Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 66 Votes - 2.47 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Derek - Smelling the coffee.
02-11-2010, 01:20 AM
Post: #41
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-11-2010 01:10 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Blowed if I can see how CO2 can heat ALL the atmosphere as by its own nature it is blocking the energy close to the source.
But CO2 is also very good at radiating so acts as a cooling agent away from a heat source.

It looks like if we don't curb rising CO2 levels we will be an ice age by 2020. Big Grin

I hope the oceans don't warm too much, or plants grow less (due to increased cloudiness), etc, etc.

CO2 is a strong cooling agent, it is certainly appears so in Minnesota..
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03QcymdCtg

Richard111 it has just occurred to me that we may have hit upon something.
CO2 is a cooling agent, warming oceans degass CO2.
So, as oceans warm and release more heat to the atmosphere, they also release more cooling agent.
When oceans cool they remove some of the cooling agent proportionally.

Does this sound like a natural, self regulating balance. ?
A balance / mechanism that AGW will not "see" because of it's greenhouse effect "theory" viewpoint.
It does not seem to occurr to AGW / G/house believers that Alan Siddons AGW oven also applies to the oceans,
so by their logic the oceans would of boiled away a long, long time ago.

(Joke aimed at AGW / G/house believers) Maybe that is why none of the other planets we can observe have oceans on them,
they all boiled away, because of the AGW oven.......
Big Grin

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2010, 04:02 AM
Post: #42
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Be careful now. Warming oceans do not neccessarily degass CO2. CO2 likes COLD water so it tends to migrate down to the cooler levels leaving the upper warm levels short so they can continue absorbing appropriate to the temperature. I've suggested before that cold upwelling currents from the ocean deeps be investigated for CO2 release. Funding anybody?

And the frozen global cooling fans!!! Best laugh for days. Big Grin

Have a look at today's GREENIE WATCH. Title of post:

A letter that is unlikely to be answered

Quote:After the results of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, former NASA Langley Research Center senior research scientist, stated that the observed warming is happening in the effective temperature while the greenhouse addition fluctuates around its 33C equilibrium value, this shows no growing trend in the past half century.

Like I posted before, "greenhouse effect" is constant or if you like, in equilibrium.

Look HERE for the source. Recommended read. Calls out Hansen.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2010, 04:09 AM
Post: #43
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-11-2010 04:02 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Be careful now. Warming oceans do not neccessarily degass CO2.

Does Henry's law work both ways, ?
I'd have thought generally, at a global level, as I was inferring, it must.

(02-11-2010 04:02 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Like I posted before, "greenhouse effect" is constant or if you like, in equilibrium.
Hmmmm, radiative equilibrium Blush, a lot of assumptions / misconceptions therein contained, such as back radiation.

What goes in does appear to come out, yes, according to satelites,
but if any is to be retained (33K higher than we are supposed to be),
how does the same come out ?
...........You have to imagine some extra into existence...........Blush
You would have to add back radiation to solar input at the earth's surface
- that is what G/house does.......

(02-11-2010 04:02 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Have a look at today's GREENIE WATCH. Title of post:

A letter that is unlikely to be answered

Quote:After the results of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, former NASA Langley Research Center senior research scientist, stated
that the observed warming is happening in the effective temperature while the greenhouse addition fluctuates around its 33C equilibrium value,
this shows no growing trend in the past half century.

Like I posted before, "greenhouse effect" is constant or if you like, in equilibrium.

Look HERE for the source. Recommended read. Calls out Hansen.

Interesting quotes and links Richard111, somewhat at odds with CO2 being a cooling agent though. ?

I can not find much to agree with in the letter,
yes, AGW is a scam, and yes Hansen et al are the main "science" protagonists,
but so is the greenhouse effect a scam, in any of the present versions.

Will the proposed "research" be to question, or merely confirm the present "mis-paradigm". ?
Maybe we should offer to help them so as they do not waste a load of research money on a blind misconcieved alley.......... Big Grin

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2010, 01:08 PM
Post: #44
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Quote:What goes in does appear to come out, yes, according to satelites,
but if any is to be retained (33K higher than we are supposed to be),
how does the same come out ?
...........You have to imagine some extra into existence

I wonder how much of the warming is caused by the Earths gravity well compressing the atmosphere onto the planets surface?

How much of that 33K is from it?

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2010, 04:25 PM
Post: #45
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Derek,

you might want to look up this up:

The adiabatic theory of the “hothouse effect” (the 33C delta) by Sorokhtin and al. “Global Warming, Global Cooling” Evolution of Climate on Earth.”, Elsevier 2007.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2010, 04:30 PM
Post: #46
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Interesting comment:

Quote:Mike J (14:38:12) :

@RayG and Harry:

“Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.”

LINK

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 02:04 AM
Post: #47
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Derek, my post was lacking. What I was trying to convey was that sea surface warming cannot release as much CO2 as deep cold water will when it suddenly arrives at the warmer lower density.

I was also pleased to see a public demand for an accounting from Hansen.

SST, interesting concept, how to confirm. Intuitively, ( all I got to work with Rolleyes ) it would seem gravity maintaining a steady compression at the surface would maintain a constant temperature. But observation shows that the magic 33C is non existant at the poles. Okay, okay, so it is a "global" average. I'm sticking with my theory that radiative feedback from CO2 and H2O at the surface is effectively a constant. If the temperature rises, feedback will rise at the by the same proportion, likewise when temperature falls, feedback falls.

The BIG change is when H2O changes to water droplets in the form of clouds, you now have an ocean of WATER overhead with all the appropriate greybody properties.

Yesterday we had clear skies and a heavy frost in the morning. Today we have very little frost (the birdbath is frozen) and and 10/10 thin medium level cumulo-stratus. The feedback by "greenhouse" gases is zilch compared to the feedback from a layer of cloud.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 06:32 AM
Post: #48
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-11-2010 01:08 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  
Quote:What goes in does appear to come out, yes, according to satelites,
but if any is to be retained (33K higher than we are supposed to be),
how does the same come out ?
...........You have to imagine some extra into existence

I wonder how much of the warming is caused by the Earths gravity well compressing the atmosphere onto the planets surface?

How much of that 33K is from it?

AND, how much is from geothermal inputs, particularly to the oceans,
and mostly unseen.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 12:12 PM
Post: #49
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-11-2010 04:25 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Derek,

you might want to look up this up:

The adiabatic theory of the “hothouse effect” (the 33C delta) by Sorokhtin and al. “Global Warming, Global Cooling” Evolution of Climate on Earth.”, Elsevier 2007.

I have had a google for the paper you mention, but it only lead me to,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/ed...iew-panel/
where the paper is mentioned in two of the replies.

But no links or extracts.
Help please.
Ok, time for some radiation basics I think. - If such a thing is possible...

1) Any object above absolute zero radiates thermal radiation.
The radiation emitted will have a peak that is temperature dependent, and
the spread of the emitted radiation will follow the Planck curve for the temperatuere of the object.
In effect the peak emitted wavelength tells you what the objects temperature is.

a) Am I right in assuming that therefore a certain wavelength of radiation not only tells you the temperature of the object, but is presumably "convertable" into W/M2 as well.

b) The most important word in the above bolded phrase is object.
Object in this case implies solid. In solids molecules, or elements merely vibrate, because they are "constrained" by being in a solid.
The big difference in a gas is that the molecules / elements are "unconstrained".
This difference is the cause of several significantly different "reactions".

i) A solid emits radiation as a temp. dependent Planck curve, because the molecules / elements can only vibrate, because they are "constrained" within the solid object.

ii) Molecules and elements in gases whizz around hither and thither "unrestrained",
the speed of their whizzing hither and thither being temperature dependent, and referred to as their kinetic energy.

iii) In a gas when molecules and elements colide or bouce off each other both loose some kinetic energy, and some thermal radiation is emitted.
In other words bodies of gas emit thermal radiation as kinetic energy is converted to heat in collisions.
This would presumably mean the gas body from all it's constituents would produce a Planck type curve.

iv) Within a gas molecules can "react" more freely than in a solid, so chemical / electron bonds can alter more freely to absorbed and lost energy.
If the physical properties of the bonds exhibit themselves as such some molecules will appear to emit radiation at certain frequencies.
For instance if a chemical bond "stretched" then there would be an upper and lower "state",
when the molecule went "down" from the upper state to the lower state, it would emit a certain frequency of radiation.
This radiation would not actually tell you the temperature of the molecule, (as it would in a solid material), but
in a gas that merely the molecule had gone from a higher to a lower chemical bond state.

v) CO2 has 3 peaks in it's radiation spectrum. In a gas (as described in iv) does this mean that
CO2 absorbs all wavelengths from the lower molecule chemical bond state to the upper chemical bond state and
then emit only at the lower states "frequency" / temperature. ? Effectively CO2 abosrbs over a range of frequencies
(ie from peak 2 frequency upto just below peak 3 frequency) but emits only at the lower one, between the three peaks.
Below the lowest peak "temperature" is CO2 a liguid / solid. ?

vi) Fluids are some what a halfway house, they move like a gas, yet radiate like a solid.

vii) Water is the odd constituent out in the atmosphere because it is the only atmospheric constituent to
have changes of state between solid (ice) liquid (water) and gas (water vapour) whilst in the atmosphere,
so adding the energies of change of state (latent heat) to the picture.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 02:29 PM
Post: #50
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
OK, so off at a tnagent (AGAIN) but an interesting read.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010...quits.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/12/sc...hat-badly/

Dodgy Geezer (09:40:19) :

" The answer to the issue is really very simple – knowledge is a unity.
It is artificial to split into segments (though practical) and it really
is not unreasonable to allow people to work in quite different sectors
at the same time if they so wish.
The whole ‘peer review’ system is a poor idea
– what you should really try to do is explain your theory or your work to the general public.
If you can, and they appreciate it,
you have added to the benefit of humanity.
If you cannot, and only people of like mind to yourself can understand what you are talking about,
I question whether what you are doing is really of much utility. "

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 09:46 PM
Post: #51
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Here are some links worth looking at to consider the alleged CO2 warm forcing capability:

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Michael Hammer

DIY Modelling of Climate Change

The Climatically Saturated Greenhouse Effect: A Note from Christopher Game

On the First Principles of Heat Transfer: A Note from Alan Siddons]On the First Principles of Heat Transfer: A Note from Alan Siddons

Radical New Hypothesis on the Effect of Greenhouse Gases

I think the last two are the ones worth reading the most.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 11:48 PM
Post: #52
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Thanks SST, I have read the 5th one (Alan Siddons), and will read the 6th (Micheal Hammer),
which I vaguely remember going way over my head a bit ago.
Hopefully now it might make a bit more sense.
The AS piece is due for an update, and Nasif Nahle comments are very good,
as are quite a few others in the comments section, such as Sunsettommy....
So many familiar names in the comments, the mere suggestion that there is no greenhouse effect seems
to have provoked an aggressive and defensive "response" - I wonder why - NOT.
Infact I'll spend some time going over the AS piece and comments again,
were any of the "points" raised by the GH "side" valid criticisms. ?
Most of the "criticisms" seem to be based on misconceptions to me,
so we are not alone in trying to understand the basics.
At every "level" it appears that supposedly far better than us seem to have
very basic misconceptions and a lack of knowledge / understanding.
Far more blinkered than us would seem more appropriate.

I particularly liked these exceprts,

Alan Siddons,
" the whole affair on trace gases that intercept a small portion of the earth’s IR spectrum is
so outlandish a premise I’m amazed that anyone can offer it with a straight face.
Gases are the runt of the litter, the least able to hold onto heat and the first in line to confront the vacuum of space.
Light passes through air at 99.97% of its optimum speed and yet we propose that
a few of the gases it contains CONTROL the earth’s emission to space? As I say: surreal..
"

http://www.lytron.com/tools-technical/no...ntals.aspx
" 22. Fundamentals of Heat Transfer
1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics involves the conservation of energy. It states that
– within a closed system where no other energy material can enter or leave
– energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Although energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can be transferred to work other forms of energy.
Transferring heat energy is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law (again applying to a closed system) says that
– for a spontaneous process – there is a net increase in entropy (i.e., a measure of the disorder that exists in a system).

Three alternate but equivalent ways to describe the 2nd Law are:
1. Heat flows spontaneously from a hot body to a cool one.
(Example: A hot microprocessor or laser diode is cooled by flow of heat into heat sink or cold plate.)

2. It is impossible to convert heat completely into useful work.
(Example: In a combustion engine, a certain heat component must always be exhausted without performing work.)

3. Every isolated system becomes disordered in time.
(Example: In conduction when hot and cold bodies first contact each other, the system is somewhat ordered.
Hotter molecules move faster than cooler molecules. But,
once the entire system attains a uniform temperature, this order is lost.)

Expressed in mathematical terms, any of the above statements imply the other two.
The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics govern the various modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation.

Radiation
In radiation, heat flows from a higher temperature body to a lower temperature body when the bodies are separated in space, even across a vacuum.
"

Nasif Nahle
" The whole matter on induced emission has been ignored, whether intentionally or not, by the IPCC and AGWers in general. "

and,
" The problem with AGW idea is that AGWers think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface.
They don’t take into account that heat incoming from the Sun is transferred by conduction from the surface to the subsurface layers,
where it is stored until the sun declines and the incidence of direct solar radiation disappears, this is, during nighttime.

During nighttime, the heat stored in the subsurface is transferred by conduction towards the surface,
which is colder than the materials not exposed at the surface of the ground.
The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then taken by the air through convection and it warms up.
The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards,
i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards the deep space.
This process is well described by the next formula:

Fsh = -ρ (Cp) (Ch) (v (z)) [T (z) – T (0)]

Where F is for Sensible Heat Flux, ρ is the density of air, Cp is specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure,
Ch is the heat transfer coefficient (it’s 0.0013), v (z) is the horizontal wind speed across z, T (z) is the temperature of the surface, and
T (0) is the temperature of air immediately above the surface.

The “minus” sign means that heat is absorbed by the air.
For example, the sensible heat flux for a region where the temperature of the surface is 300.15 K,
the temperature of air is 293.15 K and the horizontal wind speed is 40 m/s is 0.439 kJs/m^2.

I want to make clear that this formula applies for oceans and land,
although on land it’s preferable to use Cd instead Ch. Anyway, Cd ≈ Ch ≈ 0.0013.

The sensible heat flux is, day and night, directed upwards, that is,
from the surface to the atmosphere (Peixoto & Oort. 1992. Page 233).
"

Am I right in thinking this last quote in particular lends quite a large degree of "support" to my water planet plot. ?

AND, I think it fair to say I have "moved on" from Dr. Miskolczi's GH in equilibrium "idea". Apologies to the good doctor obviously.
Maybe that explains why he stopped talking to me after I asked if he would put a time / speed factor into his work..

btw - Has anyone, or does anyone know of a description (understandable to a layman)
regarding what and how the radiation frequency emission peaks in gases are. ?

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2010, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 02-13-2010 01:45 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #53
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Nice one Derek. I spent six years of my life living in desert climates and became very conscience of how heat effects the invironment during the day and at night. Because of that experience I have NEVER believed in "global warming/climate change".
The BBC is broadcasting right now, as I type, that Phil Jones of CRU is misunderstood! The whole weight of the government is behind the BBC and Phil Jones because they cannot afford to be seen as incompetent in deciding future policy. This subject is politics, not science. We, the unbelievers achieve nothing by showing the science is wrong.

My wife, who has been listening to the BBC on the kitchen radio just announced: "Phil Jones is the wrong kind of scientist". Big Grin
SST, thanks for those links, especially the last one.

Can't make this picture below an attachment.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-cont...fig-33.gif

Derek - I hope this helps.
[Image: Hammer-jpeg.jpg]

If you have read my previous posts you will see this is where I was going. Michael Hammer says it much better than me. Cool

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2010, 03:28 AM
Post: #54
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Re Phil Jones - If he ever realises the size of his misconceptions, let alone dishonesty, then he would shut up instantly,
because he has made such a public fool (and fraudster) out of himself, and his career.
But we are the bigger fools for watching on for so long without plainly seeing what has been going on infront of our very eyes.
Yes the Gov. can lie, and distort as much as it does (who honestly believes anyone is going to vote for Brown because of his nice character.....),
but we have blindly kept on voting for them, dimwits that we are.
At the next election, no one should vote for any candidate that spouts AGW or it's policies,
regardless of whether said candidate was left, right or centre, or some combination thereof, that would be the end of it.
So, yes it is all about politics, not science and reasoning.
But there is something we can do about it, vote or not depending on what the politicians say they want us to vote for them for.
Hang them by their own petard - "Sorry couldn't vote for you, your policies are based upon AGW lies." That should do the trick.

Some may try to argue that to not vote (they are admitting you have a point as such really...) because of AGW policies risks letting in the lunatic fringe.
My reply would be something like, "Really, what about the known, and proven lying political majority then, should I vote for what I know, and is proven to be lies, dishonesty, and fraud."
It is a risky strategy, but it should create a political vacuum that someone has to step into. Hopefully realistically, openly, and honesty.
It is a risk I think worth taking.


Richard111 I think we are roughly on the same lines of thought regarding back radiation,
there is one seemingly major difference between us though.
Should back radiation be treated as cumulative or relative. ?

I am reasonably sure in my own mind it must be relative,
so, all the present IR budgets / G/house versoins are (because they treat it as cumulative) to my mind seemingly
"energy creationalist".

Surely the "energy realist" position must be that back radiation is relative to what absorbs it.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2010, 04:34 AM
Post: #55
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(soon to be ex hopefully) Prof. Phil Jones BBC interview as referred to by Richard111 attached.


Attached File(s)
.doc  BBC Q&A Prof. Phil Jones Feb 2010.doc (Size: 63.5 KB / Downloads: 62)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2010, 12:28 PM
Post: #56
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Quote:were any of the "points" raised by the GH "side" valid criticisms. ?

No,there were absurd.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-13-2010, 12:53 PM
Post: #57
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Here is a comment from a spectrum specialist?:

Quote:UncertaintyRunAmok

Fred,

Since I am one of those “spectrum” people, yes, there are extensive wavelength atlases available, for nearly all ranges of the spectrum. They normally list only the major absorption/emission wavelengths, however, as the number of possible lines is practically infinite. They can also be calculated to a degree. However, I am going to point out that the absorption lines ARE the emission lines for any given atom OR molecule. For instance, an SiO2 molecule at the surface WILL NOT absorb at the same lines that CO2, or any other gas for that matter, radiate at. I am afraid that a lot of sincere people have fallen into the trap of believing that all infrared is equivalent, which is the view from a thermodynamics standpoint, but in my line of work it simply isn’t true. The TSI portion of solar spectral irradiance is produced by plasma composed of nearly totally ionised atoms, and the free electrons are capable of radiating a continuous range of wavelengths. Atoms and molecules don’t have this property, or spectroscopy would not be possible.

BTW, ~50% of solar TSI output is in the infrared. I don’t hear any of the IPCC or AGW people ever mentioning this little factoid. This means that you CANNOT tell where any particular range of wavelengths originated, i.e., solar vs. earth. Because of the rescaling used on the graphs those people supply, the relative amount of IR radiation supplied by the sun is obscured.

And those “windows” they are so afraid will become “saturated” don’t really exist, either. They are artifacts of the low resolution of the spectrometers used for IR and the close spacing of molecular absorption lines (compared to atomic A/E lines). So an SiO2 molecules emission from the surface cannot be absorbed by any of the gasses in the atmosphere, either.

And yes, water (liquid, vapor, ice) has many hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of absorption/emission lines (not all, but many, are in the IR region).

It’s all a scam.

Have a nice day.

and,

Quote:UncertaintyRunAmok

It is not the individual discrete lines that broaden, it is the line profile that broadens, as more discrete lines with lower intensities to the sides of the primary absorption/emission line, which can be produced by either resonance or foreign gas broadening, sometimes referred to as collision induced absorption.

Either way, it can’t heat the surface.

LINK

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-14-2010, 01:23 AM
Post: #58
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-13-2010 03:28 AM)Derek Wrote:  Richard111 I think we are roughly on the same lines of thought regarding back radiation,
there is one seemingly major difference between us though.
Should back radiation be treated as cumulative or relative. ?

I am reasonably sure in my own mind it must be relative,
so, all the present IR budgets / G/house versoins are (because they treat it as cumulative) to my mind seemingly
"energy creationalist".

Surely the "energy realist" position must be that back radiation is relative to what absorbs it.

Derek, my personal claim is "backradiation" is a constant that does not change as the "greenhouse" gases increase OR decrease.

CO2 and H2O behave the same in the gas phase, just that H2O has more energy bands than CO2. This argument applies to to any and ALL "greenhouse" gases.

Think about this, longwave radiation, IR, at just one band, say 13 to 18 microns, will be completely intercepted by CO2 in the first 250 meters or less. If the CO2 did not reradiate the gas above would never see that particular band of radiation, but because the CO2 does reradiate, about half the intercepted radiation continues up (see Hammer's 0.5n), and so on up through the atmosphere.

The summed amount of "backradiation" 0.5n, will remain a constant if CO2 in the atmosphere increases or decreases, just the level of the absorbing layers will change, down for an increase, up for decrease.

If the surface temperature increases, the summed backradiation increases. IT DID NOT CAUSE THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-14-2010, 02:07 AM
Post: #59
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Richard111 yes, I have for some time now basically agreed with the way radiation through the atmosphere "travels" as you describe.
However, I was referring to how it is "added up", I am saying that should be relative not by addition.
That difference changes the game completely.

SST - Thanks for the link, I followed it, and then to the first part,
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-...-part-one/
where I noticed this in his summing up.
" When energy is absorbed by CO2 and water vapor, these gases re-radiate this energy both up and down.
They radiate it at wavelengths that match the actual temperature of the gases in the atmosphere
– typically a few degrees lower than the earth’s surface. We can measure this “down” longwave energy and the only explanation,
backed up by painstaking research, is that this energy is coming from the atmospheric gases – mainly water vapor and CO2.
This “down” longwave energy
adds to the shortwave energy from the sun absorbed by the earth. "

I've emphasized just one word....
But what is left of the downward "sum" RELATIVE to what absorbs it. ?
It MUST be relative because what absorbs it IS NOT AT ABSOLUTE ZERO.
Put slightly differently, the surface of the absorber is at MINUS whatever the rate of emision it is producing.
So the sum must be,
MINUS rate of emision of absorber PLUS downward "sum".

The only time the rate of emision is zero is when the absorber is at absolute zero,
not often found in the climate or earths systems I dare to venture.
Or, IR budgets, GCM's, AGW, Greenhouse effect "theory" either.
They all make this very, very basic mistake / misconception.
They are all wrong and creationalist because of this alone.

Just to confirm what I say above, I followed the link through to part 6,
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-...alization/
where I found in the conclusion.
" Measurements of longwave radiation at the earth’s surface help to visualize the “greenhouse” effect.
For people doubting its existence this measured radiation might also help to convince them that it is a real effect!

If there was no “greenhouse” effect, there would be no longwave radiation downwards at the earth’s surface.
"

What are the bets he adds the "sum" to the earth's surface...
Whoever said there would be no longwave radiation at the earth's surface,
no one I'm aware of, what people should say is that it can not warm the already hotter surface.

and,
" How climate responds to the “extra radiation” (radiative forcing is the standard term) from increases in some “greenhouse” gases is whole different story.

And so the fairy story begins, with loads of extra energy to play with.......
Man made (misconcieved) global warming, truely in the most basic meaning of the words.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-14-2010, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 02-14-2010 02:52 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #60
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
To continue: DW called me away for breakfast. Tongue

In my travels I include Singapore and Bangkok during the early 1960s so AGW was not a subject then. But I do remember the humidity! The daily relative humidity could display large changes but daily temperatures followed the seasons. Sure it was warmer when humidity was high during the day but it cooled down at night. Definitely no sign of runaway global heating for MASSIVE changes of GH gases.

I went looking for my previous posts but no luck. So here again. I always had the suspicion that when IR is absorbed, thats it! We must then have a new state. This we do, conduction and reradiation (which will be specific to the temperature).

The question I asked was at what altitude would this occur. By using the forcast CO2 level of 400ppmv, which is 0.04% by volume I note that for every 2,500 cubic meters of air there would be contained therin the equivalent of 1 cubic meter of CO2.

Right, I thought, stand those cubic meters of air in a column 2 and 1/2 kilometers tall and reduce the CO2 to solid form. Somewhere in Pat Tyson's essays he states that a gas, any gas, at standard temperature and pressure, actually occupies just 0.1% of the volume, thus the CO2 in my column amounts to 1 millimeter of solid CO2 (frozen?) over one square meter. More than enough to intercept every photon of IR from the surface.

The question is still not answered, how much is enough? I chose 250 meters as this gives a "solid" layer of 0.1 millimeters which I feel sure should absorb all IR specific to CO2. I have read elsewhere that it is lower, about 100 meters, Novak claims 10 meters. Whatever, it does not effect HOW radiation is absorbed and reradiated.

I must go back to studying that Hammer post.
Derek, "scienceofdoom" is either silas or his brother.

By the way, "add" does not comply with the second law of thermodynamics or how radiation occurs between two objects at different temperatures. The word "net" might be more fitting.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)