The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 11:51 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:06:15 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: > On Dec 4, 9:21 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:24:14 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: >> > Bill Ward wrote: >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: > >> >>>>> They emit and absorb in the infra-red just like water and carbon >> >>>>> dioxide; because they are symmetrical molecules the transitions >> >>>>> are forbidden, but pressure broadening/intermolecular collisions >> >>>>> means that the transitions happen anyway, albeit much less often >> >>>>> than with asymmetrical molecules. >> >> >>>> I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are >> >>>> GHGs. >> >> > Very weak ones. Their absorption of IR radiation is measurable with >> > modern equipment ... but they are to a very good approximation >> > transparent to IR at STP and lower pressures. >> >> > N2 transparent enough in the IR to be used as a cheap carrier gas for >> > some experiments. >> >> Then how can it be significant as a GHG? > > It isn't. But it is still a gas and as such has various properties like > forming an atmosphere and wind circulation driven by temperature > differentials on the planets surface. > > It isn't even remotely significant as a GHG unless there is absolutely > nothing else. > The IR absorbtion of N2 is miniscule but it is not quite zero at certain > wavelengths. > To a very good approximation it is transparent in the IR waveband. So you were just nit-picking at insignificant details. Why? >> >>> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. >> >> >> Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? >> >> > OK and this link dates back to military research in the early 70's >> > long before AGW was thought to be a potential problem. It is left as >> > an excercise to the reader to work out why they might be interested. >> >> > It was declassified in 1981. >> >> >http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD882876&Location=U2&doc=GetT... >> >> > Incidentally you would also have ozone O3, nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 >> > formed in your initially pure N2 O2 atmosphere before too long since >> > UV photons from the nearest star will facilitate the relevant >> > reactions albeit slowly in a pure gas atmosphere. And they are all GHG >> > through being poly atomic or having an asymmetric dipole moment. >> >> > A pure argon atmosphere would behave as close as possible to the >> > theoretical ideal gas solution - monatomic with no molecular bonds >> > (and a high enough molecular weight that a terrestrial sized planet >> > could hold onto it). >> >> > BTW If you are interested in the science rather than in trying to >> > pretend that AGW does not exist. You might find it interesting and >> > helpful to read the IPCC scientific reports which deal with quite a >> > lot of the questions you have been asking and the relative certainties >> > and uncertainties that exist within the present models. >> >> I don't think the IPCC reports are relevant. They start with the >> conclusion and work backwards. > > Not at all. They describe the science with copious references and in > reasonable detail that leads to the conclusions and recommendations of the > IPPC. You can even download it free online from the IPCC site. I've seen it, and read much of it. It's BS propaganda, apparently intended to confuse rather than enlighten. > Or you could as seems more likely given your posts here chose to remain > wilfully ignorant. Of what? Politicized science? >> > Altering surface IR emissivity to trap long wave radiation and heat >> > inside a space is used in much less controversial settings such as >> > InO coatings on some types of lamp and Pilkingtons Low-E glazing for >> > instance. >> >> Did anyone question that? The principle is also used on solar >> collectors. > > "What a Fool" insists that GHG can only cool the atmosphere - see above. > I believe he is on his own with that one. But his posts appear to have > confused you. I believe you are the one confused. Since they both absorb and emit, GHGs can both cool and retard cooling, depending on conditions. I have never said otherwise.
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 12:23 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:20:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 5 dec, 01:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:20:34 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On Dec 4, 7:10 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:37 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: >> >> > On Dec 4, 3:04 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> >> > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate >> >> >> > modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are >> >> >> > interested. >> >> >> >> Chaos theory is relevant in that it proves mathematically that you >> >> >> can't predict climate with any model, no matter how much history >> >> >> you have. >> >> >> The prediction will soon rapidly diverge from the signal. >> >> >> > That isn't what chaos theory says at all. The heart beat and solar >> >> > system planetary orbits are both formally chaotic systems but they >> >> > are also quasi periodic with a very high degree of long term >> >> > reproducibility. You are deliberately confusing "random" with >> >> > chaotic. >> >> >> > Typical chaotic systems for modest amounts of non-linear feedback >> >> > tend to gryrate around a limit cycle centred on one or more stable >> >> > attractors with some kind of roughly periodic behaviour but never >> >> > returning to exactly the same state. They only become random and in >> >> > effect totally unpredictable for the more extreme cases. Weather is >> >> > hard to predict but long term climate can smooth this out well >> >> > enough to extract any systematic trends. >> >> >> Nope. Read the wiki below. Attractors may be limited to specific >> >> regions in phase space, but that doesn't make them predictable. >> >> Look closer at the dimensions of phase space. >> >> > <snipped the irrelevant wiki> >> >> And a lot of other stuff he can't respond to. > > Not can't - won't. Bill Ward has this delusion that people should take him > seriously, when he persistently ignores the great gaping holes that other > people tear in his arguments. > >> > You really are incorrigible. You live in the solar system on a planet >> > whose orbital path is described by system of equations which is >> > chaotic, and you calmly claim that chaotic systems are unpredictable. >> >> As I said, it's all in the time scale. Math is math. > > But your grasp of the significance of time scales is - to put it kindly - > fragile. > >> > If you want to predict events around 100 million year ahead (some >> > twenty time longer than the solar system has existed so far) the >> > chaotic nature of the system of equations does make life difficult, >> > but for all practical purposes you can set your clock by this >> > "unpredictable" system (and we did just that until quite recently). >> >> Irrelevant. > > Because it doesn't support your - totally fatuous - argument? Grow up. No, because weather is not primarily driven by solar system dynamics, but by short term mechanisms on the Earth's surface. You need to either accept my claim that climate is low-passed(averaged) weather, or give us your specific, unambiguous definition. >> > You are using the same specious argument to claim that climate is >> > unpredictable, despite the fact that we have roughly half a million >> > years of climate date (from the Vostock ice cores) and the patterns >> > look depressingly regular, more or less synchronised to orbital >> > forcing. If you understood fractals, you'd understand why weather patterns look regular to you. The fact that weather is chaotic and climate is lowpassed weather is sufficient to prove that climate is chaotic, no matter how it appears to you or anyone else. You may as well argue that 2 and 2 looks like 5 to you. >> It's not a specious argument, it's a mathematically proven fact. In a >> chaotic system, predictions will exponentially diverge from reality. > > For the solar system it takes about 100 million years before the > divergence is perceptible. The climate - as recorded by the Vostok ice- > core data - doesn't look chaotic over half a million years, so your > objection is purely theoretical (and you don't seem to understand the > ory all that well either). As above, how the climate record looks to you doesn't matter. It's chaotic. If you look closely, you may also see bunny rabbits in the clouds, >> Here's the quote you had to snip. The context is determining whether a >> system is deterministic or stochastic(random). Pick two adjacent >> states, then: >> >> "Define the error as the difference between the time evolution of the >> 'test' state and the time evolution of the nearby state. A >> deterministic system will have an error that either remains small >> (stable, regular solution) or increases exponentially with time >> (chaos). A stochastic system will have a randomly distributed error." >> >> It's pretty clear, if it's chaotic, the error will increase >> exponentially with time. > > In the cases we are interested in here, the error starts out negligible > and will expontially increased to something much bigger - but still > negligible around about the time we could be expected to disappear as a > species. Your time scale is off. Next month's weather can't be accurately predicted. Averaging does not improve predictions. >> Lorenz found chaos when he tried to do some of the first numerical >> climate modeling, so it seems pointless to try to deny weather and >> climate are chaotic. > > You are confusing weather where the error builds up to significant > levels within about a week, with climate where the evidence suggests you > have to wait longer than half a million years. How the climate record looks to you is not evidence. Weather is chaotic, climate is lowpassed weather. What don't you understand about that? > This may not make any difference to the theoretical position, but it > does have practical implications. > >> > This kind of fatuous devotion to an unrealistic proposition is >> > usually described as insane. >> >> What is it with you true believers and projection? Is it related to >> the brainwashing or something? > > I do admit to having been exposed to a tertiary education in science, > which does seem to have implanted a coherent set of beliefs. Religion is about beliefs, science is about evidence and logic. I think I see your problem. > If this is brain-washing, your own brain would seem to be overdue for a > trip to the laundry - the only coherent idea that I can find in your > posts is that your own intuitions can be relied on, whch does happen to > represent a serious disconnection from reality. As I said - projection.
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 12:40 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:38:36 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 5 dec, 01:52, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...(a)example.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:10:53 -0800, Bill Ward wrote: >> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:37 -0800, Martin Brown wrote: >> >> >>> Chaotic does not mean that it cannot be predicted. You are confusing >> >>> random with chaotic. I am inclined to believe that this is >> >>> deliberate misdirection on your part. >> >> >> Nope. Chaotic means prediction errors accumulate exponentially. >> >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory> >> >> >> <begin excerpt> >> >[excerpt snipped] >> >> <end excerpt> >> >> >Education: The process of inserting abstract thoughts into concrete >> >heads. >> >> >Cheers! >> >Rich >> >> There are lots of reasons why the heads are like concrete, >> stubbornness really isn't one of the main ones. >> >> In the case of AGW, the basic premise of a warmer world because >> of GHGs as discussed more than 100 years ago is accepted apparently >> without much questioning that premise. > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the history. > > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > > It may save you from making idiotic claims in future. > >> The spectra really can't be questioned, the existence and >> relative abundance of the gases is not in question, and the apparent >> warming in the 1990s (pretty much _ONLY_ in the 1990s) seems to add >> confidence in the premise. >> >> But yet I question the premise that the atmosphere IS warmer >> because of greenhouse gases. > > That's because you haven't got a clue about the physics involved. > >> The absorption and re-radiation by GHGs is not in question, so >> what possible information could support the fallacy of the premise of >> the atmosphere being warmer because of greenhouse gases? >> >> First, the simple fact that it is GHGs that radiate the thermal >> energy of the atmosphere to space begs a question, but what is the >> question? >> >> The only question possible is "what would cool the atmosphere >> of NOT GHGs?". > > The answer is that the surface of the earth would to the radiating, and > the temperature of the atmosphere would be set by conductive and > convective heat transfer from the ground (no greenhouse gases means no > water and no oceans). > >> Without GHGs, the atmosphere would consist essentially of only >> nitrogen and oxygen. It is obvious contact with the surface with 15 >> PSI pressure would warm the N2 and O2 in contact with the surface. >> And convection caused by the buoyancy of the warmed air would move >> the warm air upward to be replaced by cooler air moving down (in >> daylight). >> >> So the N2 and O2 would be warmed without GHGs, possibly >> contrary to the basic premise of GHG theory. > > There's nothing in greenhouse gas theory that contradicts that. > >> And if there is no process that can cool the N2 and O2 at a >> rate fast enough, then the N2 and O2 would warm all day, and stay warm >> at night except for a little cooling of the very bottom few inches or >> feet near the surface. > > I don't think you understand conductive heat transfer all that well. I don't think you understand convection and inversion layers all that well. >> And that cooling would last at most for 16 hours, only to have >> the warming begin again with sunrise. >> >> This question needs its own thread: > > Why? Who cares what a hypothetical atmosphere would look like on a > planet that would not support life. Thinking people? Curious people? People who want to understand how the world works? People who wonder how a beam of light might behave in an elevator? Yeah, you're a real scientist, Sloman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment > > You may find the question interesting as a route to learning a little > elementary physics, but if you wnat to learn elementary physics, buy a > test-book or go to school - this user-group may give incidental lessons > in advanced electronics, but the usergroup that you need would be called > sci.physics.for-ninnies, not sci.electronics.design. Go for that refund. They couldn't possibly refuse.
From: Bill Ward on 5 Dec 2008 12:51 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:48:05 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > On 5 dec, 02:02, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:31:41 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> > On Dec 4, 6:40 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:38:38 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> > On 4 dec, 04:04, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:28:46 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> > On 3 dec, 21:14, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 3 dec, 19:22, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On 2 dec, 02:54, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:40:46 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:31:17 -0500, Whata Fool wrote: >> >> > <snip> >> >> >> >> > Sure it's interesting. It's also totally irrelevant to climate >> >> >> > modelling over the period in which we (and the IPCC) are >> >> >> > interested. >> >> >> >> Chaos theory is relevant in that it proves mathematically that you >> >> >> can't predict climate with any model, no matter how much history >> >> >> you have. >> >> >> The prediction will soon rapidly diverge from the signal. >> >> >> >> > You can't see 1/f noise when it is swamped by good old white >> >> >> > noise, right down to the 1/f noise corner frequency. In the >> >> >> > solar system everything looks like clockwork for the first few >> >> >> > tens of millions of years. >> >> >> >> You still can't seem to keep your stories straight. Above you >> >> >> complained I was "ignoring the obvious fact that the solar system >> >> >> is chaotic", now you seem to be denying it. It is, has always >> >> >> been, and always will be, chaotic. So is weather and climate. >> >> >> The time scales are different, which you don't seem to >> >> >> understand. >> >> >> > What you don't seem to understand that is that identifying a system >> >> > as chaotic doesn't of itself prove that it is unpredictable and not >> >> > susceptible to computer modelling. >> >> >> Actually, it does. It just depends on the time scale. Weather is >> >> short (hrs), climate is long (decades), the solar system really long >> >> (Gyr). >> >> > Your times scales are a bit off. Weather isn't quite that bad - >> > forecasts are good four or five days in advance. The Vostok ice- >> > coreclimate data doesn't look chaotic over half a million years, which >> > is rather more than decades, and the solar system looks as if chaos >> > becomes obvious over about 100 million years, so you are only out by >> > one order of magnitude there. >> >> Whatever floats your boat. You can pretend those are serious errors, >> if you like. > > They aren't. The serious error is that you don't understand what the time > scales mean about the short term predictability of chaotic systems. > >> >> > The solar system is a particularly obvious counter-example, and the >> >> > climate - despite your fautous claims - is another. >> >> >> >> > The climate records over the last million years also look pretty >> >> >> > regular - Milankovich cycles don't look like a drunkards walk or >> >> >> > 1/f noise - and your invocation of chaos still looks exactly >> >> >> > like a loser retreating in a cloud of obfustication. >> >> >> >> The Milankovich cycles are part of the solar system, chaotic on >> >> >> very long time scales. Weather is chaotic, with a much shorter >> >> >> time scale. The M cycles modulate the weather, and the result can >> >> >> be lowpassed down to "climate" to ignore the short time >> >> >> fluctuations, but it's still chaotic and can't be predicted. >> >> >> > This may be true over a sufficiently long time scale, but is >> >> > utterly false for the time periods we happen to be interested in, >> >> > as you should have the wit to realise. >> >> >> Weather (climate) was one of the first examples of chaos studied. >> >> See Lorenz. >> >> >> >> Trends mean nothing in chaotic systems. All you can know is that >> >> >> the signal will change slope, not when or how much. >> >> >> > The solar system is chaotic, so we don't know where all the planets >> >> > are going to be for the next few million years? >> >> >> No, not exactly. The prediction error accumulates. More >> >> dramatically so for asteroids and comets, but for planets also. >> >> It's the differing time scale that's apparently throwing you off. >> >> Chaos is chaos regardless of time scale. > > Unfortunately for your argument, the chaotic behaviour looks - as is - > regular and predictable over shorter time scales. Somehow I'm not surprised you think you can predict chaos. But you can't. > >> >> > Do try and engage your brain before you start typing. >> >> >> Read some chaos theory. >> >> > Very possibly, but weather and climate do seem to be rather less >> > tightly coupled than suits your argument. >> >> Exactly what is climate, if not low-passed weather? > > Tightly constained weather that is low-pass filtered in time and space. So you finally agree. But how do you "tightly constrain" weather? > The Vostok ice-core data does show that climate isn't chaotic over a > period of half a million years, Show me, don't tell me. What makes you think it's not chaotic? > which is long enough that we can expect computer modeling to work over > the next century or so, unless we allow global temperatures to change > dramatically. No way. Chaos is not predictable, no matter how you try to dance around that fact. >> > But you are the last person to let inconvenient facts stand in your >> > way. >> >> Projection. > > Clown. That too.
From: Whata Fool on 5 Dec 2008 15:27
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Dec 4, 1:05 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >Bill Ward wrote: >> >> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote: >> >> >>> In <pan.2008.11.26.21.52.54.243...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com>, Bill Ward >> >>> said: >> > >>>> I think we need a link for that. It would mean N2 and O2 are GHGs. >> >> >Very weak ones. Their absorption of IR radiation is measurable with >> >modern equipment ... but they are to a very good approximation >> >transparent to IR at STP and lower pressures. >> >> >N2 transparent enough in the IR to be used as a cheap carrier gas for >> >some experiments. >> >> >>> I suspect to some extremely slight extent they actually are. >> >> >> Can you tell us why you suspect that? Perhaps a link to some data? >> >> >OK and this link dates back to military research in the early 70's >> >long before AGW was thought to be a potential problem. It is left as >> >an excercise to the reader to work out why they might be interested. >> >> >It was declassified in 1981. >> >> >http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD882876&Location=U2&doc=GetT... >> >> >Incidentally you would also have ozone O3, nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 >> >formed in your initially pure N2 O2 atmosphere before too long since >> >UV photons from the nearest star will facilitate the relevant >> >reactions albeit slowly in a pure gas atmosphere. And they are all GHG >> >through being poly atomic or having an asymmetric dipole moment. >> >> >A pure argon atmosphere would behave as close as possible to the >> >theoretical ideal gas solution - monatomic with no molecular bonds >> >(and a high enough molecular weight that a terrestrial sized planet >> >could hold onto it). >> >> >BTW If you are interested in the science rather than in trying to >> >pretend that AGW does not exist. >> >> You insult very politely, but insult nevertheless. > >OK lets try a bit harder then. You should post your ideas in entirely >BLOCK CAPITALS so that it is easier to spot you as a delusional >Netkook in the same vein as GRAVITYMECHANIC and EdConman "MAN AS OLD >AS COAL". OK! >> Nobody (with one or two exceptions that I know of) claims >> CO2 concentrations are not increasing because of man, but that does >> not mean that even the basic premise of GHG theory is correct. > >They no longer deny that we are altering the atmosphere at least if >they want to retain any personal integrity. Who is they? Oh, sorry, W H O I S T H E Y ? >But there have been enough >Exxon sponsored denialists doing precisely that in the past. >Previously their chant was "it isnt happening, it isn't happening" now >that won't wash the new chant is "It doesn't matter, it doesn't >matter". You are the delusional one, EXXON doesn't have to pay anybody, they can sell more oil than they can produce, and will be selling energy devices and alternate fuels before anybody else. [The caps are too much trouble] And if you think anybody is paying anybody to post anti-AGW in newsgroups, you are not only delusional, you are also stupid. >> And if the basic premise is wrong, then AGW likely does not >> exist. The fact that the Earth has more moderate temperatures > >You are not strong on logical reasoning are you? Actually, logic will win out in the end, in fact it will be easy to prove that the basic premise of GHGs making the atmosphere warmer than without them is baloney. >Putting a heat mirror active at certain IR wavelengths into the >atmosphere in the form of GHGs slows the rate of heat loss from the >atmosphere according to the increased number of mean free paths needed >for a photon to escape. The issue is whether or not the atmosphere would be warmer if there were no GHGs, and I can prove it would be. Warning to all AGW nuts, don't make bigger fools of yourselves than you already have. YOU HAVE ALREADY COST THE POPULACE OF THE WORLD BILLIONS WITH THE STUPID 1800s NONSENSE. >You can see in the visible light of H-alpha the same mechanism at work >in the atmosphere of the sun with the chromosphere appearing as >absorption lines against the hot bright photosphere and in emission at >the limb (with suitable narrowband filters to avoid burning your eyes >out). I was taking a couple of semesters of solar atmospheric science before you were born, the Earth is not the sun, and without GHGS, the N2 and O2 would get hotter than hell and stay that way, we owe our very existence to water and carbon dioxide. >> than the moon is not a certainty caused by GHGs "trapping" or >> holding heat in, the N2 and O2 are capable of that, with no GHG >> effect at all, or at least no IR absorption or radiation at all, >> even though they may have trivial IR response and some fairly >> minor poly atomics. > >The main reason that putting an atmosphere around a planet necessarily >moderates the temperatures is that gasses are mobile and it sets up a >heat engine with wind circulation driven by the huge temperature >difference between the night side and the day side of the planet. The >gases warm in the sun and rise generating classic circulation patterns >that I would expect to look somewhat similar to those of the gas giant >planets. If you can't follow the logic because of being taught the wrong thing, then you need to look in the mirror and ask why you have a closed mind, forget about all the time you wasted learning the wrong things, you got your moneys worth on the things you learned right. Be prepared to sort out what is correct, don't take the word of others, too many people just recite what they hear, see and read without applying any logic at all. >> >You might find it interesting and >> >helpful to read the IPCC scientific reports which deal with quite a >> >lot of the questions you have been asking and the relative certainties >> >and uncertainties that exist within the present models. >> >> The general meteorological discussion of weather and climate >> change is pretty solid, it is the IPCC, Gore and Hansen that add >> the extremism to the situation, and any good scientist should resent >> exaggerations for whatever reasons, even if caused by a strong personal >> belief. > >Gore isn't a scientist. What is he, gee, he talks with authority and sureness, and even uses a quivering voice, he must be sincere and obviously concerned about the people of the world at risk. Sorry, I forgot, he won an Oscar. >But attacking one individual will get you >nowhere. I am not attacking anybody, there are people attacking me, like you did in writing what I am replying to, and you did it only because I understand atmospheric science enough to point out the errors. >There is a wide international scientific consensus that the >evidence for AGW is now icontrovertable. In some things, consensus means about as much as the smell in an outhouse. >There are the usual suspects >sponsorred by Exxon who will still be denying that AGW exists even >when the sea is lapping at the White House steps. You are really nuts, without astronomical or seismic events, there is no way to cause sea level to rise that much in 10,000 years. And just because a couple of people were on Exxon payroll, I am not even sure there were any, are you stupid enough to think it means what they say is wrong. Oh, did control tell you so, it must be right. :-( >> >Altering surface IR emissivity to trap long wave radiation and heat >> >inside a space is used in much less controversial settings such as InO >> >coatings on some types of lamp and Pilkingtons Low-E glazing for >> >instance. >> >> That goes from a bad to worse example, what will you say if it >> turns out that added CO2 causes long term cooling, and the British Isles >> become as cold as central Europe? > >The UK may yet end up colder if the Atlantic conveyor (aka Gulf >Stream) collapses even if the global average temperature goes up. UK >is in a very priviledged mild climatic position. There are palm trees >growing on the W coast of Scotland at latitude 55N. There is an >outside chance that our weather could revert to type for that >latitude. > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/whereilive/southwestandayrshire/walk/02.shtml I live at 38 degrees, and it is below freezing at noon, is there a way I can get palm tree weather? >> And that the 1990s temperatures were a freak, or biased data due >> to a short data set and difficult to sort out UHI, along with major >> changes in method, instruments, and loss of a stable base of observing >> stations.- Hide quoted text - > >You really are as nutty as a fruit cake. Is that insulting enough for >you? > >Regards, >Martin Brown NO! You should spend more time thinking about planetary science and learn which gases retain thermal energy when they are heated, and which ones radiate the thermal energy away. It doesn't take much of an IQ to be able to get a an IR transparent container and put dry nitrogen in it an heat it up and see how long it takes to radiate away that heat (don't forget to warm the container to compensate for the thermal transfer due to conduction). AGW is by far the biggest conundrum the world has ever seen, the few individuals that started it owe all the rest of you an apology, if not much more. |