Prev: Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change
Next: Making lemonade with quantum lemons
From: John M. on 1 Jul 2010 09:05
On Jun 30, 7:19 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 11:40 am, "John M." <jmorgan1234...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 5:01 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 3:58 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 28, 6:06 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > The reason that Bilbo Ward bangs on about technical minutia such as
> > these is in the hope that BullshitBafflesBrains. I can see no other
> > explanation for it.
>
>       In this specific case, I can.The issue that I think he was
> addressing was one of the ones that I listed.
>       The "problem" sometimes raised against AGW is that the IR energy
> absorbed by a greenhouse gas gets remitted. Therefore, suppose a green
> house molecule absorbs some photon with an energy far less than the
> most probable photon energy in a region of the atmosphere. At that
> photon energy, the absorption by the greenhouse gas is low. If the
> photon is emitted with the exact same energy that it was absorbed at,
> and if the reemitted photon is moving in the same direction as the
> original photon, it merely gets remitted in the atmosphere.
>     I don't know if you ever used an argument like that. Maybe he
> thinks you did, even though you didn't.

No, I have no recollection of ever having suggested that quantum
effects can somehow negate or reverse the tried and tested laws of
classical Physics. After all, those laws were around long before
Planck was born.

What I have said is that quantum processes such as absorption and re-
radiation by rotational and vibrational energy levels in GHGs is an
unknown quantity in the lower atmosphere i.e. at pressures where
collisions between molecules have shorter waiting times than the
lifetimes of excited states.

> Regardless, one rebuttal would
> be that the atmosphere at these deep IR wavelengths is in a local
> thermal equilibrium.

Indeed it would, if one were arguing that the re-emitted I/R were a
cause of warming. But this is not the argument used by those who say
GHGs are leading to the temperature rise. The argument is that GHGs
interfere with the egress of energy to space in a similar way that
material nano-structures interfere with heat transmission by phonons
in thermal insulators.

>       Local thermal equilibrium (LTE) in a region of the atmosphere
> means that EM radiation energy and kinetic energy of the molecules are
> totally randomized and in a dynamic equilibrium. This could only come
> about if the optical depth for the EM radiation is small. All the EM
> radiation that is part of the heat energy is absorbed by the molecules
> of the area and remitted. That means a particular photon of infrared
> "heat energy" has to be absorbed almost as fast as it gets emitted. If
> the energy gets reabsorbed and remitted several times, the direction
> and energy of the original photon is completely lost. The energy is
> completely randomized. If the LTE condition is valid, that photon that
> is absorbed by the greenhouse gas never gets to leave.

I have no dispute with your synopsis, which is more-or-less what Ward
is reduced to proposing. What I do say is that the interchange you
referred to above, between k.e. and vib/rot, is not necessarily one-
way; that collisions are quite capable of imparting at least
vibrational quanta to a GHG molecule.

[ I see rotation as a problem because of angular momentum conservation
considerations, though a diatomic molecule could simply take on an
equal and opposite 'Iw' to that acquired by the colliding GHG.]

>      The energy is absorbed by the greenhouse gas, sure. However, the
> original photon doesn't leave. There are several channels open for the
> energy. A photon leaves with less energy than the original photon and
> the rest goes into the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or the photon
> some of it gains energy from the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or
> several photons get remitted, each with far less energy than the
> original. Another greenhouse molecule can absorb it then. It can get
> absorbed by an H2O molecule.
>      The direction of the photon is also scrambled. In general, the
> momentum (including direction) of the photon is randomized even faster
> than the energy. Momentum transfer can occur almost right away, before
> the energy gets randomized. Therefore, even if the photon didn't
> change energy by very much, it changes direction. If the original
> photon was heading out into space, upon remission by the greenhouse
> gas the photon is heading somewhere else. The probability is very low
> it is heading out into space. It may be heading downward, or
> horizontally. If it is heading horizontal, it is very likely to be
> reabsorbed since it passes through a larger distance of atmosphere.
>        I talked with an analytical chemist who gave me that "remission
> argument." I am a physicist who has worked on scattering problems. He
> worked a lot with an absorption spectrometer. A I couldn't convince
> him his argument was wrong. He kept on telling me about how much he
> knows about absorption. The problem is, those spectrometers are
> designed to eliminate most remitted light.

Indeed. I have pointed out numerous times on alt.g-w that Beer's Law
is a linear phenomenon, and the absorption of radiation of whatever
frequency in the atmosphere is a steradial one. Few people, if any,
seem to get it. Some, like Ward, tried to ridicule it. Nobody has
proposed a counter argument, though.

>     Please understand. I wasn't insisting on the existence of AGW per
> se. I have several liberal and environmental biases. However, I really
> was trying to make him understand the scientific point.

That is all any sane person should want. Unfortunately there are many
who prefer to pursue some other kind of agenda.

> I don't have a
> professional concern as to whether the earth roasts, freezes, or
> blooms into a paradise. I really wanted him to understand the
> scattering of EM radiation. It could have helped him in his work.
>     I am pretty sure a few of these antiAGW arguments are sound bites
> dropped by ignoramuses. I am also pretty sure the same is true for
> some of these AGW concerns.

Very true. Check out alt.global-warming NG to see loons from both
camps in action. The anti- camp do appear to be the most virulent,
however.
From: kdthrge on 1 Jul 2010 17:47
On Jul 1, 8:05 am, "John M."
>
> Very true. Check out alt.global-warming NG to see loons from both
> camps in action. The anti- camp do appear to be the most virulent,

HAHAHAHhahahahHAAHAHhahahahAHHAHAH

Spoken well by a convicted AGW Kook.

Here is a quote form John M from earlier in this discusion...

"Nobody ever said it does. The fact is that "heat" and "energy" are
not identical, neither as concepts nor as actualities. ""

Merely a prelude to an explanation as to why there is no empirical
evidence for what he wants to beleive.

HAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAH

The term heat is a relative term. What is 'heat' at one temperature,
can be very cool to another temperature. Therefore the term 'heat' is
meaningless to thermodynamics unless it is used in conjunction with
the term, 'ENERGY'.

To increase temperature energy must increase.
To reduce temperature, energy must be dissapated.
Plain and simple. Temperature is an indication of present energy.

John M here being a devoted greenie, must start his symantics here
with these terms, since it is neccasary to develop and believe in the
theoretical explanation as to why there is no emirical evidence for a
damn thing he believes, and therefore is no actual science behind his
narcissistic expostulation of his pretense of understanding anything
at all about physics or chemistry.

Notice he avoids mathematics completely in his rambling about such
things as heat and energy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHahah

Half assed idiots like this who pretend to understand, as they
riggedly believe in the dogma of the theology of AGW are a dime a
dozen.

Oh what faith they have in their mentors, the charlatans of
climatology. They would never let them down by stating conclusions and
beliefs which are not based upon any actual science at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAhahahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

KD



From: spudnik on 3 Jul 2010 00:46
such is the nature of an ad hoc interpretation of glaciation,
that added snowfall requires a "colder" planet (and that
more icebergs calving necessarily implies melting ...
not according to the satellite telemetry,
circa the day of the panel at UCLA, a few y.a.;
citing-out Turco and Kivelson -- yo!

> global atmospheric circulation - increasing WV content results in
> stronger cyclonic systems as much as or more than vertical lapse rate
> changes.  In addition, speeding the machine up still begs the question
> how the the excess energy is to be dissipated.

thus&so:
numbertheory was always the ****,
the higher arithmetic, the king of the sciences etc., but
no more important than the other three elements
of *mathematica*, which is where it is of most use.

thus&so:
so, acid rain is the germain topic, since
it was the First Cap and Trade (Waxman's '91 bill). so,
what I haven't seen dyscussed in the WSUrinal e.g.,
is just how wonderfully this'd worked --
who made the money in the God-am "free market?"
[NB, Waxman's cmte. also ran the healthcare bill;
is that a conspiracy, or doe he get free drugs?]

thus quoth:
Miskolczi said in <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
> You are so full of it.

thus&so:
what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate
for Bernward at the Post [*], was also the Vice President,
who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
(second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
to make for a controlled demolition?
well, some of us believe that
he was not just the acting president --
especially since the impeachment of Bill C..
also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge --
doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance?
* in the famed parlance of editor Bradley, or ms. Graham,
Woodstein ne'er followed the Penzoil money to <a-hem>;
see http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/

--BP's cap&trade plus free beer/miles on your CO2 creds at ARCO!
http://wlym
From: spudnik on 3 Jul 2010 00:51
hey, don't beat on my faculty with the hockey stick!

> More CO2 doesn't affect the cooling, since the ocean can provide as much
> WV as needed.... Thank you, I appreciate your post.  It's reassuring

thus&so:
such is the nature of an ad hoc interpretation of glaciation,
that added snowfall requires a "colder" planet (and that
more icebergs calving necessarily implies melting ...
not according to the satellite telemetry,
circa the day of the panel at UCLA, a few y.a.;
citing-out Turco and Kivelson -- yo !-)

> global atmospheric circulation - increasing WV content results in
> stronger cyclonic systems as much as or more than vertical lapse rate
> changes.  In addition, speeding the machine up still begs the question
> how the the excess energy is to be dissipated.

thus&so:
numbertheory was always the ****,
the higher arithmetic, the king of the sciences etc., but
no more important than the other three elements
of *mathematica*, which is where it is of most use.

thus&so:
so, acid rain is the germain topic, since
it was the First Cap and Trade (Waxman's '91 bill). so,
what I haven't seen dyscussed in the WSUrinal e.g.,
is just how wonderfully this'd worked --
who made the money in the God-am "free market?"
[NB, Waxman's cmte. also ran the healthcare bill;
is that a conspiracy, or doe he get free drugs?]

thus quoth:
Miskolczi said in <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
> You are so full of it.

thus&so:
what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate
for Bernward at the Post [*], was also the Vice President,
who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
(second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
to make for a controlled demolition?
well, some of us believe that
he was not just the acting president --
especially since the impeachment of Bill C..
also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge --
doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance?
* in the famed parlance of editor Bradley, or ms. Graham,
Woodstein ne'er followed the Pennzoil money to <a-hem>;
see http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/

--BP's cap&trade plus free beer/miles on your CO2 creds at ARCO!
http://wlym
From: spudnik on 5 Jul 2010 21:43
TOA, means "top of atmosphere?" also,
I'd appreciate more about the definition
of "one optical depth."

thus&so:
give Erwin (and Harry Potter) a chance!

> What do you mean?  He told you it was a lie.  What more do you want?
> Do you think maybe he should name the other Solar Physicists?  The
> claim is that she was the only one, so naming a second would make his
> case.  Can he do it?

thus&so:
OK, why don't you dyscuss, whether or not cap&trade is a "tax,"
per the WSUrinal editorials' & teaparty's mere slogan, or just another
way
for the bears &bulls to make money, whilst the hogs get slaughtered?

(that is to say, the next or very last bailout of Wall Street etc.,
including Beyondish Petroleumish, the big operators
in the Gulf and Alaska ... and "the nationbuilding of E.Timor?")

thus&so:
the Kyoto Protocol was stricltly cap&trade, a.k.a. "free trade"
of the yore of British imperialism in 1776 (whence Smith's second
hoax,
_The Wealth of Nations_, was published), as Waxman's wunnerful bill
of '91 on NOX and SO2. maybe, it was fortunate, that someone lied
to Dubya about Kyoto's true nature, or he'd surely have signed it.

so, how about an actual, tiny, accountable carbon tax, instead
of the next and/or last bailout of Wall Street and the City
(of London, financial district & gated community) ??

the voluntary USA cap&trade, apparently partly started
by Sen. Obama via private foundations, is already huge,
tens of billions of dollars US per annum since 2003, although
much smaller than the EU's mandatory one.

> > Kyoto and Cap & Trade.

thus&so:
ice that is within the arctic circles
never gets direct insolation over 47 degrees from horizon (or
less than 43 degrees from zenith). I mean,
that is not really apparent in GCMers flatscreen HDTVs.
> Which sea ice (Arctic summer or Antarctic winter) affects albedo, most?

thus&so:
all of the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives, seems
to agree with Emmanuel, that this is the time
to install BP's old cap&trade ideals from Kyoto ... actually,
first launched in '91 under Waxman and H-Dubya.

thus&so:
so, acid rain is the germain topic, since
it was the First Cap and Trade (Waxman's '91 bill). so,
what I haven't seen dyscussed in the WSUrinal e.g.,
is just how wonderfully this'd worked --
who made the money in the God-am "free market?"
[NB, Waxman's cmte. also ran the healthcare bill;
is that a conspiracy, or doe he get free drugs?]

thus&so:
sad to say, I missed the authors of _Doubt Merchants_,
when they came to the public library, as folks around here
rely on me to be the (usually) lone contrarian in Santa Monica,
the capital of Green (with the help of Alcoa's largest-ever
bequest to the WAND Corp., when the President was chosen
to be Dubya's Treasurer ... when HDPE bags are outlawed,
only criminals and baby-smotherers will have HDPE bags -- a-hem.)
you bring-up 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. well, 2003 was when a)
they cut-off a tenth of our supply to Californicators (with their ban
on offshore drilling), and spent a huge amount of oil
on the new war ... and that's when the hedgers jacked the price up,
kind of a double-whammy after the "electricity crisis"
from Texas and Canada.

thus&so:
such is the nature of an ad hoc interpretation of glaciation,
that added snowfall requires a "colder" planet (and that
more icebergs calving necessarily implies melting ...
not according to the satellite telemetry,
circa the day of the panel at UCLA, a few y.a.;
citing-out two of the professors, known to me.)
> increasing WV content results in stronger cyclonic systems
> as much as or more than vertical lapse rate changes.

thus quoth:
Miskolczi said in <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>

thus&so:
what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate
for Bernward at the Post [*], was also the Vice President,
who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
(second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
to make for a controlled demolition?
well, some of us believe that
he was not just the acting president --
especially since the impeachment of Bill C..
* in the theatrical parlance of editor Bradley or ms. Graham,
Woodstein ne'er followed the Pennzoil money to <a-hem>;
see http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/

--BP's cap&trade plus free beer/miles on your CO2 creds at ARCO!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change
Next: Making lemonade with quantum lemons