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 4 Sep 2007 14:49 On Sep 4, 1:50 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:47:19 -0700, Phil. wrote: > > On Sep 3, 11:04 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Which planet is that? 380ppmv times one thousand is 38% that's a very wet > > (and hot) place! > > You're right. I dropped a decimal point. Mea culpa. Or I guess I > could claim a "colloquialism". Actually two and since when has 'thousands' been a 'colloquialism' for tens? Incidentally this is a science newsgroup. > > > More like 20X max to 1/3 in the troposphere, much less in the > > stratosphere. > > >> 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. > > > The feedback of temperature on Water vapor is well known and described by > > the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. > > Impressive way to talk about humidity. Consider the possibility that you > may not be the only person in the NG to have taken P.Chem. Maybe but I imagine that you can use Google? Again it's a science newsgroup, you said that the link between water vapor pressure and temperature "looks totally bogus, biased, and unscientific" whereas I showed that there is a precise scientific relationship, then you complain that I'm being too scientific, if I'd just said +7%/K you'd have demanded to know where the number came from! If you want to be taken seriously on sci.environment be prepared to talk science otherwise take off to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh where you'll not hear from me again (except by cross postings). > > > Also it's far from obvious that increased water vapor will lead to more > > cloud. > > Depends on who's looking. Try getting out more. Preferably in a > sailplane. Done that, also a Cessna, however while it seems intuitive that more evaporation due to increased temperature would lead to more cloud as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that it's true, or as to any change in type it makes a difference what sorts of cloud we're talking about, status, cumulus, cirrus. Here's a couple of sites which discuss the difficulties: http://web.mit.edu/cgcs/www/clouds.html http://www.cahmda.wur.nl/Trenberth_37.pdf It's actually a very complex problem, you could just as intuitively say, 'more rain and shorter cloud lifetime'. > > >> 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?
From: Bill Ward on 4 Sep 2007 16:58 On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:49:24 -0700, Phil. wrote: > On Sep 4, 1:50 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:47:19 -0700, Phil. wrote: >> > On Sep 3, 11:04 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > Which planet is that? 380ppmv times one thousand is 38% that's a very >> > wet (and hot) place! >> >> You're right. I dropped a decimal point. Mea culpa. Or I guess I could >> claim a "colloquialism". > > Actually two and since when has 'thousands' been a 'colloquialism' for > tens? Incidentally this is a science newsgroup. > >> > More like 20X max to 1/3 in the troposphere, much less in the >> > stratosphere. >> >> >> 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. >> >> > The feedback of temperature on Water vapor is well known and described >> > by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. >> >> Impressive way to talk about humidity. Consider the possibility that >> you may not be the only person in the NG to have taken P.Chem. > > Maybe but I imagine that you can use Google? Again it's a science > newsgroup, you said that the link between water vapor pressure and > temperature It makes your position look desperate when you resort to misquoting. I said "dubious positive feedback properties of WV", not "the link between water vapor pressure and temperature". "looks totally bogus, biased, and unscientific" whereas I > showed that there is a precise scientific relationship, then you complain > that I'm being too scientific, No, I think you are attempting to intimidate by being pretentious, and not being scientific enough. If, as you apparently assume, you are the only educated person in the group, then you should use phrases that would be more familiar to us. It makes you look like you are trying to confuse, rather than convince. > if I'd just said +7%/K you'd have demanded to know where the number came > from! You're being a bit presumptuous there. Retake that mindreading class. > If you want to be taken seriously on sci.environment be prepared > to talk science With a little more experience you may be able to "talk science" effectively. From what I've seen, you are far too impressed with your education to use it wisely. Knowledge is not wisdom. To teach, you have to communicate, and you apparently don't yet know how. To communicate, you have to learn what the students know, then expand on it to get your point across. Trying to impress them by talking over their heads comes across as just being a jerk, no matter how well intentioned. otherwise take off to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh where you'll > not hear from me again (except by cross postings). That's what I'm talking about (jerk-wise). > > >> > Also it's far from obvious that increased water vapor will lead to >> > more cloud. >> >> Depends on who's looking. Try getting out more. Preferably in a >> sailplane. > > Done that, also a Cessna, however while it seems intuitive that more > evaporation due to increased temperature would lead to more cloud as far > as I'm aware there's no evidence that it's true. And you're a pilot? You haven't seen cumulii popping when the surface gets hot? Pull the other one, it whistles. or as to any change in > type it makes a difference what sorts of cloud we're talking about, > status, cumulus, cirrus. Do you have some explanation of what happens to the water vapor if it doesn't condense? > Here's a couple of sites which discuss the difficulties: > http://web.mit.edu/cgcs/www/clouds.html <begin excerpt> Recent observational studies show that these effects almost balance, but that the cooling effect is somewhat more important. From the point of view of global change, however, it is crucial to note that this small difference is about five times larger than the radiative effect anticipated from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the individual components of the difference are orders of magnitude larger. In existing climate models about one third of the predicted warming due to increasing CO2 arises because of the predicted cloud changes. These predictions, however, are highly speculative because none of the models include interactive cloud physics. <end excerpt> Sounds OK to me. > http://www.cahmda.wur.nl/Trenberth_37.pdf Five pages to tell us he hasn't got a clue. > It's actually a very complex problem, you could just as intuitively say, > 'more rain and shorter cloud lifetime'. But I didn't. That's your intuition, not mine. <snip>
From: kdthrge on 4 Sep 2007 17:37 On Sep 3, 11:36 pm, Bill Carter <qhk6cx...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>> You don't seem to understand the seriousness of this. The fraud and > >>> the level of impact upon society according to this false theory. I am > >>> working class. I know that the working class and middle class would be > >>> decimated by the impostition of controls on CO2. > > ;> You seem to know so much with absolute certainty. How is it, > > exactly, > > ;> that "the working class and middle class would be decimated by the > > ;> impostition of controls on CO2"? > > > I live in the real world. Basic economics. Most of CO2 is from > > residential. Most of CO2 is from electrical production. Working class > > and old people already use no extra energy. Increasing their costs of > > electricity will push them into poverty. > > Its obvious that our current mode of cheap energy exploitation can't > last for long. A significant investment has to be made to allow us to > get away from carbon fuels. Even if you deny that CO2 is a problem you > have to admit carbon fuels pollute the environment. Surely you also see that > significant geopolitical problems, particularly in the oil-rich middle > eastern countries, requires that humanity should move to renewables. > > >>> The supposed 'scientists', that propound this fraud are of the most > >>> dishonest people in the world. Even when proof is presented to them, > >>> they ignore this proof and continue to propound their false theory. > >> 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. > > Take it to court then. Perform some experiments, gather data, submit > for publication. Blabbing on the newsgroups means nothing. > > > 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. > > I have a feeling you didn't perform any experiments. Haven't seen you > mention any. > > > Conservation measures would not reduce our output of CO2 like you say. > > This is a false statement. The complete elimination of US CO2 would > > have no effect on concentration increases, just by the facts of the > > increasing production of China and India. > > China surpassed the US with 10% relative increase in 2006. AT this > > rate, they will emit twice the US output in 10 yrs. > > Hard to believe you will claim that conservation measures will not reduce > "our" output of CO2. > > China is awash in pollution and will not be able to sustain the current > level of environmental poisoning for long. India is an environmental basket > case. You want the US to continue to emit known pollutants as well just > because THEY are willfully ruining their habitats. Traitor! > > > The ocean absorbs 300 billion tons of CO2 per year. > > It also releases 300 billion tons per year. > > The minute quantity of human CO2 does not affect this. In actuality > > much of the present CO2 increase is a natural increase, perhaps caused > > by the medieaval warm period and it's effect upon the exchange of the > > ocean with the atmosphere. > > You keep trucking that remark out onto the newsgroups, where do you get > your figures? > > > Here is a site, refered by the noted AGWist, Coppock. Although it is > > biased and is not completely correct in it's assumptions of C14 and > > many other things, it has many basic facts that are not commonly > > presented by the fraud of AGW. > >http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html > > > In 1970 human output of CO2 was 14 billion tons > > IN 2000, this was 24 billion tons > > However during this time period, concentrations increased at a steady > > rate of 1.5 ppm annually which is 11.8 billion tons per year. Just > > this shows that although you may have such feelings against CO2, even > > a world reduction back to 14 billion tons will not affect increasing > > CO2. Still at the steady 1.5 ppm. > > All this means is that there are carbon sinks which we do not fully > understand. There is more resiliency than meets the eye, but surely > it has a limit. The carbon is going somewhere, do you know where it is? > > > The fact is also, that CO2 concentrations would probably not be > > increasing if it were not for the burning of the tropical forest. It > > is estimated that the Amazon alone converts 40% of the worlds oxygen > > from CO2. Look at Coppocks site. Even here it is documented that this > > burning of the jungles causes fully 1/4 of all CO2 emissions, not to > > mention the important loss of this conversion to oxygen. Plants > > convert 440 billion tons annually. > > Your point being? We can pump all the carbon fuels out of the ground we > want and dump the effluent into the atmosphere without harm because people > are burning down the rainforests? > > > This site is wrong also in it's estimation of the CO2 absorbtion by > > phytoplankton in the surface of the ocean. This in actuallity > > determines the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, with the rate > > that carbon or CO2 is recycled from the deeper ocean. > > Its always good to cite sources of your data when you try to make statements > of fact, don't you think? > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4226917.stm > > "it is really only basic chemistry that [tells you] it would not be possible > for the ocean to absorb ever-increasing amounts of CO2 without becoming more > acidic." Look at the link I gave. It clearly shows 90 GtC absorbed and emitted by the ocean. This is 300 billion tons or so. The ocean is not being affected in the way you claim by human CO2. This is just normal scaremongering of those with their criminal agenda of AGW, and their attempt to gain sympathy from those that are truly concerned for the environment.
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 4 Sep 2007 17:59 "Bill Carter" <qhk6cxl02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote > Its obvious that our current mode of cheap energy exploitation can't > last for long. A significant investment has to be made to allow us to > get away from carbon fuels. but, but, but, but ,but... Thats pure Communism. Ahahahahahahhahhah
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 4 Sep 2007 18:01
"Bill Ward" <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote > I think they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. It's > "agenda first, reality later", that drives their behavior. Yup, AmeriKKKa is being dragged kicking and screaming to the Gloabal Warming negotiating table. It's really quite simple. Adopt Kyoto, or we will install terrirfs on you nation to starve you into combllince. |