| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 May 2007 02:15:50 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
On May 9, 1:15 pm, wrote:
On May 9, 10:04 am, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:> On May 8, 12:30 pm, Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the Depression of 1929 to 1939, human production of C02 (the U.S.
by far the largest) dropped by 30% due to production decreases and
related declines.
l> Reference?
You have no reference Lloyd. If one reads your journals, there are
terms and principles which are used which are not defined in the
article. If one researches to find the definition or elmentation of
these terms, it is not possible to find.
An example is the preliminarty concept that earth temperatures with
only O2 and N2 atmosphere would be deficeint 33C. Supposedly water
vapor and the trace gases bolster this temperature by blocking
outgoing radiation that would otherwise travel back out of the
atmosphere and not be reintegrated into the energy of the heat
dynamics.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.htmlhttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf
Here is the article, fully accredited to read that you always suggest.
Here is the essential diagram that is the basis for the greenhouse
theory of climatology and the hysterical calls for complete economic
reform for the purpose of avoiding complete catastrophy from human
caused global warming. This is the official version and the basis for
the IPCC.
If you have a better version, please refer it to us, he who reads what
the proper scientists say as he choses what he believes properly.
But look. The intial solar constant is divided by total surface area
in order to achieve the base temperature.
HAHAHAHAHhahahahhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
One hemiphere has the area 2 pi r ^2
The disk of the silohouette has the area pi r ^2.
Heat capacity is the energy that a substance absorbs as it increases
it's temperature. When the source of heat is removed, this energy of
the heat capacity is radiated.
At any temperature, the rate of energy loss is defined by Boltzman
Stefan equation. So when the side of the sphere goes into shadow and
is receiving no input radiation, it radiates the energy of it's heat
capacity and loses temperature accordingly. The heat from the interior
is transferred by conduction to the surface that is losing the heat by
radiation.
A surface receiving radiation, will absorb this energy and according
to it's heat capacity will increase it's temperature. This temperature
increase will continue until the surface is radiating equivelent to
the energy it is recieving. From this is also subtracted any energy
still conducted away from the surface to the interior. So the surface
of the moon goes to 123C and goes no higher with the sun near zenith.
It is radiating equivelent to what it is receiving.
The energy being received per sq meter is not transfered through the
planet to the dark side. The surface in fact that is receiving energy,
radiates what it receives.
Mercury faces the same side to the sun at all times. The moon has 14
days of light and 14 days of darkeness. These are two case studies to
confirm the theories on receipt of radiatiion and surface
temperatures.
It is completely ludicrous at this point to use the input average by
the surface radiating area of the entire sphere, especially since on
the unlit side, the energy radiatied is only from the heat capacity of
what is stored as it rotated out of the input radiation.
The heat capacity of a substance is finite. That means that a
substance absorbs energy until it's surface is radiating equivelent to
it's reception, and the quantity of energy for the heat capacity for
total mass and temperature is absorbed. At this point it absorbs no
more energy. The surface reaches the same temperature as the
temperature for the density of radiation which it is receiving.
So why would an average of the input energy even be relevant to the
emisison of energy on the unlit side, which quickly goes to near
absolute zero in which it radiates virtually no energy at all??
JUNK SCIENCE
FOR YOU TO AVOID ANWERING MY QUESTIONS LLOYD, PROVES YOU A CHARLATAN
AND FRAUDIST
REFER THE PROPER DAMN ARTICLES OR JOURNALS
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditioner.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/e6f52b658b0dc784/b5103d344615d31b?rnum=1&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe6f52b658b0dc784%2Fb5103d344615d31b%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_b5103d344615d31b
Another fact you must account for in your diagram that you must submit
Lloyd for your thermodynamic accounting of the 'average' temperature
of a slowly rotating sphere in the solar constant, is that on the moon
on the unlit side, the temperature goes to 41K. 41K = .16Wm-2.
Near this temperature is the only stable temperature on the unlit side
of the moon as all other temperatures are rapidly descending to this
temperature. Also at 1 meter depth, the temperature of the moon is
very little affected by the surface temperatures due to the low heat
conductivity of the basalts of which the moon is entirely composed.
The moon is very hot in it's interior, and at not a very great depth.
The temperature on the unlit side of mercury is 61K at the coldest
points. All of the heat on this side of mercury is transfered by
conduction through the planet.
KD
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Habr" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 11:30:57 AM |
|
|
Of course humans produce an effect on the total atmospheric CO2.
To believe otherwise would be to deny way too much science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 12:59:32 PM |
|
|
Of course humans produce an effect on the total atmospheric CO2.
I certainly don't dispute that. And it does, and will, have a
significant impact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 08:05:39 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 2:24 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 9, 12:15 pm, wrote:
[snip screed]
sci.physics doesn't care, moron.
You are not sci.physics, eric, (the irritated mommies boy of
sci.physics). Your implied use of the word 'we', only applies to you,
and the mouse in your pocket. There are actually intelligent
individuals on sci.physics who can analyze and think objectively, whom
you only harass with your rote-memorized and dictated rhetoric which
your mediocre mind enjoys.
The exact topic of my post is of the utmost importance in terms of
physics and social and economic relevance.
This is the topic of the physcis regarding the density of energy at
the earth's radius to the sun, ~1370Wm-2, and the determination of the
heat dynamics and mean temperature of the earth according to this
influx of energy.
It is essential to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that
the effect of the water vapor, (which has much greater spectroscopic
dark bands than CO2), and the effect of existing CO2, (in existing
concentrations of ~300ppm), be accounted for, for the theory that
change in concentrations of ~50-100ppm can have an effect upon the
temperature equilibrium of the earth.
This theory is entirely based upon the premise of dividing the input
emergy density by four, to account for the radiative surface area of
the earth.
This is entirely invalid. The energy radiated from the unlit side is
entirely from the heat capacity of the substances, which has a
specific value of quantity according to temperature, heat capacity and
molar quantity.
The temperature that is reached on the lit side is due totally to the
density of the radiation recieved. Therefore, recieved energy is not
absorbed as a direct function of the average of solar energy for total
radiative area of the sphere. The temperature in the incident
radiation, reaches a maximum and the surface receiving the energy
radiates equivelent to what it recieves.
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
The inablity of the schools of physics to do this simple analyses is a
critical indictment of their accreditation as valid theoretical
scientists.
To obtain 342Wm-2 as the pertinent value for determination of base
temperatures of the earth is theoretical fraud.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditoner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 09:09:24 AM |
|
|
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Habr" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 11:15:09 AM |
|
|
<hurt_beyond_repair@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178806164.175466.143280@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
Air is a mixture of gases which include carbon dioxide and water vapor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 12:56:41 PM |
|
|
Air is a mixture of gases which include carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Air defined here as Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon, the three dominant
gases of the atmosphere before carbon dioxide. Excluding water vapor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Habr" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 01:49:33 PM |
|
|
<hurt_beyond_repair@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178819801.857615.178680@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Air is a mixture of gases which include carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Air defined here as Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon, the three dominant
gases of the atmosphere before carbon dioxide. Excluding water vapor.
You can define it however you want to, I will stick to science.
air-Mixture of gases forming the earth's atmosphere, consisting of nitrogen (?78 percent),
oxygen (?21 percent), water vapor, and other trace gases such as carbon dioxide, helium,
argon, ozone, or various pollutants.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 03:02:21 PM |
|
|
You can define it however you want to, I will stick to science.
Yes Billy, as do I, except I'm not trying to give a grade-school
presentation of "Our sky, what's it made of ?".
air-Mixture of gases forming the earth's atmosphere, consisting of nitrogen (?78 percent),
oxygen (?21 percent), water vapor, and other trace gases such as carbon dioxide, helium,
argon, ozone, or various pollutants.
I think you mean "...AND various pollutants."
Look here for further exploration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
http://www.planetpolluto.com/coloring_book.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 10:46:24 AM |
|
|
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 01:05:43 PM |
|
|
sigh
Bored, or just full of yourself? If you actually need clarification
you should ask.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not effect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 11:15:10 AM |
|
|
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
10 May 2007 11:47:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to say
that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise temperatures.
What the ***** kind of planetary science do you fuckwits actually do at
the Space Research & Planetary Sciences Research Division at the
University of Bern?
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
11 May 2007 04:03:01 AM |
|
|
On May 10, 6:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to say
that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise temperatures.
OK, if you insist: an increase of atmospheric CO2 will raise
temperatures.
Wow, I'm really out on a limb with that one.
Still plenty of room for arguments in overall climate predictions.
What the ***** kind of planetary science do you fuckwits actually do at
the Space Research & Planetary Sciences Research Division at the
University of Bern?
I'm not doing climate research as you may have guessed.
Do I know you? What's your opinion oh courageous kT?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
11 May 2007 04:17:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On May 10, 6:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to say
that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise temperatures.
OK, if you insist: an increase of atmospheric CO2 will raise
temperatures.
Wow, I'm really out on a limb with that one.
Still plenty of room for arguments in overall climate predictions.
The empirical evidence says otherwise. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is currently at 383 ppm and rising at a rate of 2
ppm/year. Greenhouse gas sinks are saturating, greenhouse gas emissions
are rising, natural greenhouse gas sources are being activated, and
positive feedback mechanisms are coming into play, with demonstrable
results. The estimated carbon dioxide sensitivity to doubling is at
least 3 C, and without immediate action, carbon dioxide will have
doubled by the end of the century. Two well established potential
sources of 7 meter sea level rise are readily apparent (Greenland and
West Antarctica) and one of them (West Antarctica) sits on land that is
below sea level, and is already beginning to disintegrate. We are in the
midst of a global mass extinction. That guarantees a new Eocene :
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=292
What the ***** kind of planetary science do you fuckwits actually do at
the Space Research & Planetary Sciences Research Division at the
University of Bern?
I'm not doing climate research as you may have guessed.
Do I know you? What's your opinion oh courageous kT?
I am of the opinion that you are a ***** poor physicist, and that the
university of Bern should can your ***** as fast as physically possible.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
11 May 2007 08:20:52 AM |
|
|
On May 11, 11:17 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 6:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to say
that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise temperatures.
OK, if you insist: an increase of atmospheric CO2 will raise
temperatures.
Wow, I'm really out on a limb with that one.
Still plenty of room for arguments in overall climate predictions.
The empirical evidence says otherwise. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is currently at 383 ppm and rising at a rate of 2
ppm/year. Greenhouse gas sinks are saturating, greenhouse gas emissions
are rising, natural greenhouse gas sources are being activated, and
positive feedback mechanisms are coming into play, with demonstrable
results. The estimated carbon dioxide sensitivity to doubling is at
least 3 C, and without immediate action, carbon dioxide will have
doubled by the end of the century. Two well established potential
sources of 7 meter sea level rise are readily apparent (Greenland and
West Antarctica) and one of them (West Antarctica) sits on land that is
below sea level, and is already beginning to disintegrate. We are in the
midst of a global mass extinction. That guarantees a new Eocene :
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=292
OK Mr. excellent judge of physicists you know nothing about,
perhaps you'd like to tell me how much the clearly antropogenic (my
original point) CO2 has to do with the global mass extinction.
Is the CO2 killing the plants and animals? Or could some biodiversity
perhaps survive a higher sea level and warmer atmosphere if we weren't
so busy paving over everything in sight?
The Neocene may be upon us, but is the global CO2 really the best
monitor of Gaia health you can come up with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonzo Lies, is INSANE" |
|
| Title: Re: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
12 May 2007 02:32:18 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1178889652.687434.175770@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
On May 11, 11:17 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 6:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that
of air and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can
be no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll
leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to
say that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise
temperatures.
OK, if you insist: an increase of atmospheric CO2 will raise
temperatures.
Wow, I'm really out on a limb with that one.
Still plenty of room for arguments in overall climate predictions.
The empirical evidence says otherwise. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is currently at 383 ppm and rising at a rate of 2
ppm/year. Greenhouse gas sinks are saturating, greenhouse gas
emissions are rising, natural greenhouse gas sources are being
activated, and positive feedback mechanisms are coming into play,
with demonstrable results. The estimated carbon dioxide sensitivity
to doubling is at least 3 C, and without immediate action, carbon
dioxide will have doubled by the end of the century. Two well
established potential sources of 7 meter sea level rise are readily
apparent (Greenland and West Antarctica) and one of them (West
Antarctica) sits on land that is below sea level, and is already
beginning to disintegrate. We are in the midst of a global mass
extinction. That guarantees a new Eocene :
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=292
OK Mr. excellent judge of physicists you know nothing about,
perhaps you'd like to tell me how much the clearly antropogenic (my
original point) CO2 has to do with the global mass extinction.
Any well rounded education, which physicists frequently lack portions of
such as biology, sociology, psychology, history, and anthropolgy, would
tell you that CO2 levels are an excellent indicator of mass insanity.
Levels above 330 ppm are tragically high.
From that physics/chemistry datum alone, by itself, one whould know that
barbarians are vandalizing the planetary life-support system, as they
have through all of history before and pay attention to the other
indicatory of environmental damages red flashing warning lights on the
Buckminster Fuller World Game Computer Screens.
That you even make inappropriate smug remarks like you just did is a
referral to psychological counselling to determine your fitness for any
position of responsibility.
Is the CO2 killing the plants and animals? Or could some biodiversity
perhaps survive a higher sea level and warmer atmosphere if we weren't
so busy paving over everything in sight?
Most definite symptom of insanity expressed. Lopsided educations produce
massive blind spots, but cannot in themselves produce contempt for the
life-support systems.
The Neocene may be upon us, but is the global CO2 really the best
monitor of Gaia health you can come up with?
It's not his job to to do your job. 330 ppm by itself is fully
diagnostic, but if there are any better diagnostics you show no impulse
to identify and highlight them.
330+ ppmv of CO2 not registering visible concern on your part shows that
even the physics part of your education, that which you have focussed to
an extreme, is deficient.
In short you are an illiterate by 21st century standards, although you
would probably fit in if a time machine sent you back 30 years or so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
11 May 2007 09:46:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On May 11, 11:17 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 6:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to say
that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise temperatures.
OK, if you insist: an increase of atmospheric CO2 will raise
temperatures.
Wow, I'm really out on a limb with that one.
Still plenty of room for arguments in overall climate predictions.
The empirical evidence says otherwise. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is currently at 383 ppm and rising at a rate of 2
ppm/year. Greenhouse gas sinks are saturating, greenhouse gas emissions
are rising, natural greenhouse gas sources are being activated, and
positive feedback mechanisms are coming into play, with demonstrable
results. The estimated carbon dioxide sensitivity to doubling is at
least 3 C, and without immediate action, carbon dioxide will have
doubled by the end of the century. Two well established potential
sources of 7 meter sea level rise are readily apparent (Greenland and
West Antarctica) and one of them (West Antarctica) sits on land that is
below sea level, and is already beginning to disintegrate. We are in the
midst of a global mass extinction. That guarantees a new Eocene :
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=292
OK Mr. excellent judge of physicists you know nothing about,
perhaps you'd like to tell me how much the clearly antropogenic (my
original point) CO2 has to do with the global mass extinction.
The carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and
gas, and the energy also derived from the burning of these same fossil
Is the CO2 killing the plants and animals? Or could some biodiversity
perhaps survive a higher sea level and warmer atmosphere if we weren't
so busy paving over everything in sight?
You are all over the board there Lukas, do try to keep a coherent line
of thought. Heat intolerance also causes heat death and species demise.
The Neocene may be upon us, but is the global CO2 really the best
monitor of Gaia health you can come up with?
Yes.
Ironically, its thermal effect is offset by pollutants, which also kill.
But don't worry, species will adapt, the dolphins and the whales did.
However, unlike the last Eocene, what we have during this Neocene is a
combination of thermal maximum and active human related species death.
A double whammy, if you will. So please take it to your bosses, this is
no longer an energy conservation problem, this is a physics problem.
You can get on board, or you can continue to act and talk like a jerk.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Muehlbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Lukas Saul is an Ignorant Coward |
11 May 2007 01:38:24 PM |
|
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 11, 11:17 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 6:47 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
On May 10, 5:46 pm, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On May 10, 8:09 am, wrote:
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
Half of our "greenhouse" is always in the cold.
Now. Compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide to that of air
and water vapor.
sigh
I can't help but notice that not one of these posts addresses the
completely erroneous subject line.
Man most certainly affects the total atmosphereic CO2! There can be
no argument there.
What that means for global temperature and biodiversity, I'll leave
you all to argue about.
In other words, you, a space physicist, do not have the balls to say
that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise temperatures.
OK, if you insist: an increase of atmospheric CO2 will raise
temperatures.
Wow, I'm really out on a limb with that one.
Still plenty of room for arguments in overall climate predictions.
The empirical evidence says otherwise. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration is currently at 383 ppm and rising at a rate of 2
ppm/year. Greenhouse gas sinks are saturating, greenhouse gas emissions
are rising, natural greenhouse gas sources are being activated, and
positive feedback mechanisms are coming into play, with demonstrable
results. The estimated carbon dioxide sensitivity to doubling is at
least 3 C, and without immediate action, carbon dioxide will have
doubled by the end of the century. Two well established potential
sources of 7 meter sea level rise are readily apparent (Greenland and
West Antarctica) and one of them (West Antarctica) sits on land that is
below sea level, and is already beginning to disintegrate. We are in the
midst of a global mass extinction. That guarantees a new Eocene :
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=292
OK Mr. excellent judge of physicists you know nothing about,
perhaps you'd like to tell me how much the clearly antropogenic (my
original point) CO2 has to do with the global mass extinction.
The carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and
gas, and the energy also derived from the burning of these same fossil
You didn't read the question, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonzo Lies, is INSANE" |
|
| Title: Peter Muehlbauer is a chronic liar. |
12 May 2007 02:37:26 PM |
|
|
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap@frankenexpress.de> wrote in
news:f22d73$l72$1@news1.nefonline.de:
OK Mr. excellent judge of physicists you know nothing about,
perhaps you'd like to tell me how much the clearly antropogenic (my
original point) CO2 has to do with the global mass extinction.
The carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil
and gas, and the energy also derived from the burning of these same
fossil
You didn't read the question, eh?
The answer was fully appropriate to a flippant question posed by an
illiterate. No simple answer would solve the massive gaps in the
understanding of the illiterate, but keywords worth hard study and research
would eventually lead to enlightening of a now dim bulb.
You yourself failed to pose any answer of any kind, leading to the
suggestion that your illiteracy is deeper than your partner's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Muehlbauer is a chronic liar. |
13 May 2007 09:40:49 AM |
|
|
On May 12, 9:37 pm, "Bonzo Lies, is INSANE"
<I'll.be.b...@Terminator.com> wrote:
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@frankenexpress.de> wrote innews:f22d73$l72$1@news1.nefonline.de:
OK Mr. excellent judge of physicists you know nothing about,
perhaps you'd like to tell me how much the clearly antropogenic (my
original point) CO2 has to do with the global mass extinction.
The carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil
and gas, and the energy also derived from the burning of these same
fossil
You didn't read the question, eh?
The answer was fully appropriate to a flippant question posed by an
illiterate.
You didn't read it either, eh?
Just because Bonzo won't read, doesn't mean the author was
illiterate.
No simple answer would solve the massive gaps in the
understanding of the illiterate, but keywords worth hard study and research
would eventually lead to enlightening of a now dim bulb.
So what's your first language?
You yourself failed to pose any answer of any kind, leading to the
suggestion that your illiteracy is deeper than your partner's.
Peter's literacy is likely better than mine, as he has wisely avoided
attempting intelligent conversation until somebody expresses an
interest in that over meaningless insults.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Man does not affect total atmospheric C02 |
10 May 2007 08:09:40 AM |
|
|
On May 10, 7:05 am, wrote:
On May 9, 2:24 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 9, 12:15 pm, wrote:
[snip screed]
sci.physics doesn't care, moron.
You are not sci.physics, eric, (the irritated mommies boy of
sci.physics). Your implied use of the word 'we', only applies to you,
and the mouse in your pocket. There are actually intelligent
individuals on sci.physics who can analyze and think objectively, whom
you only harass with your rote-memorized and dictated rhetoric which
your mediocre mind enjoys.
The exact topic of my post is of the utmost importance in terms of
physics and social and economic relevance.
This is the topic of the physcis regarding the density of energy at
the earth's radius to the sun, ~1370Wm-2, and the determination of the
heat dynamics and mean temperature of the earth according to this
influx of energy.
It is essential to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that
the effect of the water vapor, (which has much greater spectroscopic
dark bands than CO2), and the effect of existing CO2, (in existing
concentrations of ~300ppm), be accounted for, for the theory that
change in concentrations of ~50-100ppm can have an effect upon the
temperature equilibrium of the earth.
This theory is entirely based upon the premise of dividing the input
emergy density by four, to account for the radiative surface area of
the earth.
This is entirely invalid. The energy radiated from the unlit side is
entirely from the heat capacity of the substances, which has a
specific value of quantity according to temperature, heat capacity and
molar quantity.
The temperature that is reached on the lit side is due totally to the
density of the radiation recieved. Therefore, recieved energy is not
absorbed as a direct function of the average of solar energy for total
radiative area of the sphere. The temperature in the incident
radiation, reaches a maximum and the surface receiving the energy
radiates equivelent to what it recieves.
At this point, no more energy is being absorbed which would be
relevant to the surface area on the unlit side.
The inablity of the schools of physics to do this simple analyses is a
critical indictment of their accreditation as valid theoretical
scientists.
To obtain 342Wm-2 as the pertinent value for determination of base
temperatures of the earth is theoretical fraud.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help and buy
an air conditoner.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
