Prev: Foundations of financial management 13e stanley block, geoffrey hirt, bartley test bank
Next: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks
From: Rob Dekker on 19 Jul 2010 05:32

"kdthrge(a)yahoo.com" <kdthrge(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6dbd1bbc-75ff-43bb-b143-1fe92f828724(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 2:04 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:
> > "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/839b2fc5e61ccac7/11eceb9e8bccab5b?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F839b2fc5e61ccac7%2Ff108c276c3db632e%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_11eceb9e8bccab5b

> > > The top 3.2 meters of ocean has the same heat capacity as the mass of
> > > the atmosphere.
> >
> > I have not checked all your calculations, but it looks like until here
> > you
> > are OK.
> > You also did not consider that our oceans mix heat quite quickly (within
> > a
> > year or so) down to 70 meters (IIRC).
> > Can you adjust your calculations to take that into consideration ?
>
> Of course at about that depth the heat capacity of the mass is enough
> to absorb this energy without it being noticeable in temperature. But
> this is bullshit and the energy could not transfer through the top
> layer without considerable evidence.

Did you consider the thermal conductivity of water ?
If the top 3 meters of water increases 1 C, how fast does that heat conduct
downward ?
By the way, that still disregards the normal mixing of water in the upper
layers of the ocean (which works even faster than the heat conductance).

> Also what about lakes? They would absorb the same energy without the
> great mass of the ocean. If this rate of energy retention of your
> 'radiative forcing' were actually part of reality, the temperature of
> water in lakes would go off the damn chart and it would also be very
> apparent in readings on land and atmosphere.
>
> No evidence whatsoever for this rate of heat retention, regardless of
> the bogus and fraudulent theory put out by the charlatans of AGW.

As a percentage, what is the surface area of all Earth's lakes combined,
when compared to the surface area of the ocean ?

>
>
>
> > > There is no empirical evidence for the retention of 1.7 Wm-2 of
> > > retained outgoing radiation claimed by the IPCC and theoretical
> > > scientists.
> >
> > There are several publication that report direct empirical evidence
> > (Harries
> > 2001 and 2005, Anderson 2004 etc), and there are many other publications
> > that show indirect evidence (measuring heat buildup in oceans etc) which
> > would not be explainable if there were no 'forcing' as predicted by
> > theoretical models. The observed warming (in atmosphere and oceans) is
> > in
> > compliance with theoretical analysis based on the laws of physics
> > (although
> > there is always room for improvement in accuracy).
> >
> > So it would be up to you to show why the laws of physics do not apply in
> > this case, or up to you to determine how the planet can warm up as much
> > as
> > it did over the past 100 years.
>
> You have not proved your negatives where you can demand an alternate
> explanation and you have barely 100 years of data, not near enough to
> make the claims of scientific conclusions that you do.

Einstein showed us that the energy observed depends on the observer.
He did not show any alternate explanations to that claim, and did not prove
any 'negatives'.
Is he right ?

>
> Your manner is the normal manner of developing and promoting the fraud
> that your theoretical surmise has none of the criteria of 'science'.
>
> There is evidence of warmer conditions than present. The medieaval
> warm period was much warmer in which the Viking settlers grew grapes
> and wheat in Greenland.

Grapes in Greenland ? Where is your proof ?

> There are natural fluctuations in temperature. It is normal in
> interglacial periods for the temperature to go above 2C of the 1950
> mean as it did in the Holicene maximum. We are only 0.8 above this
> mean.
> What caused these temperatures when humans weren't using fossil
> fuels??

Proxy data indicates that the Holocene maximum was just about at the level
where 1950 was.
Where did you get your "above 2 C of the 1950 mean" from ?
We are way beyond the Holocene maximum right now.

> You miss the fact that I point out that due to the change in the solar
> constant of 7% due to the change in the distance of the earth to the
> sun, that the southern hemisphere recieves greater annual solar
> energy. An important fact entirely missed by climatology which
> entirely negates such statements as yours and their basic theoretical
> outlay. But as public servants and scientists, they are compelled to
> ignore this important and condeming FACT.

I may have missed it, but since you seem to attack the intellectual
competence of "public servants and scientists" in general, please re-state
your argument that (if) there is a 7% change in solar constant, and can you
please state since when ? And when you are at it, please state which FACT
exactly was "missed by climatology" and by "public servants and scientists",
and if exactly what difference does that make ?

> This differential in energy absorption by the oceans, drives the
> 'conveyors' of the ocean currents. This differential causes a cycle of
> exchange of warmer water between the Indian ocean and the north
> atlantic.
>
> The differential increases year after year which causes the conveyor
> to pick up the rate of the currents, which then causes a mixing with
> the colder deeper water and causes the conveyor to slow.
>
> This explains very well the fluctuations of European temperatures and
> the little ice age. If one actually looks at the statistics of world
> temperatures, it is these European temperatures which mainly are
> behind the rise of the world average. US temperature statistics from
> the 1930's show no increase and no evidence whatsover of increased
> temperature in line with the increase of CO2.

It sounds like what you are saying is that the temperatures in the US do not
necessarily reflect an indication of the global average temperatures.
Please correct me if you meant otherwise.

> You still are unable to see what the quantity of 1.7Wm-2 is.
> Earth has radius of 6.400,000 meters. Square this, and multiply by
> 4pi.
>
> This rate of heat retention is enough to raise the top 3.2 meters of
> the ocean 1 degC in 69.7 days.

I believe you.
I just think that that heat will quickly dissipate into the depths of the
ocean...

> There is no evidence of this rate of energy retention in atmospheric
> readings. You imply that the ocean is absorbing this energy. It is
> true, that if you consider perhaps the top 70 meters, you have enough
> mass that the heat capacity is great enough that the absorption of
> this energy would be barely noticiable. But this is nonsense. This
> energy could not be absorbed and dissapated without evidence in the
> surface.

Heat conductivity of water. Did you calculate how fast heat dissipates in
water ?
Heat flows from wam to cold you know....
And that is even without any movement of water in the top 70 meters.

> If this energy is absorbed by the ocean, it must all be absorbed by
> radiation returned to the surface. Any heat energy transfered to the
> motions of the air molecules, cannot be transfered to the water.
>
> This is because of the clear FACTS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY.
>
> The molar density of the water is much higher. The number of
> collisions required to transfer energy to the water cannot occur.
>
> The process of convection takes warmer air AWAY from the surface. Air
> losing it's heat to the water would remain at the surface.

You seem to think that heat accumulated in the atmosphere cannot come down
to the surface any more.
But you are confusing yourself with that thought.
Heat goes up in the tropics, but due to adiabatic cooling, it comes down at
the poles.
Please study Hadly cells. They transfer heat from the tropics to the poles.

> Also warmer air causes greater rate of evaporation and thus actually
> cools the surface.

Sure, but that heat comes down at higher latitudes.
Still warms the global average.

> Water has a very high heat capacity. 75.4 Joules per mole per degree
> for water, about 29 Joules per mole per degC for air.
>
> Because of these reasons, any energy transfered to the ocean by this
> supposed forcing must be transfered by radiation returned to the
> surface.
>

Strangely worded, but I think you are correct.
The heat accumulated (retained by GHG effect) will collect in the ocean.

> You wish to state the theoretical explanation as to why there is not
> empirical evidence of this energy in the atmosphere or surface of the
> ocean by considering the the heat capacity of the ocean to 70 meters.
>

I am not sure if that is a question or a statement.

> So what about lakes? They would recieve the same radiation as the
> ocean, and not have the depth and mass to absorb the energy without it
> drastically affecting their temperature, and push it off the chart
> according to the LAWS AND FACTS ABOUT PHYSICS.
>

Lakes comprise only a tiny surface (and volume) of the planet's heat
absorbing capacity. Why do you even bring up lakes as an argument ?

>
>
> > > The theoretical explanations as to why there is no empirical evidence
> > > for the rate or quantities depicted are invalid and have no value.
> > > Such change in retention of outgoing radiation would be evident.
> >
> > Where does all the heat come from that warmed the planet over the past
> > 100
> > years, and why does it not radiate away according to Stephan Bolzmann
> > law ?
> >

Well ?

> >
> >
> > > These two graphs depict the supposed 'greenhouse' effect, and is from
> > > a publication which is considered state of the art
> > > thermodynamic theory for the supposed 'greenhouse' effect. The Planck
> > > curve depicted is invalid. The combination of the false theoretical
> > > curve with the satellite readings is entirely false. No such retention
> > > of outgoing radiation is occurring.
> >
> /> What on Earth are you saying here ? Why is the Planck curve
> invalid ?
> /> And why is the combination of theoretical curve and satellite
> readings
> /> entirely "false" ?
> >
> > >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig1.gif
> > >http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig2.gif
> >
> .> Are these graphs not correct ?
> .> If not, why not ?
>
> The first graph shows the composite of readings from satellites over
> time around the earth. It also shows a theoretical graph for surface
> radiation. In the article it says this curve is the Planck curve.
>
> The second graph is a composite of these two graphs which supposedly
> shows the frequencies missing because of the greenhouse gases, which
> then can be quantified for determination of the overall greenhouse
> effect from naturllly occuring water vapor and CO2.
>
> The theoretical Planck curve is false. It shows the peak intensity at
> the right point, about 10um, but the relative intensities of the
> frequencies is false. I know that the invalid schools of theoretical
> physics show graphs similar.
>
> But the really stupid thing is that Planck only derived mathematics to
> depict the experimental data. There is no need for a theoretical graph
> here. Especially one that is invalid. Direct experimantal readings of
> distribution of energy according to frequency at specific temperatures
> can be done, as Planck and the schools of German Physics did in order
> for Planck to derive his Radiation Law.

And the result is.......?
The Planck curve.
Very good KD.
You just went in a circle with your argument.
And that only in one paragraph.
Compliments.

>
> Below temperatures around 700K, the graph rises as a square to the
> frequency to the maximum intensity. So this graph would be correct in
> showing the peak intensity at about 2.25 times greater than at 15um.
>
> We could argue about this all day and look at the credentials of those
> drawing their little fake Planck curves.
>
> This can all be decided by direct experimental facts. And it will be
> proved that this graph is fraud, and all the scientific organizations
> who fail to do the proper science here will be held liable for their
> staking their credentials and scientific reputation on this fraud.

You are rambling.
Which graph exactly is fraud ?

>
> In the meantime, all of you inept greenie fools and theoretical
> physicists who spend their time perfecting thier ineptitude, should
> really get a real damn job.
>
> HAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHA
>

Hahhahahhaha Inept theoretical physicists, HahahahahaHAHAHAHahahaha.......
That's a good one...!


>
>
> > > The theoretical basis used by contemporary schools of theoretical
> > > physics and climatology are entirely ridiculous and invalid to actual
> > > basic and proper thermodynamics.
> >
> > That's enough.
> >
> So return to your simple rote repetition of things you cannot
> understand or support. We will collect our facts and evidence to
> convict you and your comrades of your pertinent crimes of fraud and
> you will be liable for your invalid theoretical science.
>
> KD
>

Invalid theoretical science.... Right... Keep on going KD. You are on the
right track, I know it.
You will prove them all wrong....



From: kdthrge on 21 Jul 2010 23:50
On Jul 19, 4:32 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:
> "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message

>
> > There are natural fluctuations in temperature. It is normal in
> > interglacial periods for the temperature to go above 2C of the 1950
> > mean as it did in the Holicene maximum. We are only 0.8 above this
> > mean.
> > What caused these temperatures when humans weren't using fossil
> > fuels??
>
/> Proxy data indicates that the Holocene maximum was just about at
the level
/> where 1950 was.
/> Where did you get your "above 2 C of the 1950 mean" from ?
/> We are way beyond the Holocene maximum right now.

The Holocene maximum was 8000 years ago. Here is my reference which
shows you to have your figures entirely incorrect, and as usual with
greenie weenies, incorrect on the side of warming.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Please see the first paragraph below the graph.
Also it is noticiable in these graphs to anyone looking closely, that
the CO2 follows the temperature by 1000 years. But you and algore can
change this fact also

This is an important point since it shows that present temperatures
are not abnormal. But of course you have distorted the facts to say
that 1950 was at the same temperature as the Holocene maximum. That is
real brilliant, since that would mean being above this temperature
would be the new Holocene maximum since we are still in the Holocene.

But like the recent formal publication from the greenie weenie
climates specialists at the US goverment who claimed that in the last
50 years US temperatures have risen by 2F, any manner of distortion of
statistics is allowed in the science of greenieweenieology, as long as
it promotes the panic of devasting global warming.

KD

..
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Foundations of financial management 13e stanley block, geoffrey hirt, bartley test bank
Next: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks