|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
On Aug 9, 5:28 am, "
wrote: 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/...lectricity.png |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
Bob Schwartz wrote in news:JlEui.2970
: 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. 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
"Donald Munro" wrote in message
om... Bob Schwartz wrote: 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
William Asher wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote in news:JlEui.2970 : 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? Just tryin' to keep up, Steve 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. -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
William Asher wrote: Bob Schwartz wrote in news:JlEui.2970 : 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 Just tryin' to keep up, Steve 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. -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote in
news:cSFui.4025$jQ3.1399@trndny06: William Asher wrote: 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? Mixing ratio defined as grams of water vapor per grams of atmosphere. Contrast the figure in the Mockler reference to the plot of CO2 mixing ratio, here expressed as ppmv (parts-per-million-by-volume, which is the same sort of units only multiplied by a factor of 1000 (for ideal gases, grams per kilogram is equal to parts per thousand by volume)) from he http://tinyurl.com/3bnyxx and you can see there is little change of CO2 concentration through the troposphere, consistent with Ben's analysis. In terms of a more practical application, consider modern air travel through the lower stratosphere. The troposphere gets drier with altitude, which is why in part aircraft travel dehydrates you. (The air coming into the cabin has extremely low specific humidity to begin with, which gets amplified in terms of relative humidity when it is warmed.) Fortunately however, the O2 concentration in terms of grams of O2 per gram of air is nearly the same as at the surface, so that all they have to do is compress the outside air, remove the ozone, and it's breathable. If the O2 mixing ratio decreased, they would have to add oxygen to the air. -- Bill Asher |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
Bob Schwartz wrote:
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). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
For RChung the Science Guy
William Asher wrote:
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote in news:cSFui.4025$jQ3.1399@trndny06: William Asher wrote: 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? Mixing ratio defined as grams of water vapor per grams of atmosphere. Contrast the figure in the Mockler reference to the plot of CO2 mixing ratio, here expressed as ppmv (parts-per-million-by-volume, which is the same sort of units only multiplied by a factor of 1000 (for ideal gases, grams per kilogram is equal to parts per thousand by volume)) from he http://tinyurl.com/3bnyxx and you can see there is little change of CO2 concentration through the troposphere, consistent with Ben's analysis. In terms of a more practical application, consider modern air travel through the lower stratosphere. The troposphere gets drier with altitude, which is why in part aircraft travel dehydrates you. (The air coming into the cabin has extremely low specific humidity to begin with, which gets amplified in terms of relative humidity when it is warmed.) Fortunately however, the O2 concentration in terms of grams of O2 per gram of air is nearly the same as at the surface, so that all they have to do is compress the outside air, remove the ozone, and it's breathable. If the O2 mixing ratio decreased, they would have to add oxygen to the air. Thanks Bill--appreciate the explanation. Steve -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 |
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 |