| |
Main
Date: 08 Aug 2007 02:49:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: For RChung the Science Guy
|
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
"Conclusions
It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR
absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global
warming or even a climate catastrophe.
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. ~
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
"There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This
means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters."
"The Cause of Global Warming is Oceans Heating, not Carbon Dioxide or
Humans"
"Global warming propagandists have recently been saying that ocean levels
are expected to rise 20 feet in the future. But measurements by tide gauge
indicate oceans are rising only 1.8mm per year, which is only 7 inches per
century, and ice accumulating over Antarctica will cause sea levels to
decrease in the near future."
"In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in
Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice.
But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes
ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over
oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not
clarified."
The problem with Global Warming appoligists is that the real scientists are
disproving them every day. Now we're being told that the reason it's getting
colder is because of global warming.
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 17:23:51
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 9, 6:59 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
> science for all of this is done.
This is great news! "We" can fire all those "scientists" since "we"
don't need them anymore. My taxes will go down!
Shit or get off the pot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 07:21:38
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 10, 9:59 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
>
> > All this "10 meters" at sea level pressure crap says nothing
> > about what happens in the upper atmosphere, which is what is
> > important.
>
> dumbass,
>
> it is true that there is near total absorption at 15um in only a few
> meters, but it doesn't actually explain what happens in the
> atmosphere.
>
> this CO2 saturation argument is apparently a stale one and this link
> at real climate (thanks to asher for this link) does a pretty good job
> of clarifying the problem.
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gas...
Dumbass,
That's a good link. Thanks for posting it.
The author is Spencer Weart, who also wrote the
"Discovery of Global Warming" history at the
aip.org link I posted upthread. But the
realclimate article is more direct and
comprehensible to an interested outsider.
It's funny how certain science topics attract
amateurs - perhaps I should say non-experts,
because sometimes they are scientists in another
field- who think they can upset the whole
applecart because all the regular scientists
are brainwashed. This usually only happens
in popular fields with flash - you see people
trying to prove relativity or quantum mechanics
or the Big Bang wrong, but nobody ever tries to
prove that mainstream science is lying about
the conduction bands of silicon. (Though surely
if quantum mechanics was wrong, they'd get silicon
wrong too?) I'm informed that this happens in
archaeology as well.
Climate change is like that except the amateurs
attract lots of money.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 10:01:31
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Climate change is like that except the amateurs
> attract lots of money.
And neoconservative so called think tanks.
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 06:56:15
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 14, 8:16 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > it is true that there is near total absorption at 15um in only a few
> > meters, but it doesn't actually explain what happens in the
> > atmosphere.
>
> Give me a break! What it means is that additional CO2 has no "greeenhouse
> effect."
Dumbass,
Thermal IR emission is absorbed and reradiated at all
altitudes in the atmosphere.
To give an analogy, energy in the Sun is generated
all the way down in the core, but it gets absorbed and
reradiated many times on the way out. If you didn't
know that but calculated the opacity of the outer layers
of the Sun for some wavelength, you'd discover that it
is nearly opaque in a depth of only about 500 km
(depending a bit on wavelength). The solar radius
is 700,000 km. By your reasoning, since we cannot
see down to the core where the energy comes from,
the Sun is black.
When you go outside and get a "sun" burn, it's just
because a black helicopter from the National Science
Foundation is following you around with an enormous
arc lamp to piss you off.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:18:43
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> When you go outside and get a "sun" burn, it's just
> because a black helicopter from the National Science
> Foundation is following you around with an enormous
> arc lamp to piss you off.
Giving away State Secrets ?!?!?
Bill
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 04:59:12
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 10, 8:52 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Aug 9, 8:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> > > On Aug 8, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > >> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found
> > >> almost
> > >> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>
> > >> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
> > >> effect.
>
> > > Kun-Kun,
>
> > You dick suckers like to use nicknames don't you?
>
> Tommy Boy,
>
> I'd prefer "cocksucker." You may address me as "Mr. Cocksucker."
>
> > > Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that
> > > you want to point out?
>
> > I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
> > if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
> > pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
> > stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
> > these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
> > is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.
>
> > Who would have thought that a even a mindless moron such as yourself would
> > be led around by the nose into believing that Global Warming is man-made?
>
> All this "10 meters" at sea level pressure crap says nothing
> about what happens in the upper atmosphere, which is what is
> important.
dumbass,
it is true that there is near total absorption at 15um in only a few
meters, but it doesn't actually explain what happens in the
atmosphere.
this CO2 saturation argument is apparently a stale one and this link
at real climate (thanks to asher for this link) does a pretty good job
of clarifying the problem.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:16:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186808352.671799.197570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> it is true that there is near total absorption at 15um in only a few
> meters, but it doesn't actually explain what happens in the
> atmosphere.
Give me a break! What it means is that additional CO2 has no "greeenhouse
effect."
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:33:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in
news:13c4s1aqjf4d078@corp.supernews.com:
> <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1186808352.671799.197570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> it is true that there is near total absorption at 15um in only a few
>> meters, but it doesn't actually explain what happens in the
>> atmosphere.
>
> Give me a break! What it means is that additional CO2 has no
> "greeenhouse effect."
Would you please at least try to understand the physics of radiative
transfer through atmospheres before you post on the subject? Reading
your posts on climate are like listening to Judas Priest cover
Christopher Parkening playing Heitor Villa-Lobos's Prelude No. 1.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:54:54
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
In article <Xns998CE570EE1BFFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
> news:13c4s1aqjf4d078@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1186808352.671799.197570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> it is true that there is near total absorption at 15um in only a few
> >> meters, but it doesn't actually explain what happens in the
> >> atmosphere.
> >
> > Give me a break! What it means is that additional CO2 has no
> > "greeenhouse effect."
>
> Would you please at least try to understand the physics of radiative
> transfer through atmospheres before you post on the subject? Reading
> your posts on climate are like listening to Judas Priest cover
> Christopher Parkening playing Heitor Villa-Lobos's Prelude No. 1.
Dude! I have that on 8-track.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 10:03:08
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
William Asher wrote:
>> Would you please at least try to understand the physics of radiative
>> transfer through atmospheres before you post on the subject? Reading
>> your posts on climate are like listening to Judas Priest cover
>> Christopher Parkening playing Heitor Villa-Lobos's Prelude No. 1.
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Dude! I have that on 8-track.
How do you rip an 8-track.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 00:52:09
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 9, 8:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> > On Aug 8, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found
> >> almost
> >> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>
> >> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
> >> effect.
>
> > Kun-Kun,
>
> You dick suckers like to use nicknames don't you?
Tommy Boy,
I'd prefer "cocksucker." You may address me as "Mr. Cocksucker."
> > Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that
> > you want to point out?
>
> I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
> if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
> pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
> stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
> these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
> is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.
>
> Who would have thought that a even a mindless moron such as yourself would
> be led around by the nose into believing that Global Warming is man-made?
All this "10 meters" at sea level pressure crap says nothing
about what happens in the upper atmosphere, which is what is
important. But I already explained that, though you didn't read
it, or understand it. My recollection is that
you've posted here about your experience working as an
engineer on spectrometry and chromatography instruments.
Which instruments did you work on? I don't generally use
standard lab equipment (in my line of work the spectrographs
are usually custom) but I want to be double sure to avoid
anything you may have touched.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 02:30:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1186793529.359445.28320@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 8:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> All this "10 meters" at sea level pressure crap says nothing
> about what happens in the upper atmosphere, which is what is
> important. But I already explained that, though you didn't read
> it, or understand it. My recollection is that
> you've posted here about your experience working as an
> engineer on spectrometry and chromatography instruments.
> Which instruments did you work on? I don't generally use
> standard lab equipment (in my line of work the spectrographs
> are usually custom) but I want to be double sure to avoid
> anything you may have touched.
You really don't understand absorption spectra so I suggest that you leave
town Mr. Cocksucker.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 05:18:37
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 9, 11:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
> if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
> pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
> stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
> these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
> is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.
dumbass,
why do you humiliate yourself ? do you like being tarred and
feathered ?
the "study" you linked to assumes that all the radiative forcing is at
the 15 micrometre line and neglects the rest of the CO2 absorption
spectrum where there is still plenty of room for CO2 to absorb
outgoing radiation.
it also neglects temperature and pressure effects (because all the CO2
is not at the ground), but that is minor compared to the fundamental
flaw in that analysis.
this piece of work would not be acceptable if it was done by an
undergrad student.
your assertion that all the CO2 is at the ground is wrong (and not
even relevant to the analysis in that article) as is your idea of what
causes treelines.
if you want i can give you a list of books and references so that you
can try to patch some of the baleful gaps in your knowledge of this
subject.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 13:17:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186723117.348691.90310@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 11:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand
>> that
>> if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
>> pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
>> stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
>> these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense
>> atmosphere
>> is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.
>
> dumbass,
>
> why do you humiliate yourself ? do you like being tarred and
> feathered ?
>
> the "study" you linked to assumes that all the radiative forcing is at
> the 15 micrometre line and neglects the rest of the CO2 absorption
> spectrum where there is still plenty of room for CO2 to absorb
> outgoing radiation.
There are three major peaks in the absorption spectrum. There is no "the
rest". But then you aren't really all that bright are you?
And by the way, if you aren't aware that the absorption spectrum is
dependent on partial pressure then there's no reason to discuss anything at
all with you.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 23:53:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
In article <1186723117.348691.90310@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 11:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
> > if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
> > pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
> > stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
> > these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
> > is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.
>
> dumbass,
>
> why do you humiliate yourself ? do you like being tarred and
> feathered ?
>
> the "study" you linked to assumes that all the radiative forcing is at
> the 15 micrometre line and neglects the rest of the CO2 absorption
> spectrum where there is still plenty of room for CO2 to absorb
> outgoing radiation.
>
> it also neglects temperature and pressure effects (because all the CO2
> is not at the ground), but that is minor compared to the fundamental
> flaw in that analysis.
>
> this piece of work would not be acceptable if it was done by an
> undergrad student.
>
> your assertion that all the CO2 is at the ground is wrong (and not
> even relevant to the analysis in that article) as is your idea of what
> causes treelines.
>
> if you want i can give you a list of books and references so that you
> can try to patch some of the baleful gaps in your knowledge of this
> subject.
Whatdaya mean, *his* baleful lack of knowlwdge??? All those people who've spent
years studying the issue, done the research and gone to the conferences can't
possibly know as much as some guy on the internet like Tom. Shit, y'all can talk
'bout pressure and absorption all ya want, but when he starts droppin' the shit 'bout
treelines all y'all muthafuckers be buggin'!
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 06:57:55
From: DirtRoadie
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 8, 8:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost
> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>
> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
> effect.
Please tell us. And please tell us why the elevation of timberline
varies with latitude.
DR
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 20:10:41
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost
>> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>>
>> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
>> effect.
>
> Please tell us. And please tell us why the elevation of timberline
> varies with latitude.
>
> DR
>
As you get closer to the equator, the rotational speed of the earth
increases. At lower latitudes the earth is spinning so fast that the
carbon dioxide is getting thrown away from the earth, and reaching
higher altitudes so that mountain plants can feed on it.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:56:41
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:5i13l1F3lsq9tU1@mid.individual.net:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 8:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found
>>> almost exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>>>
>>> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber
>>> line effect.
>>
>> Please tell us. And please tell us why the elevation of timberline
>> varies with latitude.
>>
>> DR
>>
> As you get closer to the equator, the rotational speed of the earth
> increases. At lower latitudes the earth is spinning so fast that the
> carbon dioxide is getting thrown away from the earth, and reaching
> higher altitudes so that mountain plants can feed on it.
>
I thought the because the Coriolis and tidal forces, being greater at the
equator, reduced the pull of gravity on the tops of trees and allowed
them to spread their seed pods further up the mountain slopes.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:39:30
From:
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 9, 5:28 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
Congratulations.
BTW, you know how people think we invaded Iraq for the oil? It was
really about global warming: we're fighting it over there so we don't
have to fight it over here.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/baghdad-electricity.png
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 03:28:13
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 8, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost
> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>
> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
> effect.
Kun-Kun,
Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that
you want to point out?
Anyway, you're still wrong, in about three ways. There's a
fair amount of mixing below ~100 km, so the atmospheric
composition is fairly uniform there: google "homosphere"
if you dare, or read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
Above that, there is stratification, but C02 isn't that
much more massive than say oxygen; the real difference
is with the light gases like hydrogen and helium that
extend all the way out to the geocorona.
Finally, the whole point of the aip.org discussion I posted
earlier, which you clearly did not understand, is that
even though most of the CO2, like most of the atmosphere,
is at low altitudes, you can't solve the temperature structure
of the atmosphere without dealing with the behavior at
high altitudes. That is the boundary condition.
Oh, there's a fourth way you're wrong. CO2 stratification
(which doesn't exist below ~100 km anyway) has nothing
to do with the existence of timberlines. Have you ever
been above a treeline? It's colder up there, but there is
still oxygen and CO2.
This CO2-timberline idea is so stupid that I didn't
understand what you were saying at first. Where did you
get it from? Some other climate change denial website?
Ben
P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
to post "homosphere" to RBR.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 03:50:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1186630093.623606.68030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 8, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found
>> almost
>> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>>
>> But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
>> effect.
>
> Kun-Kun,
You dick suckers like to use nicknames don't you?
> Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that
> you want to point out?
I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.
Who would have thought that a even a mindless moron such as yourself would
be led around by the nose into believing that Global Warming is man-made?
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:08:57
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:59:07
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote in news:JlEui.2970
$IE5.418@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
>> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
>
> First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
> another successful climate troll.
Can I get an honorable mention for keeping my mouth shut?
Oh wait, I just didn't. Never mind.
Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that is
that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is not
uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the effect that
water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the other gases in
the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is that while water
vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2 doesn't. This is why
the skeptic argument that water vapor is more important than CO2 in terms
of anthropogenic radiative forcing is a myth. In the upper troposphere,
CO2 takes a larger role in terms of the radiative transfer.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
science for all of this is done. The gaps in understanding that are left
are esoteric and involve things skeptics never contemplate, mainly
because they don't have the technical background to understand them
(e.g., the many various flavors of the indirect aerosol effect).
I wouldn't be so cranky if I weren't stuck in Maryland for the next two
weeks. It is hot here.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 14:51:52
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
William Asher wrote:
> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote in news:JlEui.2970
> $IE5.418@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
>>> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
>> First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
>> another successful climate troll.
>
> Can I get an honorable mention for keeping my mouth shut?
>
> Oh wait, I just didn't. Never mind.
>
> Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that is
> that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is not
> uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the effect that
> water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the other gases in
> the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is that while water
> vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2 doesn't.
You mean, absolute percentage of atmosphere with increased altitude?
Just tryin' to keep up,
Steve
This is why
> the skeptic argument that water vapor is more important than CO2 in terms
> of anthropogenic radiative forcing is a myth. In the upper troposphere,
> CO2 takes a larger role in terms of the radiative transfer.
>
> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
>
> What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
> science for all of this is done. The gaps in understanding that are left
> are esoteric and involve things skeptics never contemplate, mainly
> because they don't have the technical background to understand them
> (e.g., the many various flavors of the indirect aerosol effect).
>
> I wouldn't be so cranky if I weren't stuck in Maryland for the next two
> weeks. It is hot here.
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 15:15:31
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in
news:cSFui.4025$jQ3.1399@trndny06:
> William Asher wrote:
>> Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that
>> is that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is
>> not uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the
>> effect that water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the
>> other gases in the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is
>> that while water vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2
>> doesn't.
>
> You mean, absolute percentage of atmosphere with increased
> altitude?
Mixing ratio defined as grams of water vapor per grams of atmosphere.
Contrast the figure in the Mockler reference to the plot of CO2 mixing
ratio, here expressed as ppmv (parts-per-million-by-volume, which is the
same sort of units only multiplied by a factor of 1000 (for ideal gases,
grams per kilogram is equal to parts per thousand by volume)) from here:
http://tinyurl.com/3bnyxx
and you can see there is little change of CO2 concentration through the
troposphere, consistent with Ben's analysis.
In terms of a more practical application, consider modern air travel
through the lower stratosphere. The troposphere gets drier with
altitude, which is why in part aircraft travel dehydrates you. (The air
coming into the cabin has extremely low specific humidity to begin with,
which gets amplified in terms of relative humidity when it is warmed.)
Fortunately however, the O2 concentration in terms of grams of O2 per
gram of air is nearly the same as at the surface, so that all they have
to do is compress the outside air, remove the ozone, and it's breathable.
If the O2 mixing ratio decreased, they would have to add oxygen to the
air.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 15:55:41
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
William Asher wrote:
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote in
> news:cSFui.4025$jQ3.1399@trndny06:
>
>> William Asher wrote:
>>> Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that
>>> is that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is
>>> not uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the
>>> effect that water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the
>>> other gases in the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is
>>> that while water vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2
>>> doesn't.
>> You mean, absolute percentage of atmosphere with increased
>> altitude?
>
> Mixing ratio defined as grams of water vapor per grams of atmosphere.
>
> Contrast the figure in the Mockler reference to the plot of CO2 mixing
> ratio, here expressed as ppmv (parts-per-million-by-volume, which is the
> same sort of units only multiplied by a factor of 1000 (for ideal gases,
> grams per kilogram is equal to parts per thousand by volume)) from here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bnyxx
>
> and you can see there is little change of CO2 concentration through the
> troposphere, consistent with Ben's analysis.
>
> In terms of a more practical application, consider modern air travel
> through the lower stratosphere. The troposphere gets drier with
> altitude, which is why in part aircraft travel dehydrates you. (The air
> coming into the cabin has extremely low specific humidity to begin with,
> which gets amplified in terms of relative humidity when it is warmed.)
> Fortunately however, the O2 concentration in terms of grams of O2 per
> gram of air is nearly the same as at the surface, so that all they have
> to do is compress the outside air, remove the ozone, and it's breathable.
> If the O2 mixing ratio decreased, they would have to add oxygen to the
> air.
>
Thanks Bill--appreciate the explanation.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:09:05
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in
news:1OGui.14941$jk4.9804@trndny01:
<snip >
>
> Thanks Bill--appreciate the explanation.
You're welcome. I'm always happy to take up bandwidth.
However I said something wrong there originally, I should have said
"water condenses and then freezes" not just "water freezes."
hi ho.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:55:34
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
William Asher wrote:
>
> You're welcome. I'm always happy to take up bandwidth.
>
> However I said something wrong there originally, I should have said
> "water condenses and then freezes" not just "water freezes."
>
> hi ho.
>
We don't talk about climate change in the guitar newsgroups enough.
This issue is right up their alley--concerned as they are with
hygrometers and humidity in indoor air that has been heated.
In any case, I'd gotten your meaning.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:58:58
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Mark & Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com > wrote in
news:qyIui.4114$V53.3508@trnddc08:
> We don't talk about climate change in the guitar newsgroups enough.
> This issue is right up their alley--concerned as they are with
> hygrometers and humidity in indoor air that has been heated.
> In any case, I'd gotten your meaning.
As climate change discussions do everywhere, it will just dissolve into
an argument, leading to a recreation of the end of an early The Who
concert.
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 15:06:23
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
>> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote in news:JlEui.2970
>> $IE5.418@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>>> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
>>>> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
>>> First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
>>> another successful climate troll.
>>
>> Can I get an honorable mention for keeping my mouth shut?
>>
>> Oh wait, I just didn't. Never mind.
>> Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that
>> is that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is
>> not uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the
>> effect that water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the
>> other gases in the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is
>> that while water vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2
>> doesn't.
>
> You mean, absolute percentage of atmosphere with increased altitude?
Sorry, meant to say RELATIVE concentration in the atmosphere, at a
given altitude.
Steve
>
> Just tryin' to keep up,
>
> Steve
>
>
> This is why
>> the skeptic argument that water vapor is more important than CO2 in
>> terms of anthropogenic radiative forcing is a myth. In the upper
>> troposphere, CO2 takes a larger role in terms of the radiative transfer.
>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
>>
>> What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
>> science for all of this is done. The gaps in understanding that are
>> left are esoteric and involve things skeptics never contemplate,
>> mainly because they don't have the technical background to understand
>> them (e.g., the many various flavors of the indirect aerosol effect).
>> I wouldn't be so cranky if I weren't stuck in Maryland for the next
>> two weeks. It is hot here.
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:21:56
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
> another successful climate troll.
Dumbass,
Can't you poweroff Kunich and bring back the heather bot (after you
finish debugging her).
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 14:09:49
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46bb14f1$0$8644$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>> First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
>> another successful climate troll.
>
> Dumbass,
> Can't you poweroff Kunich and bring back the heather bot (after you
> finish debugging her).
That would fall to Chang.
JF, successfully avoiding the climate change troll, sort of
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 09:18:19
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
Congrats.
Just to make clear, this is what it is in pictures:
http://images.google.com/images?q=canal+parade
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 02:43:07
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 8, 10:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost
> exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
>
dumbass,
instead of shooting your mouth off how about putting some money on
it ?
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 15:18:05
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 8, 5:59 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 9:35 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:> On Aug 7, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > "In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in
> > > Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice.
> > > But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes
> > > ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over
> > > oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not
> > > clarified."
>
> > But losing that ocean ice, which buttresses the land mass ice, causes
> > the land mass ice to accelerate substantially - and it ain't moving
> > uphill.
>
> dumbass,
>
> ice also reflects more radiation back into space. open water absorbs
> heat more heat than sea ice. disappearing ice creates a positive
> feedback loop.
I'm agin it, so I reckon it's negative feedback.
R
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:59:22
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 8, 9:35 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 7, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in
> > Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice.
> > But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes
> > ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over
> > oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not
> > clarified."
>
> But losing that ocean ice, which buttresses the land mass ice, causes
> the land mass ice to accelerate substantially - and it ain't moving
> uphill.
>
dumbass,
ice also reflects more radiation back into space. open water absorbs
heat more heat than sea ice. disappearing ice creates a positive
feedback loop.
the ocean circulation is very sensitive to localized changes in heat
transfer and salinity (ie. freshwater from melting ice).
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 06:35:04
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 7, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> "In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in
> Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice.
> But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes
> ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over
> oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not
> clarified."
But losing that ocean ice, which buttresses the land mass ice, causes
the land mass ice to accelerate substantially - and it ain't moving
uphill.
R
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 07:53:39
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
On Aug 7, 7:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
>
> "Conclusions
> It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR
> absorption at the 15 =B5m edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global
> warming or even a climate catastrophe.
>
> The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure=
. ~
> This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."
>
> http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
>
> "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
>
> Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
> extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. Th=
is
> means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters."
Kun-Kun,
This is crap. The author of the first document
measures a CO2 absorption opacity at (what I take
to be) room temperature and pressure and then
extrapolates to the entire thickness of the
atmosphere as if it were a single slab, and
concludes that the CO2 absorption is optically
thick and therefore adding more CO2 has no effect.
As I said, this is crap. People made this mistake
in 1900, but continuing to make it now is deliberate
ignorance. See
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
and search for the name "Knut Angstrom" and
description of his experiment in 1900.
The problem is that a real model of the regulation
of atmospheric temperature has to take into account
the heat flux up and down between different layers
of the atmosphere at different temp and pressure,
and the behavior of the CO2 absorption changes with
pressure. The single-slab model does not work.
See
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141
Arrhenius correctly understood the need for a
stratified model already in 1896, but making a
realistic model had to wait until the 1960s or
so and computer calculations. Besides, from 1900
to 1960, hardly anyone was worried about climate
change, and so the wrongness of the single slab
model was not widely understood. But it is wrong,
even if J. Random Chemist hasn't figured that out.
>From the first aip.org link:
"The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if
the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in
the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is
regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation
does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse
gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1%
change in that delicate balance would make a serious
difference in the planet's surface temperature. The
logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it
takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere - not
as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or
the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of
interacting layers. "
By the way, I just saw that Newsweek's current
cover article is about (my paraphrase) how the
global-warming-is-a-hoax industry has been propped
up long after the scientific consensus has left it
behind, by generous wads of cash thrown at it by
interested parties such as oil and energy companies.
So you can add Newsweek to the Black Solar
Helicopter Conspiracy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/
Ben
Radiative transfer models are a bitch.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 03:27:04
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Aug 7, 7:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
>>
>> "Conclusions
>> It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR
>> absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global
>> warming or even a climate catastrophe.
>>
>> The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. ~
>> This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing."
>>
>> http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
>>
>> "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
>>
>> Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to
>> extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This
>> means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters."
>
> Kun-Kun,
>
> This is crap. The author of the first document
> measures a CO2 absorption opacity at (what I take
> to be) room temperature and pressure and then
> extrapolates to the entire thickness of the
> atmosphere as if it were a single slab, and
> concludes that the CO2 absorption is optically
> thick and therefore adding more CO2 has no effect.
>
> As I said, this is crap. People made this mistake
> in 1900, but continuing to make it now is deliberate
> ignorance. See
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> and search for the name "Knut Angstrom" and
> description of his experiment in 1900.
>
> The problem is that a real model of the regulation
> of atmospheric temperature has to take into account
> the heat flux up and down between different layers
> of the atmosphere at different temp and pressure,
> and the behavior of the CO2 absorption changes with
> pressure. The single-slab model does not work.
> See
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141
>
> Arrhenius correctly understood the need for a
> stratified model already in 1896, but making a
> realistic model had to wait until the 1960s or
> so and computer calculations. Besides, from 1900
> to 1960, hardly anyone was worried about climate
> change, and so the wrongness of the single slab
> model was not widely understood. But it is wrong,
> even if J. Random Chemist hasn't figured that out.
>
>>From the first aip.org link:
> "The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if
> the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in
> the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is
> regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation
> does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse
> gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1%
> change in that delicate balance would make a serious
> difference in the planet's surface temperature. The
> logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it
> takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere - not
> as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or
> the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of
> interacting layers. "
>
> By the way, I just saw that Newsweek's current
> cover article is about (my paraphrase) how the
> global-warming-is-a-hoax industry has been propped
> up long after the scientific consensus has left it
> behind, by generous wads of cash thrown at it by
> interested parties such as oil and energy companies.
> So you can add Newsweek to the Black Solar
> Helicopter Conspiracy.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/
>
> Ben
> Radiative transfer models are a bitch.
>
I read Newsweek--rather compelling.
Steve (actually graduated a chem major--but that was many brain-cells ago).
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 02:02:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: For RChung the Science Guy
|
Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost
exclusively in the lower atmosphere.
But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line
effect.
|
|
