AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Phil. on 27 Aug 2007 23:56 On Aug 27, 10:06 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 26, 7:04 pm, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" > > <LynchTheBushTria...(a)AngryMob.com> wrote: > > "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" wrote > > > >> Ahahahahaha.. What makes you think that CO2 has to "retain heat" in > > >> order > > >> to create a higher temperature somewhere. > > > <kdth...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > > > As soon as you figure out how to create higher tempertures without the > > > expensive acquisition of energy, you have solved all of the problems > > > of modern society, including the need to burn fossil fuels for > > > heating. > > > Meaningless drivel that doesn't even begin to answer the question. > > > Stupid... Stupid.. kdthrge. > > > <kdth...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > > > Heat is energy. Energy is never lost or created. This is called > > > conservation of energy. > > > Pointless, worthless, inapplicable, droaning. > > > <kdth...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > > > 1 mole of air @stp is 22,400 cubic cm. As a sphere this would have a > > > radius of 12.1 cm or a surface area of 1847 cm. If this sphere were at > > > 300k, meaning that at it's surface, 460Wm-2 were leaving the system, > > > this sphere of 1847 sq cm would radiate 82.9 Joules per second. > > l> Yawn. Air is not a blackbody. You might have noticed that from > the fact > l> that air is not pitch black or even close to being pitch black. > ;> Hence your blackbody calculation is inapplicable - even while > being > l> inapplicable to the topic at hand > > You are so good with words. And then with your supposed definition, > you achieve scientific conclusion. > > AGW kooks like you have tried to redefine every tenet of physics and > chemistry to try to make your false conclusion work. Blackbody, refers > to the radiation from a substance that is not reflected. Reflected > radiaiton is not a product of the heat of a system. Air does not > reflect radiation. > > Plancks radiation law is derived for and based upon the temperature of > gases. All substances become gases by about 6000K. So a formula for > radiation distribution and temperature must be based upon gases. The > formula is also valid for gases at low temperature, such as the > atmosphere. Wrong again Deatherage, CO2 emits in selected bands, in the earth's atmosphere at about 270 K it emits predominantly in the 15 micron band, it does not emit over the Planck black body distribution. On that basis alone your analysis is flawed, your hypothetical sphere of air would be emitting via the CO2 and H2O (assuming it's not dry air) bands not blackbody. By the way recheck your geometry a few errors there! The light emitted doesn't follow Stefan-Boltzmann, the emission is an integral over all the lines in each band multiplied by the Einstein coefficient for spontaneous emission, the concentration of the emitting species. > > The sun radiates with distribution of frequencies nearly perfectly > with Planck's distribution law. Is the sun black?? The sun is entirely > gaseous. It is a perfect blackbody because it is at thermal > equilibrium and there is no reflected radiation in it's emitted > spectrum. The sun is composed of plasma not gas which is why it's continuum not just atomic lines. > The rest of the nonsense deleted for brevity (it's been refuted so many times that it's just a waste of bandwidth).
From: pgarrone on 28 Aug 2007 08:37 On Aug 27, 10:44 am, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" <LynchTheBushTria...(a)AngryMob.com> wrote: > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > You have not explained why the runaway positive feedback ends. > > What stops a "snowball earth" or "planet-venus-runaway-greenhouse" > > effect? > > Well, for "snowball earth", freezing oceans mean less surface area for the > uptake of CO2 and since natural sources continue depositing it in the air, > it's concentration increases as the surface freezes, and it eventually > counters the cooling trend, at which point the ice begins to melt, the CO2 > that had been absorbed is outgassed into the atmosphere, and also since > liquid oceans are darker than frozen ones, they continue to warm simply by > melting. > > So you get this large rapid rise in global temperatures, - typically > ending a glacial period. > > Once the ice has largely melted only the darkening effect of the melt > reduces to nearly zero, Outgassing stops as well and the system enters a > reasonable stable orbit around some system attractor state. Good theory. A bit better than mine in some ways because sea-levels followed temperatures by quite a few thousand years at the end of the ice age. Lesson learnt I will stick to criticising your hypothesis. Page 446 of the IPCC report "the explanation of glacial-interglacial CO2 variations remains a difficult attribution problem." So you could explain the high temperature braking of the positive feedback by saying the greenhouse effect would tend to saturate, reducing the loop gain. That leaves the asymmetry of the effect, which is too abrupt on the warming side compared to the cooling side. > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > And I open a fifth front. > > > 5) Why did ice-ages start 3 million years ago? > > Did they? That's not at all clear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > Surely the laws of physics causing the feedback between GHG and > > temperature did not change. > > No, the feedback mechanisms wasn't different, but the position of the > continents was. But you are theorizing that the main mechanism of the ice ages is positive feedback between GHG and temperatures. Positions of continents has nothing to do with this. > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > But if we consider ocean levels as the critical feedback, > > then the continents re-arranged > > themselves to allow the positive feedback loop to develop. > > And why do you feel that the continents care about doing such a thing? It is inferred that the position of the continents determines ocean currents and ice ages. Continental drift causes a chance rearrangement. > > >> Currently the climate system is being directly forced with the emission > >> of > >>vast quantities of CO2 by man. > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > 6) So how do you preclude natural variation, given the historical > > record? > > I don't, we live within it. However human emissions are outside that > which nature is responsible for producing. > > This is clearly evident from the isotopic abundances of Carbon and Oxygen > in the atmosphere. I do not suggest that humans do not affect the environment.
From: kdthrge on 28 Aug 2007 22:51 On Aug 28, 7:37 am, pgarr...(a)acay.com.au wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:44 am, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" > > > > > > <LynchTheBushTria...(a)AngryMob.com> wrote: > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > > You have not explained why the runaway positive feedback ends. > > > What stops a "snowball earth" or "planet-venus-runaway-greenhouse" > > > effect? > > > Well, for "snowball earth", freezing oceans mean less surface area for the > > uptake of CO2 and since natural sources continue depositing it in the air, > > it's concentration increases as the surface freezes, and it eventually > > counters the cooling trend, at which point the ice begins to melt, the CO2 > > that had been absorbed is outgassed into the atmosphere, and also since > > liquid oceans are darker than frozen ones, they continue to warm simply by > > melting. > > > So you get this large rapid rise in global temperatures, - typically > > ending a glacial period. > > > Once the ice has largely melted only the darkening effect of the melt > > reduces to nearly zero, Outgassing stops as well and the system enters a > > reasonable stable orbit around some system attractor state. > > Good theory. A bit better than mine in some ways because sea-levels > followed temperatures by quite a few thousand years at the end of the > ice age. Lesson learnt I will stick to criticising your hypothesis. > Page 446 of the IPCC report "the explanation of glacial-interglacial > CO2 variations remains a difficult attribution problem." > > So you could explain the high temperature braking of the positive > feedback by saying the greenhouse effect would tend to saturate, > reducing the loop gain. That leaves the asymmetry of the effect, which > is too abrupt on the warming side compared to the cooling side. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/ec49f2199bbd075a/16ef4f88d42588ea?rnum=1&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fec49f2199bbd075a%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_16ef4f88d42588ea Whink. whink whink. How can anyone get any peace with all this mental masturbation going on??? Here are some charts of what you are actually talking about. There is no evidence whatsoever of this 'feedback'. If this were true, once the CO2 began to rise, the temperature gradient would become steeper. It does not. The temperature is not affected at all by the CO2 levels. The CO2 follows the temperature. The temperature does not abide at all to CO2 levels, especially at the times that it begins to fall. If the CO2 were maintaining temperature as is claimed, the temperature would not fall in such a disregardless way to concentration levels. The fact is clearly established that the temperature rises affect the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere. This natureal exchange is about 300 billion tons annually. 300 billion tons released from the ocean, 300 billion tons absorbed by the ocean. Either due to temperature change in the ocean, or by the greater circulation caused by warming, the fact is that temperature affects CO2 levels. There is no evidence, only theoretical surmise, that the CO2 affects temperature. Nowhere can a quantitive analyses be derived for any of either of yours mental masturbation. In fact, the ice core data is proof of the invalidity of AGW. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ KDeatherage > > > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > > And I open a fifth front. > > > > 5) Why did ice-ages start 3 million years ago? > > > Did they? That's not at all clear. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png > > > > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > > Surely the laws of physics causing the feedback between GHG and > > > temperature did not change. > > > No, the feedback mechanisms wasn't different, but the position of the > > continents was. > > But you are theorizing that the main mechanism of the ice ages is > positive feedback between GHG and temperatures. Positions of > continents has nothing to do with this. > > > > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > > But if we consider ocean levels as the critical feedback, > > > then the continents re-arranged > > > themselves to allow the positive feedback loop to develop. > > > And why do you feel that the continents care about doing such a thing? > > It is inferred that the position of the continents determines ocean > currents and ice ages. Continental drift causes a chance > rearrangement. > > > > > >> Currently the climate system is being directly forced with the emission > > >> of > > >>vast quantities of CO2 by man. > > > <pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > > > > 6) So how do you preclude natural variation, given the historical > > > record? > > > I don't, we live within it. However human emissions are outside that > > which nature is responsible for producing. > > > This is clearly evident from the isotopic abundances of Carbon and Oxygen > > in the atmosphere. > > I do not suggest that humans do not affect the environment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: pgarrone on 30 Aug 2007 04:39 On Aug 29, 12:51 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thr... > > Whink. whink whink. > How can anyone get any peace with all this mental masturbation going > on??? > > Here are some charts of what you are actually talking about. There is > no evidence whatsoever of this 'feedback'. If this were true, once the > CO2 began to rise, the temperature gradient would become steeper. It > does not. The temperature is not affected at all by the CO2 levels. > The CO2 follows the temperature. The temperature does not abide at all > to CO2 levels, especially at the times that it begins to fall. > > If the CO2 were maintaining temperature as is claimed, the temperature > would not fall in such a disregardless way to concentration levels. > The fact is clearly established that the temperature rises affect the > exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere. This natureal > exchange is about 300 billion tons annually. 300 billion tons released > from the ocean, 300 billion tons absorbed by the ocean. > > Either due to temperature change in the ocean, or by the greater > circulation caused by warming, the fact is that temperature affects > CO2 levels. There is no evidence, only theoretical surmise, that the > CO2 affects temperature. > > Nowhere can a quantitive analyses be derived for any of either of > yours mental masturbation. In fact, the ice core data is proof of the > invalidity of AGW. > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/i...http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ > > KDeatherage > > > Although I probably agree with your position, you are too much of an idiot to bother with.
From: Bill Ward on 3 Sep 2007 23:04
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:55:41 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > On Sep 3, 7:26 pm, Bill Carter <qhk6cx...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: ><snip> >> >> I don't pretend to completely understand the science, but I have not >> seen you state this 'proof' which falsifies the theory of these >> dishonest scientists. I've seen you make a lot of statements, but no >> proof. > > Well the proof is there. I have documented very specific points in which > they have a fraudulent theory to support their false claims. Your inabilty > to see this does not matter much. The documentation of these facts to be > presented into court does matter. > > The simple proof most recent in this discusion is the fact that at the > same temperature with different pressures in a gas, the same energy is > transferred through the gas. KD, I don't follow you there. Could you describe an experiment that would show this effect? IOW, are you talking about radiation shining into the cell, heat being applied to a wall, or what? Is the energy input as radiative transfer through a transparent window or conduction? Is the gas flowing? If you're talking about thermal conductivity of gases, it approaches zero as the pressure drops. That's why a Dewar works. If you're talking about absorption of radiation, in a transparent gas, the transmission should be independent of pressure since there is no absorption at all. So I'm lost. Can you explain? > > This proves that the energy is NOT being transfered by collisions of the > molecules. If you are talking about transmitting radiation through a transparent gas, I don't think many would argue with that. > If the energy is not being transferred by the energy of collisions, it > must be being transfered by a radiation field within the gas. > > This means that O2 and N2 absorb infrared energy of the continouse > spectra of the thermal frequencies of less energy than 2um. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. If O2 and N2 did absorb IR, the atmosphere would be opaque to those frequencies, and weather satellite IR images show it's not. Would a "radiation field" require any interaction with molecules to transfer energy? I can't see why. > This means that the fundamental principles of grenhouse theory are very > directly proved to be false. > > It is also proved very simply, that the quantity of energy transfered > through the gas when the gas is at a particular temperature obeys the > Boltzman Stefan equation. This fact is denied by basic grenhouse theory, > although very simple experiment can prove this rate of energy transfer. What would that experiment be? >> > They continue to get away with this because of peoples tendency to >> > trust scientists. All the while these fraudists are out to entirely >> > disembowel these peoples way of life according to their hysterical >> > and unbased belief, that normal lifestyles and emissions of CO2 is >> > ruining the planet. I think they are way overstating the magnitude of the effect of traces of CO2 compared to thousands of times more water vapor. And they are invoking dubious positive feedback properties of WV while ignoring its obvious negative feedbacks from cloud formation. I agree it looks totally bogus, biased, and unscientific. But I don't think your somewhat unorthodox physics are going to be easy to sell. I'm on the same side of the issue as you, and I still don't understand it yet. It may be a terminology or semantics issue, but it's not clear to me. It's not sufficient for them to simply show CO2 is a GHG, they also have to convincingly show exactly how traces can overwhelm the natural stabilizing effect of water phase changes. And climate models so far are neither clear nor convincing. So if you want to try to explain your concepts to me, I'll try to understand. If I see holes, I'll tell you where I disagree and why. Fair enough? |