For RChung the Science Guy

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote in
news:1OGui.14941$jk4.9804@trndny01:

snip

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 wrote:

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 wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:02 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.

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.

Kyle Legate wrote in
:

DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:02 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.

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.


I thought the because the Coriolis and tidal forces, being greater at the
equator, reduced the pull of gravity on the tops of trees and allowed
them to spread their seed pods further up the mountain slopes.

--
Bill Asher

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote in
news:qyIui.4114$V53.3508@trnddc08:

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.

As climate change discussions do everywhere, it will just dissolve into
an argument, leading to a recreation of the end of an early The Who
concert.

--
Bill Asher

wrote in message
ups.com...
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,

You dick suckers like to use nicknames don't you?

Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that
you want to point out?

I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.

Who would have thought that a even a mindless moron such as yourself would
be led around by the nose into believing that Global Warming is man-made?

On Aug 9, 11:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.

dumbass,

why do you humiliate yourself ? do you like being tarred and
feathered ?

the "study" you linked to assumes that all the radiative forcing is at
the 15 micrometre line and neglects the rest of the CO2 absorption
spectrum where there is still plenty of room for CO2 to absorb
outgoing radiation.

it also neglects temperature and pressure effects (because all the CO2
is not at the ground), but that is minor compared to the fundamental
flaw in that analysis.

this piece of work would not be acceptable if it was done by an
undergrad student.

your assertion that all the CO2 is at the ground is wrong (and not
even relevant to the analysis in that article) as is your idea of what
causes treelines.

if you want i can give you a list of books and references so that you
can try to patch some of the baleful gaps in your knowledge of this
subject.

In article . com,
" wrote:

On Aug 9, 11:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.

dumbass,

why do you humiliate yourself ? do you like being tarred and
feathered ?

the "study" you linked to assumes that all the radiative forcing is at
the 15 micrometre line and neglects the rest of the CO2 absorption
spectrum where there is still plenty of room for CO2 to absorb
outgoing radiation.

it also neglects temperature and pressure effects (because all the CO2
is not at the ground), but that is minor compared to the fundamental
flaw in that analysis.

this piece of work would not be acceptable if it was done by an
undergrad student.

your assertion that all the CO2 is at the ground is wrong (and not
even relevant to the analysis in that article) as is your idea of what
causes treelines.

if you want i can give you a list of books and references so that you
can try to patch some of the baleful gaps in your knowledge of this
subject.

Whatdaya mean, *his* baleful lack of knowlwdge??? All those people who've spent
years studying the issue, done the research and gone to the conferences can't
possibly know as much as some guy on the internet like Tom. ****, y'all can talk
'bout pressure and absorption all ya want, but when he starts droppin' the **** 'bout
treelines all y'all mutha****ers be buggin'!

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 9, 11:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand
that
if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense
atmosphere
is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.

dumbass,

why do you humiliate yourself ? do you like being tarred and
feathered ?

the "study" you linked to assumes that all the radiative forcing is at
the 15 micrometre line and neglects the rest of the CO2 absorption
spectrum where there is still plenty of room for CO2 to absorb
outgoing radiation.

There are three major peaks in the absorption spectrum. There is no "the
rest". But then you aren't really all that bright are you?

And by the way, if you aren't aware that the absorption spectrum is
dependent on partial pressure then there's no reason to discuss anything at
all with you.

On Aug 9, 8:50 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message
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,

You dick suckers like to use nicknames don't you?

Tommy Boy,

I'd prefer "cocksucker." You may address me as "Mr. Cocksucker."

Why do you say "Not to point out ..." before something that
you want to point out?

I just figured that a moron that could do simply math would understand that
if at the surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2 that all of the
pertinent wavelengths were absorbed in 10 meters - which for someone as
stupid as you would be 33 feet - that just about anyone would assume that
these wavelengths would ALWAYS have been absorbed since the dense atmosphere
is under 10,000 feet or about 300 times that.

Who would have thought that a even a mindless moron such as yourself would
be led around by the nose into believing that Global Warming is man-made?

All this "10 meters" at sea level pressure crap says nothing
about what happens in the upper atmosphere, which is what is
important. But I already explained that, though you didn't read
it, or understand it. My recollection is that
you've posted here about your experience working as an
engineer on spectrometry and chromatography instruments.
Which instruments did you work on? I don't generally use
standard lab equipment (in my line of work the spectrographs
are usually custom) but I want to be double sure to avoid
anything you may have touched.

Ben