
and the human caused GHG's is mostly BS.
Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we need to
deploy resources properly. Let's work the problem
and respect causal inputs.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
If the CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR, I wonder what is making my
skin
warm when I stand in the sunlight. Any idea?
--S
Good question. I had a pane of glass near a wood
stove that got hot and cracked by heat radiation,
so glass absorbs infared radiation. Another thing
is motion detectors don't work through windows,
and they are actually heat sensors.
That said, you can take a magnifying glass and get
a serious burn even as the sun-light passes through
thick glass, (UV is blocked by glass) so the visible
spectrum of light conveys heat to your skin.
Does that make sense?
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dwib" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
04 Jun 2007 01:58:05 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 4:34?pm, smallpond <smallp...@juno.com> wrote:
If the CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR, I wonder what is making
my skin warm when I stand in the sunlight. Any idea?
First, I'm referring to the bands of IR absorption that CO2 absorbs,
not the entire IR spectrum.
Second, I'm not sure if 99.999% is a correct absorption. From my wall
chart it's a very strong absorption band... that's all I can tell.
I could reword my question to be:
How is the atmospheric absorption of IR light by CO2 related to the
concentration of atmospheric CO2?
I imagine that above a certain CO2 concentration there will be a
negligible increase in IR energy absorbed. Is our atmosphere at this
critical concentration? Far below this point? Far above this point?
I'm hoping some climatologists read sci.physics and can clarify this
point.
Dwib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
04 Jun 2007 02:27:38 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 11:58 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:34?pm, smallpond <smallp...@juno.com> wrote:
If the CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR, I wonder what is making
my skin warm when I stand in the sunlight. Any idea?
First, I'm referring to the bands of IR absorption that CO2 absorbs,
not the entire IR spectrum.
Second, I'm not sure if 99.999% is a correct absorption. From my wall
chart it's a very strong absorption band... that's all I can tell.
I could reword my question to be:
How is the atmospheric absorption of IR light by CO2 related to the
concentration of atmospheric CO2?
I imagine that above a certain CO2 concentration there will be a
negligible increase in IR energy absorbed. Is our atmosphere at this
critical concentration? Far below this point? Far above this point?
I'm hoping some climatologists read sci.physics and can clarify this
point.
Dwib
Fair questions all.
The next question is how to acquire the necessary
data scientifically, minimizing subjectivity, by getting
the politicians and axe grinders out of the loop.
The dream would be calibrating Earth's albedo across
the power input spectrum from the Sun, then in labs
calibrating the results using tunable lasers in a
chamber and then extrapolating.
That would in essence would be a specialized "analog
computer", where the gases are varied to sim atmospheres
as is the frequency to map out the power spectrum.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Personally, I think climate change debate
resembles a school class spit ball fight than a
careful scientific debate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Crash Street Kidd" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
03 Jun 2007 04:12:58 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 1:57 pm, Dwib <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:03 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the amount in the
atmosphere continually fluctuates even on a daily basis. If carbon
dioxide did the same, it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I got into a discussion with someone about CO2 being a greenhouse gas
but he stumped me with a comment about "saturation".
CO2 has these huge absorption bands in the IR but (and I'm looking at
my super-duper atmospheric spectrum wall chart) it's a BIG
absorption. I mean, it looks like CO2 is absorbing 99.999% of the IR
light. So what does it matter if CO2 concentrations go up and the
absorption increases to 99.9999%?
I didn't know how to counter this arguement. Any ideas? Or is this
guy correct and CO2 conc. is a paper tiger?
CO2 concentration increases with temperature and not vice versa.
CSK
Dwib
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: GreenHouse Gas, H2O? |
02 Jun 2007 09:21:35 PM |
|
|
greenhousegasses is *****.
The sad fact is 88 million acres of forest on earth per year neads
burnt.
You cant make a cloud or rain without polution particals to condence a
drop on.
NO POLUTION NO RAIN.
100 million bbl world oil year is only 33 million ton carbon . coal is
just another 20 million ton carbon year.
BFF befor forest fires 50 million ton of polutions worldwide.
1800 million tons carbon from 88 million acres is normal and it will
snow like hell on boath poles.
This planet got far too good at cleaning the air and putting out
forest fires.
less then 20 million acres burns now .
400 million tons is the world output and its short by 1200 million tons
carbon.
The earths rain is cut in 1/2 .
The ground is not cooled as ofen by rain .
Not enouph snow falls on the poles and the sea rizes.
I remeber what smog and smoke stacks on evry corner looked like wile
houses burnt coal.
I have a record of the last 300 years of polution.
Not enouph trees burn so the air is so fucking clean it wount rain and
dump that rain and that cabon back to earth.
Greenhouse gass is *****.
The heat loss at night is normal.
Its the ground that gets hot and if it rains it cools it off . If it
dont rain its cool less often .
The planet runs out of particals in the air for humitity to condence on
to start a flake or drop.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
