today's big news

On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Henry" wrote in message

...



the legislation never got passed, no tax = happy farmers but man, do
we (as a country) produce a lot of greenhouse gases!

Henry, I suggest you learn about it instead of listening to morons
pretending to know about CO2's effects.

It's "morans" goddamnit.

Your Radiative Transfer Professor,
Dr. Ben

wrote:

Chung or anyone, can you find the state-by-state data
that goes into this map?

I think you have to go to the original BRFSS data from the CDC. They have a
little web query tool that exports the data in pre-defined categories. Or,
you can download the huge datasets and calculate it yourself.

On Apr 22, 2:43*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Henry" wrote in message

...



the legislation never got passed, no tax = happy farmers but man, do
we (as a country) produce a lot of greenhouse gases!

Henry, I suggest you learn about it instead of listening to morons
pretending to know about CO2's effects.




http://www.am.ub.es/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect3.html

The radiative forcing from each greenhouse gas
The importance of each greenhouse gas for climate is measured by its
contribution to the radiative forcing .

What is radiative forcing?
Radiative forcing is the amount by which a variation in the abundance
of a greenhouse gas, compared to its abundance in pre-industrial
times, changes the radiation energy budget of the Earth, if we change
the abundance of the greenhouse gas but we do not alter the
temperature and other properties of the surface and the troposphere.

For example, we know from our energy budget diagram in page 17 that
the surface emits 114% of the incoming solar energy. This is 342x1.14
= 390 Watts per square meter. But because the atmosphere absorbs some
infrared radiation, only 69%, or 342x0.69 = 237 Watts per square meter
are actually emitted to space. If we now increase the abundance of
carbon dioxide, the atmosphere becomes more opaque and even less
infrared energy is emitted to space. For the case of the increase of
carbon dioxide from 270 ppmv in pre-industrial times to 370 ppmv
today, the outgoing infrared energy is reduced by 1.5 Watts per
square. So the change in carbon dioxide has produced a radiative
forcing of 1.5 Watts per square meter.

The radiative forcings have been calculated for all the greenhouse
gases as a function of their abundance. These calculations are done by
computing the way the radiation at each wavelength is absorbed and
reradiated at different layers in the atmosphere, until it escapes to
space. The present radiative forcings of each greenhouse gas (compared
to their greenhouse effects in pre-industrial times) a

Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter.
Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter.
Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter.
Hence, at present carbon dioxide is responsible for 60% of the
anthropogenic greenhouse effect, methane is responsible for 20%,
nitrous oxide for 10%, and halocarbons for 10%. The total radiative
forcing of 2.4 Watts per square meter is equivalent to 1% of all the
energy absorbed from sunlight in the surface and atmosphere of the
Earth, at present, and it will increase as greenhouse gas abundances
increase in the future.
In more popular physical units, the total radiative forcing is 10000
Watts for every acre of land or ocean in the Earth. This means that,
if you take an acre of land or ocean anywhere in the Earth, the
present anthropogenic greenhouse effect results in warming that is
equivalent to what we would get if we had an electric heater of 10000
Watts turned on all the time, warming the surface and the air near the
surface.

The calculations of the total radiative forcing from anthropogenic
greenhouse gas has been determined to be accurate to 10%. Any errors
in our knowledge of the absorption properties of the molecules or
their distribution in the atmosphere could change the total radiative
forcing only in the range between 2.2 and 2.7 Watts per square meter.

In article ,
Susan Walker wrote:

wrote:
surprised at how big the increase is over only
a 20 year period.

I'll say!

Be nice! You got banned from the other rbr this way.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Apr 23, 9:43 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Henry" wrote in message

...



the legislation never got passed, no tax = happy farmers but man, do
we (as a country) produce a lot of greenhouse gases!

Henry, I suggest you learn about it instead of listening to morons
pretending to know about CO2's effects.
cows don't produce methane ?
methane isn't a greenhouse gas ?
I'm a dumbass ignorant (lazy, horny, selfish, stupid) global warming
denier.

On Apr 23, 9:30 am, Carl Sundquist wrote:
Henry wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:49 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Henry" wrote in message

...

we introduced a tax here for green house gases, can't remember how
much per cow.
Got the short shrift very quickly when the farmers got ****y
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0309/S00040.htm
The question is - what result did that have?

the legislation never got passed, no tax = happy farmers but man, do
we (as a country) produce a lot of greenhouse gases!

Sheep don't fart?

only 1 stomach?

Tom Kunich wrote:
Henry, I suggest you learn about it instead of listening to morons
pretending to know about CO2's effects.

wrote:

Your Radiative Transfer Professor,
Dr. Ben

Statistics and thermodynamics make good bedfellows.

wrote:
Or do one of those warping cartographic projections, making the states
bigger as they get fatter, as Colorado gradually disappears.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
Funny.

Colorado, the Alamo where thin people make their final stand before being
crushed into oblivion.

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Henry
wrote:

cows don't produce methane ?
methane isn't a greenhouse gas ?
I'm a dumbass ignorant (lazy, horny, selfish, stupid) global warming
denier.

Big deal. My pannier is 1000 denier.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Henry wrote:
I'm a dumbass ignorant (lazy, horny, selfish, stupid) global warming
denier.

curtis wrote:
Big deal. My pannier is 1000 denier.

Your pannier might get invited to the next UN racism conference.