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: kdthrge on 9 Jul 2010 19:32
The temperature of the surface of the sun is 5770K. At this
temperature, energy is radiated at 62,847,254.7 Wm-2 according
to Stefan's Law,

5770^4 x 5.67E-8 = 62,847,254.7 Wm-2

A Watt is one Joule per second.
A calorie is 4.2 Joules, which are units of energy which is a
quantity.

This means simply that at the radiating surface of the sun, this
quantity of energy in Joules is passing through the plane of 1 sq
meter per second.

This energy is distributed in the spectrum according to Planck's
Radiation Law for this temperature with the peak intensity
according to Wiens Law.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum/

This energy is produced at the center of the sun by nuclear fusion and
travels to the radiating surface. An equivalence of the
energy produced by the fusion is radiated in order for the sun to
remain in homeostasis and equilibrium. Radiation energy
travels from the Sun to Earth in about 8 minutes and 19 seconds

If this is the density of radiated energy per sq meter, then the total
luminosity of the sun is the area of the sphere at the surface
multiplied by this derivative.

The radius of the sun is 6.955E8 meters
A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2,
6.955E8 squared, x 4 pi =
6.0786E18 sq meters

Multiplied by 62,847,254.7 Wm-2, the density of radiated energy per sq
meter =

3.8202E26 Joules per second, as the total radiated energy of the sun
or the total luminosity.
,,,,,

The orbital radius of the earth to the sun is 1.496 x 10^11m
A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2, or
2.81E23 sq meters

Total solar luminosity of the sun, divided by the area of sphere at
earth's orbital radius, gives the density of the solar radiation at
earth's radius, which is diminished by the inverse square law for
distance.

These calculations with these values and roundings, give the value for
the inverse square law of diminishing intensity of radiation energy
for distance of,,
1359.5 Joules per second per sq meter, at earth's mean orbital
radius.

It is considered that the solar constant is about 1365Wm-2. This means
that a 1 sq meter solar collector at earth's mean orbital radius, will
will collect 1365 Joules per second of radiation energy from the sun.

This value changes semi-annually due to the eccentricity of earth's
orbit by about 7%.
Perihelion occurs in January. Since the southern hemisphere is
receiving more sunlight on more area at this time, and with
more direct rays, the southern hemisphere all in all, receives greater
annual radiation energy.

The earth blocks and absorbs a portion of this radiation energy from
traveling at the velocity of light into space. Some is reflected and
much is absorbed by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's
surface.

Over the time the earth has existed, and equilibrium of received
energy to radiated energy is achieved. Changes in these
rates would necessarily affect energy content of the system causing an
increase or decrease in total energy of the system,
which would be reflected in temperature changes until the new
equilibrium of received and radiated energy is achieved.
Increased input energy would increase energy content causing an
increase in temperature which means a higher rate of
radiation of energy according to the fourth power law of Stefen's Law,
by which equilibrium of received and radiated energy
would again be achieved.

Regardless of these values, the energy of the outgoing radiation
energy for 1Wm-2 can be calculated according to the surface
area of a sphere near the earth's surface. The earth's radius is about
6400 kilometers. Therefore, 1 Wm-2 for the earth's surface radiation
would be..

5.147E14 Joules per second
,,,,,,,,,,
The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 5.27E21 grams.
This is 80% N2 and 20% O2, with molar weight about 29 grams, and heat
capacity of 29 Joules per mole per degC, meaning
that the total heat capacity, or energy absorbed by this quantity of
mass in increasing it's temperature by 1degC,
is about 5.27E21 Joules.

So if and imbalance occurred of 1 Wm-2 causing the retention or
prohibition of this quantity of 1 Joule per second of
radiation energy leaving the earth system, 5.147E14 Joules per second,
the quantity of energy for the heat capacity of the
mass of the atmosphere, for 1 degC temperature increase, would occur
in about 118.5 days.

5.27E21 Joules heat capacity divided by 5.147E14 Joules per second =
1.025E7 seconds
divide by 3600, by 24 =
118.5 days.

365 days divided by 118.5 = 3
This would be 3 degC per year.

The top 3.2 meters of ocean has the same heat capacity as the mass of
the atmosphere.

There is no empirical evidence for the retention of 1.7 Wm-2 of
retained outgoing radiation claimed by the IPCC and theoretical
scientists.

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.

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.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig1.gif
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig2.gif

The theoretical basis used by contemporary schools of theoretical
physics and climatology are entirely ridiculous and invalid to actual
basic and proper thermodynamics. A portion of the outgoing radiation
is claimed to be retained by natural and anthropogenic CO2 and water
vapor. The fact can also be proved in the laboratory that this
theoretical basis not only has no empirical basis, but is patently
invalid and fraud.

Eventually, all theoretical scientists and important scientific
organizations who cannot critique this invalid theoretical science,
will sacrifice their status and accreditation as scientists and should
be held criminally and civilly liable for their fraud and sanction of
the clear fraud of the theoretical climatologists..

KD

From: TKeating on 9 Jul 2010 23:46
On Jul 9, 4:32 pm, "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> The temperature of the surface of the sun is 5770K. At this
> temperature, energy is radiated at 62,847,254.7 Wm-2 according
> to Stefan's Law,
>
> 5770^4 x 5.67E-8 = 62,847,254.7 Wm-2
>
> A Watt is one Joule per second.
> A calorie is 4.2 Joules, which are units of energy which is a
> quantity.
>
> This means simply that at the radiating surface of the sun, this
> quantity of energy in Joules is passing through the plane of 1 sq
> meter per second.
>
> This energy is distributed in the spectrum according to Planck's
> Radiation Law for this temperature with the peak intensity
> according to Wiens Law.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/images/sunbathin...
>
> This energy is produced at the center of the sun by nuclear fusion and
> travels to the radiating surface. An equivalence of the
> energy produced by the fusion is radiated in order for the sun to
> remain in homeostasis and equilibrium. Radiation energy
> travels from the Sun to Earth in about 8 minutes and 19 seconds
>
> If this is the density of radiated energy per sq meter, then the total
> luminosity of the sun is the area of the sphere at the surface
> multiplied by this derivative.
>
> The radius of the sun is 6.955E8 meters
> A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2,
> 6.955E8 squared,  x 4 pi =
> 6.0786E18 sq meters
>
> Multiplied by 62,847,254.7 Wm-2, the density of radiated energy per sq
> meter =
>
> 3.8202E26 Joules per second, as the total radiated energy of the sun
> or the total luminosity.
> ,,,,,
>
> The orbital radius of the earth to the sun is 1.496 x 10^11m
> A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2, or
> 2.81E23 sq meters
>
> Total solar luminosity of the sun, divided by the area of sphere at
> earth's orbital radius, gives the density of the solar radiation at
> earth's radius, which is diminished by the inverse square law for
> distance.
>
> These calculations with these values and roundings, give the value for
> the inverse square law of diminishing intensity of radiation energy
> for distance of,,
> 1359.5 Joules per second per sq meter, at earth's mean orbital
> radius.
>
> It is considered that the solar constant is about 1365Wm-2. This means
> that a 1 sq meter solar collector at earth's mean orbital radius, will
> will collect 1365 Joules per second of radiation energy from the sun.
>
> This value changes semi-annually due to the eccentricity of earth's
> orbit by about 7%.
> Perihelion occurs in January. Since the southern hemisphere is
> receiving more sunlight on more area at this time, and with
> more direct rays, the southern hemisphere all in all, receives greater
> annual radiation energy.
>
> The earth blocks and absorbs a portion of this radiation energy from
> traveling at the velocity of light into space. Some is reflected and
> much is absorbed by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's
> surface.
>
> Over the time the earth has existed, and equilibrium of received
> energy to radiated energy is achieved. Changes in these
> rates would necessarily affect energy content of the system causing an
> increase or decrease in total energy of the system,
> which would be reflected in temperature changes until the new
> equilibrium of received and radiated energy is achieved.
> Increased input energy would increase energy content causing an
> increase in temperature which means a higher rate of
> radiation of energy according to the fourth power law of Stefen's Law,
> by which equilibrium of received and radiated energy
> would again be achieved.
>
> Regardless of these values, the energy of the outgoing radiation
> energy for 1Wm-2 can be calculated according to the surface
> area of a sphere near the earth's surface. The earth's radius is about
> 6400 kilometers. Therefore, 1 Wm-2 for the earth's surface radiation
> would be..
>
> 5.147E14 Joules per second
> ,,,,,,,,,,
> The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 5.27E21 grams.
> This is 80% N2 and 20% O2, with molar weight about 29 grams, and heat
> capacity of 29 Joules per mole per degC, meaning
> that the total heat capacity, or energy absorbed by this quantity of
> mass in increasing it's temperature by 1degC,
> is about 5.27E21 Joules.
>
> So if and imbalance occurred of 1 Wm-2 causing the retention or
> prohibition of this quantity of 1 Joule per second of
> radiation energy leaving the earth system, 5.147E14 Joules per second,
> the quantity of energy for the heat capacity of the
> mass of the atmosphere, for 1 degC temperature increase, would occur
> in about 118.5 days.
>
> 5.27E21 Joules heat capacity divided by 5.147E14 Joules per second =
> 1.025E7 seconds
> divide by 3600, by 24 =
> 118.5 days.
>
> 365 days divided by 118.5 = 3
> This would be 3 degC per year.
>
> The top 3.2 meters of ocean has the same heat capacity as the mass of
> the atmosphere.
>
> There is no empirical evidence for the retention of 1.7 Wm-2 of
> retained outgoing radiation claimed by the IPCC and theoretical
> scientists.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig1.gifhttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig2.gif
>
> The theoretical basis used by contemporary schools of theoretical
> physics and climatology are entirely ridiculous and invalid to actual
> basic and proper thermodynamics. A portion of the outgoing radiation
> is claimed to be retained by natural and anthropogenic CO2 and water
> vapor. The fact can also be proved in the laboratory that this
> theoretical basis not only has no empirical basis, but is patently
> invalid and fraud.
>
> Eventually, all theoretical scientists and important scientific
> organizations who cannot critique this invalid theoretical science,
> will sacrifice their status and accreditation as scientists and should
> be held criminally and civilly liable for their fraud and sanction of
> the clear fraud of the theoretical climatologists..
>
> KD

This is all well and good but I found the picture of Al Gore's face on
the cover of the National Enquirer more to the point.
From: Rob Dekker on 10 Jul 2010 03:04

"kdthrge(a)yahoo.com" <kdthrge(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9bef1585-267a-469b-becc-3192264402a9(a)41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> The temperature of the surface of the sun is 5770K. At this
> temperature, energy is radiated at 62,847,254.7 Wm-2 according
> to Stefan's Law,
>
> 5770^4 x 5.67E-8 = 62,847,254.7 Wm-2
>
> A Watt is one Joule per second.
> A calorie is 4.2 Joules, which are units of energy which is a
> quantity.
>
> This means simply that at the radiating surface of the sun, this
> quantity of energy in Joules is passing through the plane of 1 sq
> meter per second.
>
> This energy is distributed in the spectrum according to Planck's
> Radiation Law for this temperature with the peak intensity
> according to Wiens Law.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum/
>
> This energy is produced at the center of the sun by nuclear fusion and
> travels to the radiating surface. An equivalence of the
> energy produced by the fusion is radiated in order for the sun to
> remain in homeostasis and equilibrium. Radiation energy
> travels from the Sun to Earth in about 8 minutes and 19 seconds
>
> If this is the density of radiated energy per sq meter, then the total
> luminosity of the sun is the area of the sphere at the surface
> multiplied by this derivative.
>
> The radius of the sun is 6.955E8 meters
> A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2,
> 6.955E8 squared, x 4 pi =
> 6.0786E18 sq meters
>
> Multiplied by 62,847,254.7 Wm-2, the density of radiated energy per sq
> meter =
>
> 3.8202E26 Joules per second, as the total radiated energy of the sun
> or the total luminosity.
> ,,,,,
>
> The orbital radius of the earth to the sun is 1.496 x 10^11m
> A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2, or
> 2.81E23 sq meters
>
> Total solar luminosity of the sun, divided by the area of sphere at
> earth's orbital radius, gives the density of the solar radiation at
> earth's radius, which is diminished by the inverse square law for
> distance.
>
> These calculations with these values and roundings, give the value for
> the inverse square law of diminishing intensity of radiation energy
> for distance of,,
> 1359.5 Joules per second per sq meter, at earth's mean orbital
> radius.
>
> It is considered that the solar constant is about 1365Wm-2. This means
> that a 1 sq meter solar collector at earth's mean orbital radius, will
> will collect 1365 Joules per second of radiation energy from the sun.
>
> This value changes semi-annually due to the eccentricity of earth's
> orbit by about 7%.
> Perihelion occurs in January. Since the southern hemisphere is
> receiving more sunlight on more area at this time, and with
> more direct rays, the southern hemisphere all in all, receives greater
> annual radiation energy.
>
> The earth blocks and absorbs a portion of this radiation energy from
> traveling at the velocity of light into space. Some is reflected and
> much is absorbed by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's
> surface.
>
> Over the time the earth has existed, and equilibrium of received
> energy to radiated energy is achieved. Changes in these
> rates would necessarily affect energy content of the system causing an
> increase or decrease in total energy of the system,
> which would be reflected in temperature changes until the new
> equilibrium of received and radiated energy is achieved.
> Increased input energy would increase energy content causing an
> increase in temperature which means a higher rate of
> radiation of energy according to the fourth power law of Stefen's Law,
> by which equilibrium of received and radiated energy
> would again be achieved.
>
> Regardless of these values, the energy of the outgoing radiation
> energy for 1Wm-2 can be calculated according to the surface
> area of a sphere near the earth's surface. The earth's radius is about
> 6400 kilometers. Therefore, 1 Wm-2 for the earth's surface radiation
> would be..
>
> 5.147E14 Joules per second
> ,,,,,,,,,,
> The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 5.27E21 grams.
> This is 80% N2 and 20% O2, with molar weight about 29 grams, and heat
> capacity of 29 Joules per mole per degC, meaning
> that the total heat capacity, or energy absorbed by this quantity of
> mass in increasing it's temperature by 1degC,
> is about 5.27E21 Joules.
>
> So if and imbalance occurred of 1 Wm-2 causing the retention or
> prohibition of this quantity of 1 Joule per second of
> radiation energy leaving the earth system, 5.147E14 Joules per second,
> the quantity of energy for the heat capacity of the
> mass of the atmosphere, for 1 degC temperature increase, would occur
> in about 118.5 days.
>
> 5.27E21 Joules heat capacity divided by 5.147E14 Joules per second =
> 1.025E7 seconds
> divide by 3600, by 24 =
> 118.5 days.
>
> 365 days divided by 118.5 = 3
> This would be 3 degC per year.
>
> 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 ?

>
> 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.

>
> 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 ?

>
> 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 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.

<snipped remaining rants>


From: kdthrge on 18 Jul 2010 09:07
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.

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.
>
>
>
> > 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.

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
>
>
>
> > 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 ?
>
>
>
> > 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.

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.

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


>
> > 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

From: Dawlish on 18 Jul 2010 09:33
On Jul 10, 12:32 am, "kdth...(a)yahoo.com" <kdth...(a)earthlink.net>
wrote:
> The temperature of the surface of the sun is 5770K. At this
> temperature, energy is radiated at 62,847,254.7 Wm-2 according
> to Stefan's Law,
>
> 5770^4 x 5.67E-8 = 62,847,254.7 Wm-2
>
> A Watt is one Joule per second.
> A calorie is 4.2 Joules, which are units of energy which is a
> quantity.
>
> This means simply that at the radiating surface of the sun, this
> quantity of energy in Joules is passing through the plane of 1 sq
> meter per second.
>
> This energy is distributed in the spectrum according to Planck's
> Radiation Law for this temperature with the peak intensity
> according to Wiens Law.
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/images/sunbathin...
>
> This energy is produced at the center of the sun by nuclear fusion and
> travels to the radiating surface. An equivalence of the
> energy produced by the fusion is radiated in order for the sun to
> remain in homeostasis and equilibrium. Radiation energy
> travels from the Sun to Earth in about 8 minutes and 19 seconds
>
> If this is the density of radiated energy per sq meter, then the total
> luminosity of the sun is the area of the sphere at the surface
> multiplied by this derivative.
>
> The radius of the sun is 6.955E8 meters
> A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2,
> 6.955E8 squared,  x 4 pi =
> 6.0786E18 sq meters
>
> Multiplied by 62,847,254.7 Wm-2, the density of radiated energy per sq
> meter =
>
> 3.8202E26 Joules per second, as the total radiated energy of the sun
> or the total luminosity.
> ,,,,,
>
> The orbital radius of the earth to the sun is 1.496 x 10^11m
> A sphere at this radius is therefore, 4pir^2, or
> 2.81E23 sq meters
>
> Total solar luminosity of the sun, divided by the area of sphere at
> earth's orbital radius, gives the density of the solar radiation at
> earth's radius, which is diminished by the inverse square law for
> distance.
>
> These calculations with these values and roundings, give the value for
> the inverse square law of diminishing intensity of radiation energy
> for distance of,,
> 1359.5 Joules per second per sq meter, at earth's mean orbital
> radius.
>
> It is considered that the solar constant is about 1365Wm-2. This means
> that a 1 sq meter solar collector at earth's mean orbital radius, will
> will collect 1365 Joules per second of radiation energy from the sun.
>
> This value changes semi-annually due to the eccentricity of earth's
> orbit by about 7%.
> Perihelion occurs in January. Since the southern hemisphere is
> receiving more sunlight on more area at this time, and with
> more direct rays, the southern hemisphere all in all, receives greater
> annual radiation energy.
>
> The earth blocks and absorbs a portion of this radiation energy from
> traveling at the velocity of light into space. Some is reflected and
> much is absorbed by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth's
> surface.
>
> Over the time the earth has existed, and equilibrium of received
> energy to radiated energy is achieved. Changes in these
> rates would necessarily affect energy content of the system causing an
> increase or decrease in total energy of the system,
> which would be reflected in temperature changes until the new
> equilibrium of received and radiated energy is achieved.
> Increased input energy would increase energy content causing an
> increase in temperature which means a higher rate of
> radiation of energy according to the fourth power law of Stefen's Law,
> by which equilibrium of received and radiated energy
> would again be achieved.
>
> Regardless of these values, the energy of the outgoing radiation
> energy for 1Wm-2 can be calculated according to the surface
> area of a sphere near the earth's surface. The earth's radius is about
> 6400 kilometers. Therefore, 1 Wm-2 for the earth's surface radiation
> would be..
>
> 5.147E14 Joules per second
> ,,,,,,,,,,
> The mass of the earth's atmosphere is 5.27E21 grams.
> This is 80% N2 and 20% O2, with molar weight about 29 grams, and heat
> capacity of 29 Joules per mole per degC, meaning
> that the total heat capacity, or energy absorbed by this quantity of
> mass in increasing it's temperature by 1degC,
> is about 5.27E21 Joules.
>
> So if and imbalance occurred of 1 Wm-2 causing the retention or
> prohibition of this quantity of 1 Joule per second of
> radiation energy leaving the earth system, 5.147E14 Joules per second,
> the quantity of energy for the heat capacity of the
> mass of the atmosphere, for 1 degC temperature increase, would occur
> in about 118.5 days.
>
> 5.27E21 Joules heat capacity divided by 5.147E14 Joules per second =
> 1.025E7 seconds
> divide by 3600, by 24 =
> 118.5 days.
>
> 365 days divided by 118.5 = 3
> This would be 3 degC per year.
>
> The top 3.2 meters of ocean has the same heat capacity as the mass of
> the atmosphere.
>
> There is no empirical evidence for the retention of 1.7 Wm-2 of
> retained outgoing radiation claimed by the IPCC and theoretical
> scientists.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig1.gifhttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/bams97/fig2.gif
>
> The theoretical basis used by contemporary schools of theoretical
> physics and climatology are entirely ridiculous and invalid to actual
> basic and proper thermodynamics. A portion of the outgoing radiation
> is claimed to be retained by natural and anthropogenic CO2 and water
> vapor. The fact can also be proved in the laboratory that this
> theoretical basis not only has no empirical basis, but is patently
> invalid and fraud.
>
> Eventually, all theoretical scientists and important scientific
> organizations who cannot critique this invalid theoretical science,
> will sacrifice their status and accreditation as scientists and should
> be held criminally and civilly liable for their fraud and sanction of
> the clear fraud of the theoretical climatologists..
>
> KD

Don't you just love it when a stupid tells the world that he and he
alone, has the answer that no-one else has found. Join Bill Ward on
the large, egg-cup shaped stupid seats on the front row. They are
reserved fot the prime stupids.

All that science through the ages; all those scientists past and
present and only this particular stupid knows the answer. Supremely
stupid. At least it's made me smile!
 |  Next  |  Last
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