|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
"Conclusions It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe. The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. ~ This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing." http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters." "The Cause of Global Warming is Oceans Heating, not Carbon Dioxide or Humans" "Global warming propagandists have recently been saying that ocean levels are expected to rise 20 feet in the future. But measurements by tide gauge indicate oceans are rising only 1.8mm per year, which is only 7 inches per century, and ice accumulating over Antarctica will cause sea levels to decrease in the near future." "In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice. But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not clarified." The problem with Global Warming appoligists is that the real scientists are disproving them every day. Now we're being told that the reason it's getting colder is because of global warming. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 7, 7:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm "Conclusions It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe. The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure.. ~ This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing." http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters." Kun-Kun, This is crap. The author of the first document measures a CO2 absorption opacity at (what I take to be) room temperature and pressure and then extrapolates to the entire thickness of the atmosphere as if it were a single slab, and concludes that the CO2 absorption is optically thick and therefore adding more CO2 has no effect. As I said, this is crap. People made this mistake in 1900, but continuing to make it now is deliberate ignorance. See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm and search for the name "Knut Angstrom" and description of his experiment in 1900. The problem is that a real model of the regulation of atmospheric temperature has to take into account the heat flux up and down between different layers of the atmosphere at different temp and pressure, and the behavior of the CO2 absorption changes with pressure. The single-slab model does not work. See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141 Arrhenius correctly understood the need for a stratified model already in 1896, but making a realistic model had to wait until the 1960s or so and computer calculations. Besides, from 1900 to 1960, hardly anyone was worried about climate change, and so the wrongness of the single slab model was not widely understood. But it is wrong, even if J. Random Chemist hasn't figured that out. From the first aip.org link: "The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet's surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere - not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. " By the way, I just saw that Newsweek's current cover article is about (my paraphrase) how the global-warming-is-a-hoax industry has been propped up long after the scientific consensus has left it behind, by generous wads of cash thrown at it by interested parties such as oil and energy companies. So you can add Newsweek to the Black Solar Helicopter Conspiracy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/ Ben Radiative transfer models are a bitch. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 7, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice. But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not clarified." But losing that ocean ice, which buttresses the land mass ice, causes the land mass ice to accelerate substantially - and it ain't moving uphill. R |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 8, 9:35 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 7, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice. But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not clarified." But losing that ocean ice, which buttresses the land mass ice, causes the land mass ice to accelerate substantially - and it ain't moving uphill. dumbass, ice also reflects more radiation back into space. open water absorbs heat more heat than sea ice. disappearing ice creates a positive feedback loop. the ocean circulation is very sensitive to localized changes in heat transfer and salinity (ie. freshwater from melting ice). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 8, 5:59 pm, "
wrote: On Aug 8, 9:35 am, RicodJour wrote: On Aug 7, 10:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "In Science, March 2, 2006, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in Nature, September 21, 2006, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice. But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet, which includes ice over the oceans. A reduction in area size only applies to ice over oceans, which does not cause oceans to rise; but this point was not clarified." But losing that ocean ice, which buttresses the land mass ice, causes the land mass ice to accelerate substantially - and it ain't moving uphill. dumbass, ice also reflects more radiation back into space. open water absorbs heat more heat than sea ice. disappearing ice creates a positive feedback loop. I'm agin it, so I reckon it's negative feedback. R |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost
exclusively in the lower atmosphere. But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line effect. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 8, 10:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost exclusively in the lower atmosphere. dumbass, instead of shooting your mouth off how about putting some money on it ? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 8, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Not to point out what a dumbass you are but CO2 is a heavy gas found almost exclusively in the lower atmosphere. But that's OK, I'm sure you've never wondered what caused the timber line effect. Kun-Kun, Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that you want to point out? Anyway, you're still wrong, in about three ways. There's a fair amount of mixing below ~100 km, so the atmospheric composition is fairly uniform the google "homosphere" if you dare, or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere Above that, there is stratification, but C02 isn't that much more massive than say oxygen; the real difference is with the light gases like hydrogen and helium that extend all the way out to the geocorona. Finally, the whole point of the aip.org discussion I posted earlier, which you clearly did not understand, is that even though most of the CO2, like most of the atmosphere, is at low altitudes, you can't solve the temperature structure of the atmosphere without dealing with the behavior at high altitudes. That is the boundary condition. Oh, there's a fourth way you're wrong. CO2 stratification (which doesn't exist below ~100 km anyway) has nothing to do with the existence of timberlines. Have you ever been above a treeline? It's colder up there, but there is still oxygen and CO2. This CO2-timberline idea is so stupid that I didn't understand what you were saying at first. Where did you get it from? Some other climate change denial website? Ben P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse to post "homosphere" to RBR. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science Project | JeffArchibald | Unicycling | 33 | February 7th 06 02:18 PM |
Mad Dog on science | Jim Flom | Racing | 24 | October 9th 05 02:58 AM |
The science of Lance | Ken | General | 56 | July 3rd 05 06:57 AM |
Bad Science | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 1 | February 5th 05 01:02 PM |
The science of skill | maestro8 | Unicycling | 20 | December 10th 04 06:54 AM |