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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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 ?

wrote:
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.


I read Newsweek--rather compelling.

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

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.

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

Congrats.
Just to make clear, this is what it is in pictures:
http://images.google.com/images?q=canal+parade


--
E. Dronkert