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 18:18 On Sep 4, 4:58 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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". The positive feedback of WV is that it's vapor pressure increases with temperature, what else were you referring to? > > "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. OK I assumed that you either had a HS knowledge of chemistry or that you could use Google, apparently I was wrong on both counts. Apparently you have a chip on your shoulder about your science education, what was I supposed to do give the thermodynamic derivation of the C-C equation on here without the ability to adequately present differential equations, which laws is it allowed to refer to without being pretentious, Boyle's Law, Stefan-Boltzmann or is it just any one you haven't heard of? You on the other hand are trying to prosletyse on here and deliberately exaggerate by 100-fold, in other words lie, yet you have mounted a campaign against another poster here for what you have termed lying! > > > 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. No just your past history on here Bill > > > 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. >From 30+ years experience of teaching I've had no problems, however the students want to learn, are prepared and have a grounding in the necessary prerequisites, and don't bring an attitude and agenda to the class. And yet my reply has told you exactly what the link between vapor pressure and temperature is and an estimate of its magnitude for water, I can only conclude that you're pissed off because you really didn't want to know that because it doesn't fit with your agenda! > > 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. I wasn't aware that we have a professor/student relationship on here, it's supposed to be a discussion, but since you've just said that you don't have a HS level knowledge and that I'm supposed to educate you, that's tough to do when the student (you) doesn't want to know the answers and disputes everything he's been told. > > 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). You're one who's making false statements and then getting in a huff when called to account. > > > > >> > 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. Yes and as discussed below that doesn't mean that in the steady state a warmer world will have a different cloud cover, it isn't that easy. > > 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? Well it will condense at a different altitude also it might rain much harder which could lead to shorter lived clouds. > > > 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. > Indeed and both equally valid on that basis, the trouble is nobody knows which is right or even if they're both wrong, the difference is that I recognise that but you dogmatically state that you're right. When not even the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research knows the answer but you do, that's one smart student! So which is it, Bill are we to treat you as some one who doesn't have basic HS knowledge and shouldn't be expected to know anything about thermodynamics and must have everything explained to him step by step or are we to treat you as some omniscient genius who knows the answer to everything but can't explain it in a scientific way, something of an idiot savant?
From: kdthrge on 4 Sep 2007 18:37 On Sep 3, 10:04 pm, Bill Ward ''''If you're talking about thermal conductivity of gases, it approaches zero as the pressure drops. That's why a Dewar works.''' Just to clarify, the question is not the thermal conductivity of the gases. This is the rate that heat is transfered through the gases. The question is the quantity of energy that is transfered through the gases to the metal. Therefore the experiment is probably better with the air mixed or moved through the duct. This shows that the temperature of the metal plate and the energy it radiates out of the duct, must be from the gases within the duct. It is impossible that this energy is being transfered by the collisonal energies alone. This is true of O2 and N2. This proves, and many other examples prove, that O2 and N2 absorb infrared radiation, and radiate this radiation in continous spectra. That CO2 or other gases have dark regions in this continous spectra at specific pressures, does not mean that these gases absorb these frequencies while O2 and N2 do not. These bands only mean low re- emision in these regions, probably the direct result that the molecule radiates these energies better at other frequencies. In Planck's theory, radiation energy is in sums of hv. Not integrals of vibrations. Present theory makes a grevious error in ignoring Planck and working with wavelengths. Only the discreet values of the sums of hv exist. Therefore there is not a continuum for wavelengths, and integrating energy theoretically by wavelength produces very invalid theoretical reckoning. A proper Planck curve is done in frequency, has peak intensity according to Wien, and the area beneath the curve is proporional to temperature by Stefans law and Boltzman's calculations for energy. The distribution is only the theoretical probability for the oscillator to be in a particular energy state at any given transmission.This probability is for a single oscillator over a sufficient period of time. Therefore it is also the flux at each frequency in a sample of the radiation from a great number of oscillators of an emission system of a gas. Any samle of the radiation field will have this same relative distribution of energy at each frequency. Since the oscillator exists in this radiation field and it's relative distribution of energy for frequency, the oscillator closely mimicks this relative distribution in emissions. Lose of energy transmission in any frequency is made up in other frequencies. This is why no detectable effect on temperature can be documented according to the theoretical estimations of the spectroscopy. KD
From: Bill Carter on 4 Sep 2007 20:08 Whata Fool wrote: > On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:36:21 -0500, Bill Carter > <qhk6cxl02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > >> Its obvious that our current mode of cheap energy exploitation can't >> last for long. > > Who is exploiting what? We are exploiting our environment. You do understand that as a general concept, right? We mine vast amounts of carbon fuels that are sitting in the ground in the form of oil, coal, natural gas, etc. They are easy to get, they are concentrated and portable sources of energy. We burn them and the pollutants wind up in the atmosphere. In a relatively short time it will all be used up. > >> A significant investment has to be made to allow us to >> get away from carbon fuels. > > Ok, brain, just what fuels can we go to, other than > nuclear. We have to go to renewables, jerky boy. Solar, wind, geothermal, wave and tidal action. We need to do it while we still have the easy cheap energy around to allow us the luxury of funding the research and the transition costs. Maybe China and India will be too shortsighted to get there, does that mean the Western countries have to also be dumb? >> 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. > > So a bunch of tribes that have been making war against > each other along with a few crazy dictators should prevent the > peaceful governments from selling their oil. I'm reading those words but I have even less idea what you are talking about than you do. The US doesn't have much oil, did you notice? We have to buy it now from people who don't like us. I say let them keep that stuff, we'll figure out something else. >> 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! > > You are twisting reality, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant > food, China is selling cheap junk products at less than the world > market for the raw materials that go into them, and the US is > the bad guy? Are you a greenie, an internationalist, or just > brainwashed? Apparently I'm a guy who has thought this through a lot more than you have. CO2 is a pollutant in the sense that we are injecting all the carbon we can get our hands on into our atmosphere. I realize there are people on the newsgroups who think this is completely harmless but they are not climate scientists. And its not just CO2, it is sulphur dioxide and mercury from our dirty coal-fired powerplants, environmental degradation from coal mines and natural gas extraction farms, ozone poisoning of our cities, long list of serious blunders. Does this seem smart to you? > >> "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." > > It won't be ever increasing, because there is a limited amount > of fossil fuel, and a lot of carbon is constantly turned into rock. Well at least you admit the obvious, carbon fuels won't last us forever. What's your plan for when it all runs out genius?
From: Bill Carter on 4 Sep 2007 20:22 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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 I think you are mischaracterizing the article, it doesn't support your position. 'Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic' input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2 is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions" [Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.' > 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. I have zero interest in your emotional yapping about some 'criminal agenda', even to say this kind of thing marks you as a crackpot. I have not seen you post anything that would actually suggest you are concerned about the environment in any way. You are in favor of the status quo, which obviously is not sustainable.
From: Bill Ward on 4 Sep 2007 21:57
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:18:02 -0700, Phil. wrote: > On Sep 4, 4:58 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> 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> <snip prior posts> >> >> >> >> 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". > > The positive feedback of WV is that it's vapor pressure increases with > temperature, what else were you referring to? Your hidden assumption that increased WV would increase the temperature. in spite of your link to the contrary below. >> "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. > > OK I assumed that you either had a HS knowledge of chemistry or that you > could use Google, apparently I was wrong on both counts. Apparently you > have a chip on your shoulder about your science education, what was I > supposed to do give the thermodynamic derivation of the C-C equation on > here without the ability to adequately present differential equations, > which laws is it allowed to refer to without being pretentious, Boyle's > Law, Stefan-Boltzmann or is it just any one you haven't heard of? You assume way too much. You don't know anything about my education, and you don't need to. I was referring to your apparent assumptions of the educational level in this group. This is a discussion group, and trying to impress by throwing around unnecessary technical jargon is counterproductive. If you can't explain in terms most readers can understand, you don't really know the subject. > You, on the other hand are trying to prosletyse on here and deliberately > exaggerate by 100-fold, in other words lie, yet you have mounted a > campaign against another poster here for what you have termed lying! I made a careless decimal point error and immediately acknowledged it. What's your problem? Do you really not see the difference? >> > 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. > > No just your past history on here Bill. I'll leave that one for readers to decide. >> > 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. > > From 30+ years experience of teaching I've had no problems, however > the students want to learn, are prepared and have a grounding in the > necessary prerequisites, and don't bring an attitude and agenda to the > class. I'm surprised. You seem much less experienced than that. I've no doubt you were aware of no problems, but I'm not so sure about your students, considering your attitude. > And yet my reply has told you exactly what the link between vapor > pressure and temperature is and an estimate of its magnitude for water, And apparently the thought never went through your mind that I might already know that. >I can only conclude that you're pissed off because you really didn't want >to know that because it doesn't fit with your agenda! Your logic is as faulty as your assumptions. >> 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. > > I wasn't aware that we have a professor/student relationship on here, > it's supposed to be a discussion, but since you've just said that you > don't have a HS level knowledge and that I'm supposed to educate you, > that's tough to do when the student (you) doesn't want to know the > answers and disputes everything he's been told. When you get rattled, you have a tendency to misquote as above. That's a dead giveaway. I haven't (and don't) say anything about my educational level, and particularly nothing about needing you to "educate" me. >> 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). > > You're one who's making false statements and then getting in a huff when > called to account. Are you talking about me dropping a couple of decimal points? So sue me. >> >> > 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. > > Yes and as discussed below that doesn't mean that in the steady state a > warmer world will have a different cloud cover, it isn't that easy. News flash: The world is not now, nor has it ever been, in a steady state. > >> 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? > > Well it will condense at a different altitude also it might rain much > harder which could lead to shorter lived clouds. Here's where you apparently think I would demand a cite for that. But you'd be wrong. It's just a speculation and needs no cite. >> > 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. >> >> > Indeed and both equally valid on that basis, the trouble is nobody knows > which is right or even if they're both wrong, the difference is that I > recognise that but you dogmatically state that you're right. When not > even the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for > Atmospheric Research knows the answer but you do, that's one smart > student! For a teacher, you haven't learned much, have you? > So which is it, Bill are we to treat you as some one who doesn't have > basic HS knowledge and shouldn't be expected to know anything about > thermodynamics and must have everything explained to him step by step or > are we to treat you as some omniscient genius who knows the answer to > everything but can't explain it in a scientific way, something of an > idiot savant? I only expect to be treated with the same respect as you would anyone else on the NG, which is apparently the case. But attempted intimidation is not the key to success. Someday you may learn... |