On Jun 3, 11:34 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:12:32 -0700,fredfighterwrote:

On Jun 3, 5:55 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:27:13 -0700,fredfighterwrote:

On Jun 3, 4:08 am, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:55:37 -0700,fredfighterwrote:

On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:11:19 -0700,fredfighterwrote:

...

The simple fact is that there is no warm surface that
separates the water molecules in the troposphere from the
carbon dioxide molecules in the troposphere.

Who said there was?

You did, in response to the explanation for how energy gets from
the surface of the Earth, to CO2 in the atmosphere. Your
objection was:

And if you can show how a cold layer of atmosphere can
radiate energy down to a warm surface, you're doing pretty
good.

Now, if that was not an objection, do you now accept that energy
radiated from the solid Earth reaches Carbon Dioxide in the
Atmosphere?

If not, why not?

Pretty feeble attempt to confuse by clipping. You do know that
anyone can check the archive to see what I actually posted, don't
you?

I'm counting on it.

Persons who review this thread will find that you consistently edit
my remarks without any indication that you have edited them, and
will quickly reach the conclusion that you did so in order that
certain of your statements like "There was no discussion", and
"Nope. That only goes into the basic theory of one GHG." would
not be immediately identified as bald faced lies.

I reckon they'll make up their own minds on that. That's the nice
thing about archives - you can't bluff your way out.

It will also be readily apparent to the reader reviewing the thread
that it was when I answered you question "

They will also note that when I edit out text, I use an elipsis,
'...' to so indicate, though sometimes I do forget.

Now, addressing your confusion regarding radiative heat transfer:

Suppose we have a perfect spheriocal black body with a temperature
of 300 degrees Kelvin in space. It will radiate a black-body
spectrum omnidirectionally, as crudely indicated in the ASCII
representation below:

\ | /
- o -
/ | \

Now, let us suppose that a second perfect spherical black body with
a temperature of 400 degrees K is placed to its right. You would
have us believe that the first body ceases to radiate to the right.

\ | / \ | /
- o - o -
/ | \ / | \

So what happens at the surface of that body which causes it to stop
emitting photons to the right? Nothing of course. That
illustration is wrong. The second law of thermodynamics is not a
magic telegraph that allows the first body to tell the second "I'm
hotter than you don't send any photons this way". Instead, both
bodies continue to radiate omnidirectionally:

\ | / \ | /
- o - - o -
/ | \ / | \

So, does heat flow from the the body on the left toward the body on
the right in violation of the second law? Of course not.

Radiative heat transfer between the two will be proportionate to
the difference of the fourth power of their temperatures and in the
direction of hotter toward cooler, consistent with the second law
of thermodynamics,. This is because the flux to the left body,
from the body on the right is greater than the flux to the body on
the right, from the body on the left. Emission from the body on
the left does not 'shut off'.

But what if the body on the right is not a perfect black body,
suppose it has a low emissivity reducing the flux from right to
left? Would not the left to right flux overwhelm it? The answer
is no, because if the emissivity of the body changes so does the
absorptivity. The second law of thermodynamics requires that the
emissivity equal the absorptivity so that if the emissivity of the
second body is reduced it also absorbs less from the body on the
left and the net heat flow, though reduced, remains from right to
left.

So now let us look at the lower atmosphere over the surface of the
Earth.

The emission from the surface of the Earth is grey-body,
sufficiently similar to black-body that we need not fuss over the
differences. The emission from the atmosphere is also grey-body.
The emission from the surface is unidrectionally up, because the
solid Earth is opaque. Emission in the atmosphere is
omnidirectional because the atmosphere is transparent. Does this
mean that a cold atmosphere will radiate heat toward a warmer
surface? No, it does not for the same reason that the colder
sphere in the example above does not transfer heat to the warmer
one.

Congratulations, that was my point.

Nonsense. Your point was that the emission in the atmosphere was
anisotrpic:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6065f0787f922327?d...

Bill Ward wrote:

Fredfighterwrote:

...
Are you saying that radiation from the atmosphere is anisotropic?

Yes. unless you can explain how you can transfer heat from a cold
source to a hot sink. Do AGW theorists have some sort of exemption
from the second law?

************************

It took you long enough. Either you are a quick study, or you were
just faking your ignorance.

A little work on your attitude and integrity and you might amount to
something after all.

So now that I've shown that the mechanism by which CO2 contributes to
global warming in the greenhouse effect, the theoretical basis for the
greenhouse effect is infrared spectroscopy and conservation of
energy, and shown how the presences of large amounts of water vapor
does not prevent atmospheric CO2 from contributing to the greenhouse
effect, do you have any questions?

Pretty full of yourself, aren't you? So far you've only confirmed my
claim, based on the second law, that you can't transfer heat from a
high, cold atmospheric source to a hot surface sink.You don't really
need virtual photons to show that, but, whatever. It should be obvious.

Nonsense. As requested, I showed that the mechanism by which CO2
contributes to global warming in the greenhouse effect, that the
theoretical
basis for the greenhouse effect is infrared spectroscopy and conservation
of energy, and have shown how the presences of large amounts of water
vapor does not prevent atmospheric CO2 from contributing to the greenhouse
effect.

You haven't commented on that, not even to argue against any of it. You
just keep saying it wasn't written.

You ignored my first point that water vapor swamps out nearly all the
CO2 effect, because it's at a higher concentration closer to the
surface.

No, I refuted it here:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/faaf6faaaedddd57?dmode=source&hl=en

in the discussion you said did not exist.

And referred you to another article which also refuted it here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/a1aabc61855d7304?dmode=source&hl=en

You, OTOH, ignored that material other than to deny that it was
presented.

My question is: Do you really think you are fooling anybody with your
clever snippage, attempted changes of subject, deliberate misconstruing
of obvious language, etc, etc?

Again I remind the reader that the only comments you made regarding
those discussions were false statements like "That only goes into the
basic theory of one GHG", and that you then edited out the above-
mentioned discussions without any placeholder, such as an elipsis or
[snip] to indicate that you had done so.

I have a lot more respect for the intelligence of readers than you
apparently do. I think most see right through you, and are laughing at
you. It makes you and your position look desperate to confuse, rather
than to convince. That means you know you are losing.

You obviously know the chess player's principle: "When you're ahead,
simplify; if you're behind, complicate."

Google is not your friend.

On Jun 1, 5:24 pm,

On Jun 1, 10:09 am,

On Jun 1, 2:49 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:

If NASA is asked what can be done to change human influence on
climate change, Mike will see to it that NASA answers that
question.

ESAS is clear evidence that Michael Griffin has very little
credibility on scientific and engineering matters, and his
global warming comments merely confirm that hypothesis.

ESAS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Systems_Architecture_Study

Did he say anything in the interview that causes you to question
his scientific or engineering competency? If so, what?

If you can't recognize that his comments utterly destroyed his
already questionable scientific and engineering competence in the
area of planetary sciences, then there is really no point of me
attempting to continue a sophisticated conversation with a
disingenuous, disengaged and disinterested individual such as
yourself. Y

Could you at least clarify if you object to the conclusion that the
Earth's climate is warming, or that human activity is a contributor
to the effect, or both?

How about the fact that there is no evidence, just propaganda, that CO2
has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. Moreover, and more
importantly, is the fact that the AGW climatologists steadfastly refuse
to discuss the specifics of why they believe CO2 has an effect on
atmospheric temperatures and deliberately conceal the fact that they
really don't have any specific reasons for their belief that CO2 has an
effect on atmospheric temperatures.

The greenhouse effect is the result of IR molecular spectroscopy and the
conservation of energy.

Which of those do you dispute?

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:34:15 -0700, Bill Ward

<b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:12:32 -0700,fredfighterwrote:

So now that I've shown that the mechanism by which CO2 contributes to
global warming in the greenhouse effect, the theoretical basis for the
greenhouse effect is infrared spectroscopy and conservation of energy,
and shown how the presences of large amounts of water vapor does not
prevent atmospheric CO2 from contributing to the greenhouse effect, do
you have any questions?

Pretty full of yourself, aren't you? So far you've only confirmed my
claim, based on the second law, that you can't transfer heat from a high,
cold atmospheric source to a hot surface sink. You don't really need
virtual photons to show that, but, whatever. It should be obvious.

He did a great job presenting the physics behind _NET_ radiative thermal
energy from warmer to cooler.
Too bad he and the rest can't do the math that shows omni-directional
radiation from a gradient atmosphere -- to -- space is ultimately
almost all upward and outward.