Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Hoggle on 2 Sep 2006 04:57 Orator wrote: > Fact is if any radiation is blocked at all (no allowed to escape), it > will eventually result in that effect as they claim a cumulative effect. > It is not "strawman", it is the inevitable consequence of the claim made. People seem to be hung up on a limited definition of 'blocked' and using the definition of the term to define the theory. Perhaps the pedants need the theory explaining to them again. a) CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs and re-emits IR radiation of certain frequencies that would otherwise pass through the atmosphere into space. b) By so doing, the earth warms up because of the resulting accumulation of energy. c) When the earth warms up the intensity of IR radiation it emits at all frequencies increases. d) As a consequence, a new equilibrium level is reached, since increases in the intensity of IR frequencies that do escape achieve a balance with the incoming radiation, which has not changed significantly. Notes a: There is also the issue of the wavelengths emitted by the upper layers or atmosphere, which escape into space more easily, having no more atmosphere to pass through. b: The effect is amplified by an increased carrying capacity for water vapour, but that is a side issue. c: There may be a slight frequency shift as well. d: This is slightly simplified as there is a percentage of each wavelength that escapes. CO2 increases change the shape of the intensity spectrum, warming changes the height.
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Sep 2006 07:50 In article <1157162775.774922.149150(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > >Orator wrote: >> Hoggle wrote: >> >> > Retief wrote: >> > >> >>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:32:55 GMT, "Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms" >> >><Exxon_Serial_Killers(a)RacketeersR.US> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to >> >>>happen to make Global Warming. >> >> >> >>If it _blocks_ "some outgoing IR radiation", then the Earth will >> >>eventually heat until all hell breaks loose (i.e. molten brimstone, as >> >>that energy was "blocked"). Thus, as usual, you are wrong. >> >> >> >>One notes that any heating in the atmosphere will also increase the >> >>rate at which heat is radiated out into space (as that rate depends on >> >>the temperature difference). It is not a simple linear equation... >> > >> > >> > Excellent example of a straw man argument. Well done. >> > >> > You are attributing a false argument to your opponent that he did not >> > make in order to score points. Blocking _some_ radiation will not cause >> > runaway heating and nothing in WFHCS's post suggests that it will. >> > >> >> Fact is if any radiation is blocked at all (no allowed to escape), it >> will eventually result in that effect as they claim a cumulative effect. >> It is not "strawman", it is the inevitable consequence of the claim made. >> >> Why that is so is that the effect on incoming radiation is never >> considered by the GW religion - it brings things back to a balance, when >> it IS considered. > >Except as you've been told many times before it is considered, incoming >IR is not blocked it is absorbed. > Orator believes CO2 is like a giant mirror.
From: Hoggle on 2 Sep 2006 17:02 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Do a general search on google, for Infrared radiation. > It is very common, even on the internet, to find the fact that the > atmosphere is opaque from 1 micron. Please provide me with just one link. Just one. I've done the search dozens of times and every time I come up with the same spectrum of transparency. Like this one (top link for "atmosphere spectrum transparency" as a search) http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/svl/posters/ems.html "Accordingly, there are only a few "windows," at well-defined locations in the electromagnetic spectrum, where Earth's atmosphere is transparent. In much of the radio and in the visible portions of the spectrum, the opacity is low, so we can observe the Universe at those wavelengths from ground level. ***************************************************************************************** ___Throughout the infrared range, the atmosphere is partially transparent___ ***************************************************************************************** , so we can also make limited infrared observations from the ground. Moving to the tops of mountains, above as much of the atmosphere as possible, improves such observations. In the rest of the spectrum, however, the atmosphere is opaque. Ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma-ray observations can be made only from above the atmosphere, mostly from orbiting satellites." And this one, via the nasa link http://www.wmo.ch/web/sat/en/im2-01.htm This one shows the absorbtion spectra for different molecules between 1 and 16 microns. The second CO2 band (at around 4 microns) is clearly in a region not covered by any other gases (apart from a small amount of overlap from the N2O 4.5micron band) http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~owen/CHPI/IMAGES/transirs.html So, I'm here to learn. What search terms should I enter into google to get a website that supports your fantasy?
From: Phil. on 2 Sep 2006 18:27 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > Why that is so is that the effect on incoming radiation is never > > > considered by the GW religion - it brings things back to a balance, when > > > it IS considered. > > > > Except as you've been told many times before it is considered, incoming > > IR is not blocked it is absorbed. > > ,,,The GWCO2 religion has no science. They started out with the idea > that CO2 causes warming and they work their little made up dynamics > towards this. When they talk, they throw their little made up dynamics > in like no one will notice and then inundate the conversation with a > bunch of other useless drivel and references to blind you.. > > the heat of the air slows the rate of the heat loss of the ocean.... > > the dark absotption bands are trapping these frequencies when the > others pass through.... > > the energy of frequencies that are supposedly absorbed and undetected > is taken up in the wind... > > Hey little theoretical idiots. You talk and talk , but it is a fact. > CO2 is one gas which has exactly the same heat capacity as the diatoms > of air. Total nonsense. At 15ºC and 1atm pressure Molecule Cv (J/ºCmole) N2 20.6 O2 21.1 CO2 28.2
From: Bush-Afghan #1 Opium Supplier to the World! on 2 Sep 2006 22:33
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:1157244993.666357.262230(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > Snip. > > Rumsfeld gave Golden Spurs to Gasman Saddam Hussain > <Exxon_Serial_Murder...(a)RacketeersR.US > > You still haven's explained what this dumbass logon name means.HARVARD > SNIT CHARLATAN LIAR > a proper astrophysicist when I was in school. Although I see now it is > mostly filled up with the bullshit rhetoric dictated by Harvard > Universtity Charlatan Commitee, intended to support their fraud and > hostile attempt to control the US government and economy. > Kent Deatherage > http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge The guy you want to look up and know everything you can about him is certainly a HARVARD CHARLATAN LIAR. I'll give you a few hints: Bookmark it! http:google.com TASSC John Graham, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis http://snipurl.com/r167 Google Results 1 - 11 of 11 for "John D. Graham" TASSC. ----------------------------------- http://www.smokefreeforhealth.org/studies/YachBialous.htm November 2001, Vol 91, No. 11 | American Journal of Public Health 1745-1748 ? 2001 American Public Health Association TOBACCO, LAWYERS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH Junking Science to Promote Tobacco Derek Yach, MBChB, MPH and Stella Aguinaga Bialous, DrPH, MScN, RN "... BUYING SCIENTISTS... One prestigious US institution that has received funds from Philip Morris and its subsidiaries is the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, whose former director, John Graham, has assisted Philip Morris with risk communication about environmental tobacco smoke and has on many occasions requested funds for the center.15?18 Among several other sources of corporate support, the center currently has an unrestricted grant from the Philip Morris subsidiary Kraft Foods and a restricted grant from the Risk Science Institute of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).19 In March 2001 President Bush nominated John Graham to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.20 This office reviews and approves?or blocks?all major federal regulations. The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen criticized the nomination on the basis of the links between Graham and corporate funding.21,22 ... DISTORTING RISK ... In addition to creating front groups and contributing funds to groups that have a mission broad enough to carry some of the tobacco industry's goals, the tobacco companies also use publications by allegedly independent think tanks, such as the Virginia-based Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. This group's 1994 report "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination"35 criticizes the US Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment methods in 4 areas: environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous cleanup. It dismisses in its first chapter the agency's risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke, using arguments similar to the tobacco industry's "junk science" arguments described by Ong and Glantz. This report has been widely used by the tobacco industry in its quest to dismiss the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke. And although no direct financial link has been established, several members of the report's academic advisory board have been involved with different tobacco companies' activities.36 The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz.37,38 He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39 15. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Letter from J. D. Graham to David L. Greenberg, vice president, government affairs, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. October 21, 1991. Available at: http:// http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2023545705/5706. Accessed March 16, 2000. 16. Philip Morris. Memorandum from R. A. Pages to Steve Parrish. Subject: Comment on letter from John Graham. October 29, 1991. Available at: http:// http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2023545707. Accessed March 16, 2000. 17. Kraft General Foods. Letter from E. J. Guardia to John D. Graham. August 12, 1992. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2025534554. Accessed March 16, 2000. 18. Philip Morris Management Corp. Memorandum from M. Logue to Steve Parrish. Re: John Graham/Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. August 31, 1992. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2025534553. Accessed March 16, 2000. 19. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Available at: http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/description.html. Accessed February 26, 2001. 20. President George W. Bush today announced his intent to nominate three individuals to serve in his administration [press release]. Washington, DC: White House Office of the Press Secretary; March 6, 2001. 21. Public Citizen. Safeguards at risk: John Graham and corporate America's back door to the Bush White House. March 12, 2001. Available (in PDF format) at: http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/graham.html. Accessed September 14, 2001. 22. Skrzycki C. Regulatory nominee assailed in report: consumer group alleges corporate ties. Washington Post. March 14, 2001:E1. 35. Jeffreys K. Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination. a research report conducted by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. August 11, 1994. Available at: http:// http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2048901932/2008. Accessed February 20, 2001. 36. The Tobacco Institute. Inventory of comments received by the Tobacco Institute on the costs and benefits of smoking restrictions: an assessment of the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993 (HR 3434). Available at: http:// http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2047232462. Accessed February 26, 2001. 37. APCO Associates Inc. Memorandum from T. Hockaday and N. Cohen to Matt Winokur. Re: thoughts on TASSC Europe. March 25, 1994. Available at: http://www.pmdocs.com/. Document no. 2024233595/3602. Accessed February 26, 2001. 38. International Center for a Scientific Ecology. Guidelines for the seminar on linear relationship for ris |