For RChung the Science Guy

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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 [censored]. 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 [censored]. 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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored].

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"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

RicodJour said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"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).

On Aug 8, 5:59 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

"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."

Quoted message said:

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

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.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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 ?

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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 [censored]. 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 [censored]. 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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored].

I read Newsweek--rather compelling.

Steve (actually graduated a chem major--but that was many brain-cells ago).

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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 there: google "homosphere"
if you dare, or read
en.wikipedia.orgEarth's atmosphereOpen ↗
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.

On Aug 9, 5:28 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
to post "homosphere" to RBR.

Congratulations.

BTW, you know how people think we invaded Iraq for the oil? It was
really about global warming: we're fighting it over there so we don't
have to fight it over here.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/baghdad-electricity.png

Quoted message said:

P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
to post "homosphere" to RBR.

First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.

Bob Schwartz

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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.

Please tell us. And please tell us why the elevation of timberline
varies with latitude.

DR

Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]> wrote in news:JlEui.2970
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
to post "homosphere" to RBR.

First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.

Can I get an honorable mention for keeping my mouth shut?

Oh wait, I just didn't. Never mind.

Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that is
that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is not
uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the effect that
water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the other gases in
the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is that while water
vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2 doesn't. This is why
the skeptic argument that water vapor is more important than CO2 in terms
of anthropogenic radiative forcing is a myth. In the upper troposphere,
CO2 takes a larger role in terms of the radiative transfer.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html

What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
science for all of this is done. The gaps in understanding that are left
are esoteric and involve things skeptics never contemplate, mainly
because they don't have the technical background to understand them
(e.g., the many various flavors of the indirect aerosol effect).

I wouldn't be so cranky if I weren't stuck in Maryland for the next two
weeks. It is hot here.

--
Bill Asher

"Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob Schwartz said:

First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.

Dumbass,
Can't you poweroff Kunich and bring back the heather bot (after you
finish debugging her).

That would fall to Chang.

JF, successfully avoiding the climate change troll, sort of

William Asher said:

Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]> wrote in news:JlEui.2970
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
to post "homosphere" to RBR.

First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.

Can I get an honorable mention for keeping my mouth shut?

Oh wait, I just didn't. Never mind.

Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that is
that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is not
uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the effect that
water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the other gases in
the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is that while water
vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2 doesn't.

You mean, absolute percentage of atmosphere with increased altitude?

Just tryin' to keep up,

Steve

This is why

Quoted message said:

the skeptic argument that water vapor is more important than CO2 in terms
of anthropogenic radiative forcing is a myth. In the upper troposphere,
CO2 takes a larger role in terms of the radiative transfer.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html

What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
science for all of this is done. The gaps in understanding that are left
are esoteric and involve things skeptics never contemplate, mainly
because they don't have the technical background to understand them
(e.g., the many various flavors of the indirect aerosol effect).

I wouldn't be so cranky if I weren't stuck in Maryland for the next two
weeks. It is hot here.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld said:

William Asher said:

Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]> wrote in news:JlEui.2970
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> P.S. I wrote this entire rant to have an excuse
> to post "homosphere" to RBR.
First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.

Can I get an honorable mention for keeping my mouth shut?

Oh wait, I just didn't. Never mind.
Anyway, there is an interesting thing about the homosphere, and that
is that one of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor, is
not uniformly distributed through it. This is due mainly to the
effect that water freezes at a very high temperature relative to the
other gases in the atmosphere. The relevance to climate forcing is
that while water vapor decreases in mixing ratio as you go up, CO2
doesn't.

You mean, absolute percentage of atmosphere with increased altitude?

Sorry, meant to say RELATIVE concentration in the atmosphere, at a
given altitude.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Just tryin' to keep up,

Steve

This is why

Quoted message said:

the skeptic argument that water vapor is more important than CO2 in
terms of anthropogenic radiative forcing is a myth. In the upper
troposphere, CO2 takes a larger role in terms of the radiative transfer.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html

What Tom and people like him don't get, and never will, is that the
science for all of this is done. The gaps in understanding that are
left are esoteric and involve things skeptics never contemplate,
mainly because they don't have the technical background to understand
them (e.g., the many various flavors of the indirect aerosol effect).
I wouldn't be so cranky if I weren't stuck in Maryland for the next
two weeks. It is hot here.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Bob Schwartz said:

First use in rbr, congratulations. And congratulations to tk for
another successful climate troll.

Dumbass,
Can't you poweroff Kunich and bring back the heather bot (after you
finish debugging her).

Mark & Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:1OGui.14941$jk4.9804@trndny01:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Thanks Bill--appreciate the explanation.

You're welcome. I'm always happy to take up bandwidth.

However I said something wrong there originally, I should have said
"water condenses and then freezes" not just "water freezes."

hi ho.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

You're welcome. I'm always happy to take up bandwidth.

However I said something wrong there originally, I should have said
"water condenses and then freezes" not just "water freezes."

hi ho.

We don't talk about climate change in the guitar newsgroups enough.
This issue is right up their alley--concerned as they are with
hygrometers and humidity in indoor air that has been heated.
In any case, I'd gotten your meaning.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

DirtRoadie said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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.

Please tell us. And please tell us why the elevation of timberline
varies with latitude.

DR

As you get closer to the equator, the rotational speed of the earth
increases. At lower latitudes the earth is spinning so fast that the
carbon dioxide is getting thrown away from the earth, and reaching
higher altitudes so that mountain plants can feed on it.