Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Sep 2006 07:03 In article <ge3Mg.25081$rP1.3608(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <gjLLg.24553$rP1.17689(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <OjgLg.23874$rP1.9502(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >>>> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > > >>>>> >>>>>Here is an interesting claim. Lloyd (&Co) claims 36% increase in CO2 and >>>>>it is 100%, man made. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html >>>> >>>> >>>>What makes you think a site that also lets you send Halloween cards is in >>>>any sense a scientific site? >>> >>>You mean it doesn't support your Religious views - so what? It is vastly >>>more scientific than anything you have produced. >>> >>>> >>>>>"Meanwhile perhaps up to 9% of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere >>>>>today may be attributable to human-related activities like agriculture, >>>>>industry, and transportation." >>>> >>>> >>>>The _increase_ is man-made. >>>> >>>> Just in the news today: >>>> >>>>"Air from the oldest ice core confirms human activity has increased the >>>>greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to levels not seen >>>>for hundreds of thousands of years, scientists said on Monday. >>> >>>UHU and "news papers", you know those things with cartoons and comics in >>>them are "scientific", according to you? >>> >> >> Dr Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey and the leader of the science >> team for the 10-nation European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica reported >> at British Association Festival of Science in Norwich. >> >I want to see the paper he has published. Cite that paper, news papers >stuff things up badly and can make a silk purse look like a sow's ear. >> He presented this at a scientific conference. >>>..... >>> >>> >>>You missed the point totally. The point being that 4400 ppm CO2 didn't >>>alter the temperature much from that of today. See lower. > >> >> OK, real idiot alert here. > >I know, but hey, you are allowed to be an idiot, as long as you keep >taking your medication. >> >> >>>>>So it is only 9% CO2 that people contribute...... >>>>> >>>> >>>>It isn't. >>> >>>Why should I believe your raw assertion? I would rather believe an >>>actual study! >> >> >> That site did none! > >Answer the question! Answer one: Why do you post things from non-science sites? >> >> >>>>>"Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our >>>>>atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically >>>>>measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the >>>>>Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm >>>>>while temperatures then were about the same as they are today." >>>>> >>>>>Temperatures "about the same as today", how do they explain that away? >>>> >>>> >>>>How do you explain "carbon has 10 protons"? >>> >>>You can't answer that, can you and resort to being totally ridiculous. > > >> You're using a site with no science behind it. > >You are evading the topic once again. No I'm not. You're a fool. Why do you go to sites with no science? >Answer the question put, not >resort to ad hominem attacks on people. If you don't have a clue, just >say so, it is bleeding obvious you don't have a clue as it is. > >> Why do you idiots persist in >> finding this wacko sites? We keep referring you to NASA and IPCC, but you >> keep finding "We don't need no stinking science" sites. > >It is vastly more scientific than your screeching "idiots", "wacko >sites" etc. You're stupid. Now THAT has scientific basis. > >You clearly object to the study that is backed up with sources and >references, unlike your "We don't need no stinking science", and rely on >chanting dogma instead. >> You've cited no study, and you're too dumb to even know that? >> >>>>>Oh, and what's more it has real fair dinkum scientific references at the >>>>>bottom. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yeah, sure. He quotes someone about models in 1998. >>> >>>If you have managed to change something that occurred 460 million years >>>ago, how come you haven't patented the time machine you must have? >> >> And how do you know what it was like then? > >How so you know it wasn't? Where is your study on that issue? > >>>>They've gotten a lot better. >>> >>>And the creationists have invented "Intelligent Design". They too have >>>"gotten a lot better"! >>> >>> >>>>He cites Lindzen and Michaels. >>> >>>Bravo, so you can cite a couple on names, but nothing of relevance from >>>the article. >> >> >> The article is wrong from top to bottom. > >Another bit of assertion without even the faintest bit of justification. So back up your assertion. > >>>> He cites junkscience. >>> >>>Yes, any "creationist" worth their salt would definitely make a claim >>>like that! > >> Huh? That's a notorious industry-shill site. > >Yes, that is the language of creationists, evade and avoid dealing with >issues, chuck in a barrow load of red herrings instead! No, it is well-known. Check it out. >> >> >>>>His site is lies. >>> >>>And that statement is a lie. It is the very best he can do in response, >>>presumably. >>> >> >> >> OK, idiot^2. > >You claim to be an idiot twice over - you are starting to get a good >mental picture of yourself :-) > >> >>>>And you're gullible enough to swallow it. >>> >>>I have seen you provide nothing at all to refute it with >>> >> >> IPCC. NAS. NASA. > >So? Anyone can string a few letters together, they refute nothing. Where >is your citation, specific and to the point. If you don't have one, >don't be shy, admit it! >> OK, you're more than 1 person, right? No one person can be this dumb. >> >>>>I dare you to go to NASA or IPCC. >>> >>>So? Anyone can string a few letters together they refute nothing. >>> >> Idiot^3. > >Now you don't even need a mirror to know yourself :-) > >You know, you most definitely qualify as an "idiot" as you claim, 3 >times over at that. You have nothing to back up your claims with, not a >skerrick of evidence. I doubt you could find you bum with both hands! >> >> >>>BTW, I note you post from an .edu, are you the janitor or the gardener >>>t
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Sep 2006 07:05 In article <D44Mg.25114$rP1.15628(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Phil. wrote: >Surely you are not serious! > >First of all we had better note this: >(del) (cur) 09:24, 19 June 2006 . . Dragons flight > >(Why not a real name?) has deleted an original file and placed what >exists there. It is an ongoing debate and hardly "settled" by the look >of the history. It is not an "authority", but a debate featuring a >certain "Dragons flight" in the driving seat. > >The oldest reference goes back to 3 August 2003 (hist) (diff) Texas >Academy of Mathematics and Science, and that was for spelling >corrections only. > >That supports what I have been saying for a long time. There is a >"BALANCE", what comes in, goes out. Note the incoming "radiation" is >235 - the outgoing radiation is 195+40=235! > No it is not. Simple math is beyond you as well. >NO NET GAIN. > >However that article/graph is bogus to the extent it effectively claims >perpetual motion. A perpetual motion that is cumulative and suggests an >accumulation of heat on a daily basis that has the effect of rendering >the planet uninhabitable. It is something that would have already >occurred billions of years ago. > >I also notice that it is Global Cooling they talk about there as their >ISA has dropped by 1 whole degree to only 14 C! I notice you're acting the village idiot again. > >BTW according to Lloyd, it is useless because it dates back to 1997. He >has declared a 1998 study to be "out of date, we know better now". Why >should that be any different, using Lloyd's "logic"? > >Further more, that is no better assertions than the "is too" kind we see >here. I particularly dispute this assertion: "The atmosphere in turn >transfers the energy it receives both into space (38%) and back to the >Earth's surface (62%)". I want detailed proof that this is so, it >certainly defies logic without any. I want proof you're not a vegetable. > >I still don't accept 5 as the answer, I want PROOF! Why is that too hard >to understand? >
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Sep 2006 07:14 In article <b0p1g2dop65bfkdcfrpk3fia2iuqmp1cr3(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Sep 06 10:56:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >> >>So the rest is back into the atmosphere. Do you fail to understand your own >> >>explanation? Without CO2, that IR emitted by the earth would escape into >> >>space. >> > >> >What the hell are you smoking, Lloyd? "Without CO2, that IR emitted >> >by the earth would escape into space"!!?? You're kidding, right? >> >> The ir now absorbed by the increased CO2 would. > >The reader will note that this incorrect claim is different than >Lloyd's previous incorrect claim. Let us examine his latest. > >Lloyd claims, with certainty, that the IR now absorbed by the >increased CO2 would escape into space, without considering any of the >atmopsheric the IR band interactions. That is, Lloyd apparently >thinks that this interaction process is _linear_... > >http://www.optics.arizona.edu/rsg/menu_items/resources/equip/water-vap.htm > "Columnar Water Vapor Retrieval" > > "Water vapor can not be determined as easily as aerosols and ozone > for two reasons. The first of these is that the amount of > absorption by water vapor is not linear with the amount of the > gas. That is, if we double the amount of water vapor, we do not > double the absorption. This is because many of the absorption > lines are saturated to the point where all of the energy is > absorbed. Thus adding more water vapor can not increase the > absorption." And does that mention CO2? You do know CO2 and H2O are different, right? > >Does Lloyd's IR photon fall within one of these bands? These bands >overlap with CO2. > >That is, if the IR photon in question fell in the band where the >atmosphere already was quite opaque due to water vapor, then Lloyd's >claim is clearly false. Water vapor accounts for 60% of the >"greenhouse" effect: > >http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/3 Irrelevant, as you've been told umpteen times. CO2 is the majority of the added GH effect. > > "The spectroscopic data that are required to model long-wave > atmospheric absorptions are generally well characterized. When > these data are put into atmospheric models, water turns out to be > responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while the > much-reviled carbon-dioxide molecule accounts for just 26%. ..." > Again, irrelevant. >Here the reader can see that the longwave peaks at about 10 um: > >http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 >"Atmospheric absorption" > >And the reader can see the overlapping bands for CO2 and H2O here: > >http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/ >"The Atmospheric Spectrum" > >CO2 surpasses H2O for optical thickness at approximately 15 um, then >again falls below H2O at about 18 um. > >So, even if there was _absolutely_zero_ CO2 in the atmosphere, the IR >photons would interact with the remaining gases (e.g. H2O) in the >atmosphere. > >> I'm sorry; I thought intelligent people could follow the discussion. > >Gosh, would you look at that... Lloyd just couldn't resist the >temptation to sling an ad hominem, in an attempt to conceal his >grossly erroneous claim... > >Here's a hint for you Lloyd, why don't you go learn some science. > >Retief
From: Orator on 10 Sep 2006 02:49 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <8H2Mg.25056$rP1.5589(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <cPNLg.24627$rP1.18457(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >>> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <64uLg.24148$rP1.18372(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >>>>> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <fa6jf21pjqsghdh3nqhh9mag085t8qaoot(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>> Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:49:57 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>.... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>What about that incoming IR that is absorbed, and then re-radiated >>>>>>>>back into space, Lloyd? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>A small fraction. Consider a CO2 molecule as a sphere; only one narrow >>>>>>>angle leads back into space. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes it is such a "narrow angle" and "small fraction" that only some 53% >>>>>>of the surface area radiates out to space. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Huh? A CO2 molecule at ground level? You're joking. >>>> >>>>Did I say "ground level"? No I didn't. Did my post contain "ground >>>>level" in it anywhere? No it didn't, it is a figment of your imagination. >>> >>>Most CO2 is below the top of the atmosphere. >> >>Did I say "the top of the atmosphere"? No I didn't. Did my post contain >>"the top of the atmosphere" in it anywhere? No it didn't! It is another >>piece of fiction on your part. >> > Only CO2 at the top of the atmosphere can re-radiate IR out into space. > That one is definitely going into my collection of bloopers :-) > >>>That means they radiate to other >>>parts of the atmosphere, where there are other CO2 molecules. >> >>....and each and every one radiates more out from the planet than toward >>the planet. > > > No, imagine a sphere. Are you honestly that bloody slow up top? What part of the above did you fail to understand? > It's surrounded on all sides by the atmosphere; No bloody kidding! I would never have guessed! And pray tell what exactly is "atmosphere"? > only the top leads directly out of the atmosphere. Is that so.... and where exactly is "the top" eh? Where is that last little CO2 molecule that radiates into space? More importantly do we even need to know that? Of course not, it doesn't matter a hoot! > And even IR radiated upwards is > going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at the > top of the atmosphere. > BRAVO! Now that you have figured that out that above the molecule radiation "upward" there is another molecule. Then it is bleeding obvious that it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is encountered....... Get the picture yet? Each and every one of them radiates more out into space than they do to earth. As there are massive amounts of these (but an amount nobody can agree on) each radiates on average 6% more out into space than back to earth, then there has to be a cumulative effect of more being radiated OUT than IN. This effect is magnified with an increase of CO2 (and other GH gases). > >>That means you have a cumulative effect of ever greater >>portion being radiated OUT from the planet. > > > How do you visualize a sphere in which every direction leads away from the > atmosphere? I don't and have never ever suggested anything as foolish as that! It is another figment of your imagination. >>That is why there is no need >>to consider that part. It is detrimental to your "religion" in any event. >> >> >>>Take a sphere and examine all those places we call "interior." >> >>Why should I need to do that when the re-radiation is omni-directional, >>and it is known that the majority is out to space. > > > No it is not. Yes it is, and it is quite silly to argue otherwise, it is most unintelligent. > Visualize a sphere surrounded by atmosphere. How can the > majority of directions lead away from the atmosphere? There should be a law against being allowed to be that dense! That "sphere" IS the "atmosphere"! > > >>Oh, just in case you wonder, no it doesn't radiate "inward". >> > > It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. How the hell do you even manage to get a job as a janitor or gardener at an .edu with such a serious handicap? > > >>>>Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the >>>>surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? >> >>Was that question too hard for you as well? > > > You're claiming a sphere embedded in the atmosphere has most of its surface > exposed not to atmosphere but space? > You are not answering the question put! Can't answer it can you. You are restoring to that imagination of your again. > >>>>>>..... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". >>>>>> >>>>>>We certainly do :-)
From: Orator on 10 Sep 2006 03:06
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <ge3Mg.25081$rP1.3608(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > A number of questions were posed, and requests for proof were made, NOT ONE was actually answered nor any proof provided for anything at all. Go back to my previous post, everything asked for there remains unanswered, and ANSWER the questions! |