Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 66 Votes - 2.47 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Derek - Smelling the coffee.
02-04-2010, 01:45 PM
Post: #21
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
HarpoSpoke,
If your referring to ###### ######,
then yes I think it is, hence my use of asterixes,
I ain't done that before, ever.

I was thinking about putting a post together regarding the Part 4 earlier in this thread,
and an Aussie blog had expressed an interest in it. As I could not see a connection between
Dunscombe and Boaden, just an asserted connection, I went looking to find one.
That's how and why I found that link / blog article.
(Note also the article was posted in August 2009 - no one has run with it to date...)

I had said privately I wondered if the Beeb pension fund was part of something bigger,
maybe even a "global blueprint",
and as it could effect so many peoples pensions it deserves greater public awareness.
Then I read on that linked to thread,

" The World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme, which led to the setting up of the IPCC.
It is afforded diplomatic privileges and immunities from the UK government. UNEP are starting to sound very Orwellian,
warning of legal action against institutional investors and asset managers if they do not direct all their funds into supporting the eco agenda.
"

and,
" Of course, you must access the Carbon Disclosure Project to find out where the money should be directed.
If not, you’ll get sued: Here are the details straight from UNEP:

UNEP-Supported Report Says Ignoring Environmental, Social and
Governance Issues May Open Door to Court Cases

The case, outlined in a new report with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), underlines how the world’s largest institutional investors
-such as pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, mutual funds and foundations-have a central role in
assisting the transition to a low carbon and resource efficient Green Economy. Indeed, the report says that
professional investment advisors and service providers—such as investment consultants and asset managers—to institutional investors may
have a far greater legal obligation to incorporate ESG issues into their investment services or
face “a very real risk that they will be sued for negligence” if they do not.
"

This little fish very quickly decided he could even quicker find himself in way over his head,
and the sharks are blooming enormous, plus they ain't playing nicely.
It could get very, very nasty, very, very quickly, I ain't putting my head above the parapit.

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
02-04-2010, 03:37 PM
Post: #22
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
The most shocking thing I have seen or read today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeEIl0-0EOA
An Honest Scientist Tackles 'ClimateGate'
William A Sprigg
Adjunct Research Professor,
Atmospheric Sciences,
The University of Arizona.


This mans nievety of the subject is horrifying.
Involved from the start with the IPCC, an honest scientist,
how could he not of seen what was going on. ?

If he was simply too trusting, then he was not a scientist.
I do mean this is the most shocking thing I have seen today,
it is horrifying that science is so "cosy".

No wonder the charletans have run amock.

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
02-05-2010, 03:17 AM
Post: #23
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Overall the politicians, bureaocrats, and companies will always unite over such persuasive issues as Global Warming.
(Within these ranks, inescapably given human history, is the very real danger of meglomaniacs.)
There is simply to much of what they desire to be ignored. A beanfeast for all mentality, will blinker their decisions / reasoning.

The "science" will always loose because it is the territory of the individual (mind), not a "consensus".

United the politicians, bureaocrats and companies stand,
as it should be, divided, science is controlled.
Eventually, inevitably something nearer the truth will out,
but between times so much is wasted.


I suggest "we" need a simple, repeatable, verifiable experiement that anyone can understand almost immediately,
to show AGW and the way the "greenhouse effect" is modelled at present is wrong.
If the experiment "should" have different outcomes according to
AGW, consensus "greenhouse effect theory", anti "greenhouse gases", or other possible suggestions,
ie, various suggestion on the First Principles thread at Jeff Id's Air Vent blog,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02...rinciples/
then all the better.

Is it possible to devise, decide upon, and run such an experiment. ?
(my suggestion is in the first post of this thread)
letting the facts fall where they may.

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
02-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Post: #24
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
From this LINK,is this comment gem:

Quote:Brian (12:13:13) :

The belief that CO2 is a great absorber of heat is just nonsense. CO2 when compared to air is poor at absorbing heat and compared to water vapor is positively insignificant. This can be verified easily in any lab, at any time, anywhere on the planet. Any claims otherwise had better come with real, repeatable, testable results showing not on charts but visually the actual real ability of CO2 to be the great heat lover it is claimed to be.
With a specific heat capacity of CO2 less than nitrogen, oxygen and aluminum, CO2 would appear to transfer heat to space more efficiently than either nitrogen or oxygen. And CO2 like aluminum retains next to no heat at all. So good luck to all those subscribing to this heat monster myth.

The website Science of Doom should be renamed Pseudoscience of Doom. AGW science is nothing but a bunch of confused nonsense based heavily on abstracted physics, models and lots of math. The line by the author of the prologue to “CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas?” sums the believers stance up quite well. In it the author says “For science, personal experience and imagination are not the deciding factors. They lead you astray”.Really, does not science start from the personal observation of someone. Is not a blackbody an abstraction of reality? I have heard people claim that a blackbody has somehow materialized to be easily studied by science. NO.
Does the earth have a homogenous albedo that can easily be quantified by an average.

For 79 billion dollars and counting one would think that experiments done in the atmosphere (besides radiosondes) would be proposed, engineered and executed. So where are they? Its all well and nice to have a satellite in orbit and some sensors on the ground but without more scientific exploration of the atmosphere itself our knowledge is incomplete. So can anybody point me in the direction of the latest results of experiments in the stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere or exosphere?

AGW is a fraud (a cunning and clever one though) and fiasco right from the get go.

That is what I have been seeing for some time.

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
02-06-2010, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2010 06:01 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #25
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
SST, I agree with post above by Brian, and not just for the fact that CO2 has poor heat capacity. In my post #16 I show that CO2 cannot see any IR in the middle regions of the atmosphere. The lower regions shield the up welling IR (and so do the top regions shield and incoming IR from space). This is for the bands specific to CO2 only.

To confirm my claim, extra CO2 cannot change the surface temperature.
I welcome any explanation that shows exactly why I am wrong.

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
02-06-2010, 11:48 AM
Post: #26
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
One of the factors for warming the surface never seems to be discussed by scientists at all.

The atmosphere pressure of all the gases being compressed onto the planets surface by gravity,there must be some warming effect 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
02-06-2010, 06:22 PM
Post: #27
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Brian strikes again in reply to George E. Smith,

Quote:Brian (10:50:14) :

George E. Smith (14:09:01)

Go back and read my post carefully. Trying to focus on the definition of heat is irrelevant to my post and is but a red herring.

“It is not something (heat) that can propagate in the absence of molecules or atoms”.

This has nothing to do with my argument.

“But what CO2, and other GHGs such as H2O and methane CH4 can and do do in the atmosphere, is selectively intercept and absorb ENERGY in the form of Electromagnetic Radiation; treated either as a Photon stream or a wave as you prefer.”

The energy that CO2, H2O etc. absorbs has nothing to do with selective interception but has everything to with the physical properties of the gas involved. Measure the absorption spectra experimentally, repeat a number of times for verification and voila you have the natural absorption properties of that gas. This is a feature of nature and can’t be altered by you or anyone else.

“As to the consequence for the total energy balance of the planet; that it is a much more complicated issue, but to deny that CO2 “heats” the atmosphere as do other green house molecules, is not a fruitful pursuit.”

The real truth is that CO2 at less than .04 percent by volume with a specific heat capacity less than aluminum is woefully inadequate to even come close to the ability of N2 and O2 to absorb and retain em radiation in the form of kinetic heat. Not wishing to face the facts is definitely not fruitful at all.

Why use an aluminum heatsink on a cpu? Because its cheap and it radiates heat quickly because of its specific heat content. Aluminum is lousy at retaining heat. Copper is even worse than aluminum at retaining heat which is why it is used on faster processors. Apparently real physics gets no respect at all from warmers.

The term feedback cannot be applied to the earth’s climate system since a feedback requires a closed system. Since there is no physical shell or barrier surrounding the earth and the exosphere is open to space allowing kinetic heat to escape, the term feedback is incorrect. I suppose you will try to make the analogy to blankets as I’ve seen in so many places. Also there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block anything. It is a matter of proportion. Again, only proper experiments IN the atmosphere will settle the matter. Oh, and the earth and its atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse.

In short, the C02 as the earth’s thermostat is bunk. How much does CO2 at less than .04 percent contribute to the earth’s climate? Zero, zip, zilch, nil, nada. Good luck with your efforts to demonize CO2. The real facts speak otherwise.

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
02-08-2010, 02:48 AM
Post: #28
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Brian makes a lot of sense, that is easily understandable.

Oxygen and Nitrogen, most of the atmosphere are not very good at emitting heat by radiation,
so they can only (effectively) conduct it to everything else in the atmosphere.

Some of the other constituents are good at radiating, so they do by absorbing by conduction from O2, and N2, and then radiating.
Converting the heat into a form that is loosable in an open system, like our planet's atmosphere.
A lot of the radiation must come from this source, throughout the depth of the atmosphere, but does not appear to be accounted for.

In this respect O2 and N2 are the "greenhouse gases" (loose heat by conduction only within the system),
and Water vapour, CO2, methane, etc are the "anti greenhouse gases"
because they can loose heat from the "system" (in the form of radiation).

This is so different an explanation of what happens that a simple experiment to show this,
must be possible.


BTW - The often talked about "back radiation" is also viewed the wrong way round.
At the moment it is a summed figure, usually quoted as 160W/M2, or there abouts.
It should more properly be viewed as relative to what absorbs it, positive, negative or the same.
That would be a totally different number, and probably change the outgoing figure considerably as well.
What is the point anyway in the radiation budgets,
they miss about 30 to 40%,
use the wrong water vapour figure (125 instead of 250), {which helps cover the above point...}
and view most of the "flows" from the wrong perspective.

They are useless, misleading, and a waste of time.
As is the greenhouse effect "theory".

So, why is there such a massive greenhouse effect "theory" / AGW bandwagon then,
that is the real question. ?
In my opinion,
The AGW bandwagon (gravy train) is because,

a) Politicians get so many new ways to tax us. (Tax the life blood of politicians)

b) Buroeaocrats get so many new ways to control us. (Control the life blood of bureaocrats)

c) Companies get so many new ways to make money from us. (Profit the life blood of companies)

All the above use the same phrase as justification,
"saving the planet".........

It is a triple whammy,
(a young and inevitably divided [as it should be]) science on it's own never stood a chance.

Within any of the pro AGW groups above there will inevitably be small groups or individuals that seek to gain more for themsleves.
Human history tells us "they" will always be present.
These "people" ie, ###### ###### or "groups" ie UN / IPCC / EU give rise to
the numerous one world government / dictatorship / conspiracy "theories".
Because that is what they are trying to do, AGW is merely their preferred "vechicle" at the present time.

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
02-08-2010, 12:16 PM
Post: #29
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
You are getting there Derek. Just keep an open mind and look at all the evidence.

When you want to change the political/cultural direction of any community/country you must destroy the identity. Brown talks Britishness while he completely undermines it. Once upon a time doctors, teachers, policemen were respected members of our society and welcome in our homes. Not any more. Think about that. How did it happen? It was not an accident. Same with schools and universities, banks and investment companies. All undermined by stupid diktat which is carefully applied such that when people find themselves in a quandary, who do they turn to? Why, the government!

More and more I hear people say they are not going to vote. They don't seem to realise that the country is in this present mess because they didn't vote in the last THREE general elections. Parliament is a joke. Have you ever known so many lords and ladies? All greatful to the labour government. I was reading about the forthcoming barronness blair just this morning. Tchaa!! I must stop.

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
02-08-2010, 01:51 PM
Post: #30
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Gulp, do I have to wait for the government to endorse my last post...Huh

BTW - Great leaps forward with the dumb discussions cartoon idea today.
Nowt concrete yet, but a possible unknown artist, who is "on song" has probably been "selected".

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
02-09-2010, 01:43 AM
Post: #31
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-08-2010 01:51 PM)Derek Wrote:  Gulp, do I have to wait for the government to endorse my last post...Huh

Wait for it! Wait for it! Many a true word spoken in jest.

Here are a couple of points from WUWT:


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/no...more-16217

Oliver K. Manuel (19:42:25) :

Unfortunately, scientists have been trained to manipulate and distort observations to fit the fancy of those who control their research funds.

Scientists who refuse to do so, are soon unemployed. That is how the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media have transformed science into a tool of propaganda.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Space & Nuclear Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo


Doug in Seattle (20:10:08) :

Oliver K. Manuel (19:42:25) :

“Scientists who refuse to do so, are soon unemployed. That is how the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media have transformed science into a tool of propaganda.”

Isn’t this how it was done in the 1930’s – in Germany?

Has history taught us nothing?
========================================

The link to this was also in WUWT. This guy is advocating civil intervention to support the failing AGW agenda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ge-science

Ian Katz guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 February 2010 23.09 GMT

Quote:Finally, anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive. With Barack Obama embroiled in a domestic political battle, powerful advocates like Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown likely soon to exit the stage and European leaders notably reticent in Copenhagen, it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global deal will come from. So it may fall to civil society – to individuals, organisations and businesses – to pick up the baton. The choice remains the one described in that global editorial, only now the answer is likely to be decided by us.

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
02-09-2010, 03:27 AM
Post: #32
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
I think such calls to the "people" will be met with apathy, vast amounts thereof..
And just a touch of cynicism, along the llines of where's your proof..

AGW (and the greenhouse effect "theory") will be reduced to the hippy fringes,
from where it (they) should never of escaped from in the first place.

The latest Toyota Prius adverts are a case in point.
The earth supposedly "greening" as a Prius goes past............
Big GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig Grin

Driving whilst emitting less CO2 is not as good for plants
- CO2 is plant food, biological fact.
The more there is the better they grow.
The Prius advert is exactly the opposite of what happens.

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
02-09-2010, 06:55 AM
Post: #33
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
The Prius is the perfect hippy car.

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
02-09-2010, 07:00 AM
Post: #34
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Here is the e-mail reply I got back on December 30th from Gary Young:

SUNSETTOMMY on 4/21/2012 writes:

I have deleted the e-mail reply for privacy reasons.

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
02-09-2010, 10:46 AM
Post: #35
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
I think Gary is trying to explain how and why in his opinion
photons are emitted at a slightly lower frequency.
He continues to try to explain how a molecule that has absorbed a photon can heat the surrounding molecules, in small "bits",
rather than emitt the photon again.

Me thinks he has missed the specific heat capacity Brian mentions so well above.

It appears to me at first glance to be "an exact opposite of what happens" explanation.
(Because he is confusing the conducting properties of O2 and N2 with the radiative properties of the anti greenhouse gases.)
Well they have to, can't let go of the greenhouse effect "theory" can "they",
at any level.
Wink
(02-09-2010 06:55 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  The Prius is the perfect hippy car.

Apparently there is no stopping it.........

Big GrinBig GrinBig 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
02-09-2010, 01:23 PM
Post: #36
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
I was having a think about Gary's email SST posted above, whilst having a bath.
When it occurred to me that...

Gary is suggesting that by conduction CO2 can warm the rest of the atmosphere by a sort of cooling down rachet mechanism.
As I said before because of the "accepted" greenhouse effect "theory" he is, I suggest, looking at this the wrong way round.

But how to explain this the right way round. Huh
Idea

Assuming that - O2 and N2 preferencially, or rather almost exclusively cool by conduction, and
CO2, and other anti greenhouse gases cool preferencially, or rather almost exclusively by radiation,
(leaving aside for the present the "exception" of water vapour and latent heat - similar, but different)
it follows that...

There is a positive rachet mechanism that CO2 warms by (ie conduction and or recieved radiation), but it is only one way,
CO2 cools by radiating, and of course gravity reductions with altitude.

So, how does the positive rachet mechanism work. ?
First there are two "ends" a lower and an upper, at which CO2 reacts instantly.
(For simplicity here I will use a 5 step rachet mechanism - OK, OK, including the impossible zero it is six steps..)
At the lower end, ie zero, CO2 instantly absorbs by conduction one (rachet) unit of heat, from the surrounding atmosphere,
CO2 is never at zero, it is always has at least a minimum of 1.
At the upper end, ie five, CO2 instantly emits a photon.

What happens inbetween 1 and 5. ?

Depending on the temperature difference between CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere at a rate determined by this difference.
CO2 absorbs (rachet) units of heat untill 5 is reached.
Probably at a slower rate the higher the rachet number CO2 is at.
ie 2 to 3 happens quicker than 3 to 4, and so forth.
When 5 is reached however a photon is instantly emitted.

What happens if a photon which has a value of 5 is absorbed by CO2. ?
Regardless of the level CO2 is at, 5 will be surpassed, so a photon is immediately emitted.
This does not mean CO2 has returned to a level of 0, or rather instantly 1.
CO2 "sums" it's rachet level and the photon, for example 3 and 5 = 8.
Instantly CO2 emitts a photon, but goes down to the simple minus 5 figure from 8 of 3.
Then CO2 absorbs rachet units of 1 from the atmosphere by conduction untill 5 is reached again,
or another photon is absorbed taking the sum rachet value to over 5 and a photon is emitted.

This is a never ending recieving of heat by conduction and radiation that CO2 can only loose by radiation.

In this "example" CO2 recieves heat in units of 1 from the atmosphere by conduction, and
by radiation from photons with a value of 5.
CO2 cools by emitting photons with the value 5.

CO2 can never go above a figure of 9, or below a figure of 1.

NB - I have not mentioned kinetic energy, which at this stage I don't think is neccesary.
But, it could be added as a small fractional loss of a unit with any collision between molecules.
(The relative wieght of the molecules determining how much each molecule "lost" in any collision)
The CO2 "state" in the (proposed) rachet warming mechanism would still work in whole numbers,
so every so often a unit would be lost due to the work done
(fractional losses do to collisions eventually adding up to a whole unit).
The question is, if I am understanding this correctly,
can radiatively active gases loose kinetic energy by radiation.
Am I correctly assuming radiatively active gases can convert kinetic energy to radiative heat.

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
02-10-2010, 04:50 AM
Post: #37
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Please basically disreqard my above post, it'll need a complete rewrite,
there are so many mistakes and misconceptions contained within it at present.

I'm wondering now which is worse, or more dangerous,
a lack of knowledge / understanding, or
the depth of the misconceptions I hold care of the greenhouse effect "theory". ?

One thing is for certain, combined, as they are at present,
for me at least, they must lead back to a restart.
Yet again.....

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
02-10-2010, 07:18 AM
Post: #38
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-10-2010 04:50 AM)Derek Wrote:  Please basically disreqard my above post, it'll need a complete rewrite,
there are so many mistakes and misconceptions contained within it at present.

I'm wondering now which is worse, or more dangerous,
a lack of knowledge / understanding, or
the depth of the misconceptions I hold care of the greenhouse effect "theory". ?

One thing is for certain, combined, as they are at present,
for me at least, they must lead back to a restart.
Yet again.....

I think many of us are confused,because the standard explanation does NOT quite add up.I keep thinking that they leave out variables,that would reduce or eliminate the warming potential of CO2.

I will have to dig up a number of guest postings that offers a better explanation as given by Alan Siddons and Michael Hammer.

Maybe then we will have a chance to understand it better.

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
02-10-2010, 03:40 PM
Post: #39
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
(02-10-2010 07:18 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Maybe then we will have a chance to understand it better.

Errr, maybe in a week or so time something will appear.. ;-)
Not here, and not from me.

Regarding the warming potential of CO2,
I can not get past the idea that back radiation is summed in radiation budgets.
Surely it should be relative to what absorbs it, whether that be positive, negative (which it is mostly), or the same.
Not just simply summed (as back radiation is by greenhouse effect proponents to about 160W/M2), that don't make sense.

Some of the obvious (and massive) mistakes on my part in the previous post,
1) Everything above absolute zero emitts electromagnetic radiation, at all wavelengths,
however the peak of emissions by any object is dependent upon the temperature of the object emitting.

2) CO2 does cool mostly by conduction, but it also does react radiatively to warming.
(In this respect, CO2 seems to passively (by conduction) cool, yet actively resist being warmed (by reacting radiatively). ?)

3) The kinetic energy of a molecule whizzing around in a gas is partially converted into electromagnetic radiation when molecules collide, or bounce off each other.

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, 01:10 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2010 01:13 AM by Richard111.)
Post: #40
RE: Derek - Smelling the coffee.
Here is where I am stuck. If CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere then every 2,500 cubic meters of air contains the equivalent number of CO2 molecules to make up one cubic meter. Avogadro's number tells us the CO2 will mass out at slightly under 2kg, the air in those 2,500 cubic meters will mass at slightly over 3,000kg, three tons plus. Tell me again how the CO2 heats the air?

Now stack those cubic meters of air into a column 2 and 1/2 kilometers tall. Gas molecules at standard temperature and pressure actually only occupy 0.1% of their volume. In effect there are enough CO2 molecules in that column equal to a solid layer of CO2 just 1mm thick!
Now that should stop ALL radiation! Lucky for us we are dealing with a gas and only a few selected wavelenghts or bands are absorbed by the CO2. So how much CO2 is needed to ensure all it's assigned radiation is absorbed? Let us assume there will be enough molecules in a layer 0.1mm thick. This gives us a height at 250 meters in our column where all radiation assigned to CO2 is absorbed.

Over that 250 cubic meters we have just 200grams of CO2. (300+kg of air) How much heat will be conducted into the air? All the remainder of absorbed energy will be immediately reradiated, 1/2 up and 1/2 down.

Now the next 250 meters will recieve slightly less than half the energy of the lowest layer. Again 1/2 will go up and 1/2 back down so the third layer, 500 meters to 750 meters see just ONE QUARTER of the initial energy.

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

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: 2 Guest(s)