A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

For RChung the Science Guy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 9th 07, 08:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default 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
  #13  
Old August 9th 07, 02:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
DirtRoadie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,915
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 02:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
William Asher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,930
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 03:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jim Flom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 03:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 04:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 04:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
William Asher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,930
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 04:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Donald Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,811
Default 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  
Old August 9th 07, 04:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 439
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Science Project JeffArchibald Unicycling 33 February 7th 06 03:18 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 02:02 PM
The science of skill maestro8 Unicycling 20 December 10th 04 07:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.