Bill Ward wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:31:11 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Bill Ward wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:15:41 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you >>>>>>>> do not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing >>>>>>> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be >>>>>>> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has >>>>>>> convinced me there is no significant link between CO2 and surface >>>>>>> T. >>>>>> There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead to >>>>>> higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. >>>>> That's the link between T and CO2 shown in the ice core data.
>>>>>> And this holds whether the initial >>>>>> forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the >>>>>> Earth's orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* >>>>>> because of additional CO2 emitted. >>>>> You are assuming a link between CO2 and T that's not shown in the >>>>> data. Your logic is thus circular. >>>> Not at all. Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere necessarily >>>> blocks some outgoing long wave radiation from escaping and the planet >>>> must warm slightly to compensate. >>> That's the incorrect assumption. The planet can simply emit radiation >>> from a lower, warmer layer. That's one negative feedback from WV. Or >>> the planet can reflect more solar energy (increase albedo) from low >>> clouds. That's another negative feedback from the change of state of >>> water. Both have been observed. >> Although clouds are a very double edged sword. At night they slow down >> the escape of heat considerably - a clear sky is much warmer. And for >> most of the high cloud types plenty of light and heat gets through and >> less gets back out.
> You said you read Lindzen & Choi 2009. If you did, please explain why > you say the above. They find net negative feedback.
At the latitudes they considered. It is disingenuous to extend that result even if it is correct to the entire planet. And the results they claimed are still subject to interpretation.
>>>>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and >>>>> that there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>>>> It isn't an unsupported assumption. >>> Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data. >> Hang on. Have you forgotten about the CO2 measurement technique that >> relies on delta-T from pinging CO2 molecules in their absorption band.
> How does that show CO2 significantly affects surface temperature? It > shows only that CO2 can convert IR to heat and back. So does WV, which > completely overwhelms CO2 in the troposphere, resulting in local > thermodynamic equilibrium - warmer air.
And the two together are slightly more effective than eithe roe on its own.
>> Temperature causes CO2 changes in the historical record (and it does). >> But that does not alter the fact that increased CO2 also causes some >> warming just an amount that is less than the initial externally applied >> change.
> So you say. It would be far more convincing if you could point to the > ice core data and show the resultant ringing. I don't see any.
The excursions from the mean are larger than could be explained without some amplification of the initial stimulous. You don't necessarily get ringing with small to moderate amounts of positive feedback.
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 grows monotonically and converges to 2
1 + x + x^2 + ... converges to 1/(1-x)
>>>> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external >>>> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent. >>> Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"? >> No. The brightness of the sun, or variation of the Earths orbital >> elements either of which can change the global energy balance. And since >> VSOP87 an later revisions it is possible to study the orbital dynamics >> over a long period.
> Why would CO2 respond to either of those stimuli rather than > temperature? If it's responding to temperature, how does it know what > caused the temperature change?
The stimulous is generally accepted to be a change in the total absorbed insolation as the Earths orbital elements evolve with time. That drives the temperature to change slightly and feedback from both CO2 and WV enhance it.
>>>>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And it >>>>>> is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere is >>>>>> taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is not >>>>>> CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the oceans are >>>>>> still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more acidic as a >>>>>> result. That will not hold true forever the Southern Oceans are >>>>>> beginning to saturate. >>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for >>>>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort >>>>> of equilibrium would be established. >>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come >>>> from organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes >>>> preferentially. >>> You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most limestone >>> comes from, lava? >> It is mainly photosynthesis which concentrates the C12 CO2. That makes >> corals a bit dodgy.
> Where do you think corals get their energy from? H2S in volcanic vents?
Their symbiotes the zooxanthelle are photosynthetic and trade sugars and nutrients with the coral polyps in return for a home as well as what they can catch.
By comparison shellfish and certain plankton are more reliable for deltaC13 in carbonates. As are some obscure slow growing deep corals. It is the photosynthesis reaction that is isotopically selective.
A paper on the PETM is online and shows how isotopic signatures can be used to unravel the past. The initial cause of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum is still hotly disputed but its occurrence is not in doubt and it was geologically fast.
>>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present. >>> In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the >>> CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate >>> between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish? >> There isn't that much exchange.
> The Earth's surface is 70% water. CO2 is quite soluble in water. Winds > agitate the surface. How do you propose stopping atmospheric CO2 from > exchanging with the ocean?
>> Part of the way the global carbon >> balance is tracked relies on the differences between deltaC13 for the >> various sources.
> Maybe that's part of the problem.
Then again you deny any and all evidence that conflicts with your position. The same isotopic ratio and concentration data shows a phase lag from the industrial north to the mostly oceanic southern hemisphere.
>>>> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the >>>> way to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens >>>> critiques are actually very useful in that regard. >>> Have you even read the paper? >> Yes.
> Then why do you think there is net positive feedback? His paper > essentially rules it out.
It is only one paper and the results are subject to interpretation and only applicable to a specific latitude range. Hardly convincing.
>> But >> you could go and look at a paper copy of the Climate Change 2001 >> Scientific Report and see how close their predictions are 10 years on.
> Or you could just quote the section you think proves your point. Unless, > of course, you've never read it.
I posted this one before since it is a pretty good hard evidence prediction from that era using GFDL and Hdely models for the northern hemisphere sea ice with predictions out to 2040. Taken from Vinnikov et Al 1999. Further down the line we now see serious loss of Arctic ice. (page 447 Box 7.1)
>>>>>> There are plenty of >>>>>> other cyclical driving forces from tidal mixing and major ocean >>>>>> currents that can drive deviations from the long term trend. >>> That sounds like you are acknowledging there are natural factors that >>> affect climate. Are you sure you know all of them? >> Not certain, but any additional ones will eventually be found. You >> cannot just invoke phlogiston and fairies to balance the energy books.
> That would be your projection. I'm invoking physics and measurements.
So state what you think is driving the recent climate changes over the past few decades.
>>> Another assumption in the absence of evidence. Giving up freedom on >>> the basis of a delusion is reckless. Assuming the null hypothesis - >>> that CO2 has no effect on the climate - until there is direct, >>> convincing evidence is not reckless.
You deny any evidence that is presented. This is not a rational debate.
>> So what do you want to see. How many times will New Orleans have to be >> trashed by Cat 5 storms before they give up rebuilding it?
> What does that have to do with CO2 causing surface warming? It appears > you're just trying to change the subject. That simply calls attention to > the fact you can't address the original point.
Actually I am inclined to think that the only way Americans will ever take the matter seriously is when they suffer major financial losses that are attributed to climate change.
>>>> The science is fairly clear and we should be able to agree on various >>>> hard facts about the thermodynamics. I happen to think the models are >>>> good enough now that refining them
>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:dXBGm.31$jh1.11@newsfe19.iad... >>> I M @ good guy wrote: >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:55:00 +0000, Martin Brown >>>> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> The scientific evidence is clear - fossil fuel CO2. Dittohead lies and >>>>> YEC lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating not withstanding.
>>>> Can you be more specific about what you believe, >>>> is it that burning CO2 reduces the amount of oxygen >>>> in the air?
>>> Burning hydrocarbon based fuels increases CO2 and there is a matching >>> though always larger decrease in O2 - technically much harder to measure >>> but it has been done with sufficient precision for almost two decades.
>>> CH4 +2O2 -> C02 + 2H2O
>>> C7H16 + 11O2 -> 7CO2 + 8H2O
>>> We can now see both sides of the equation. >> . >> No we don't. You left out >> . >> Fe + O2 -> FeO2
> Cute. And the amount that affects the final answer is miniscule. And all > the free metallic iron on the planet has been made industrially by the > reduction of iron ore with coke from coal so it doesn't really affect the > game at all. And rusting is more complex and requires water to make it > go - very little iron is burned in air. You might argue that a percentage > of the electric arc furnace power came from nuclear and hydro I suppose > but it doesn't alter things by much.
> Aluminium which is electrolytically produced often from hydroelectric > power would oxidise in air very easily except that despite its reactivity > the surface passivates under normal atmospheric conditions. >> . >> Amongst many, many other alternative consumers of atmospheric oxygen to >> fossil fuel combustion
> The next most significant ones using up oxygen are sulphur and other trace > impurities in the fossil fuels - pyrites in coal for instance. This > doesn't help your package of lies and half truths at all.
. Really? What about weathering? 4FeSiO3+O2+2H2O-->4FeO(OH) + 4SiO2 . Recognise what these minerals are and where they come from? Any idea what happens to them? Does the expression "tip of the iceberg" mean anything to you? . Then we have redbeds - one of the most abundant fluviatile sediments: Why? Because fluviatile depositional systems present a variety of reduced minerals with an oxidizing environment. To get an idea of how fast and voluminously this occurs, just compare chemical maturity with distance from source. . Like I said, unless you've gone and measured all of them, you can't legitimately claim to have any sort of budget as Manning et al (1999) do. It's the same old story as when Keeling (1979) went and assumed that volcanic emissions have no impact on atmospheric 13C/12C ratios when, although the quantification wasn't in, it was still well known that CO2 was the most common gaseous volcanic emission apart from water (Perfit et al., 1980; Symmonds et al., 1994). Guesswork that overlooks the basics of magmatic chemistry is inviting trouble. . For example, when Kerrick (2001) guessed that subaerial volcanogenic CO2 emission amounted to 27±3 MtCpa, how long do you think it took before the fairly obvious statistical significance of Kerrick's "10%" sample which according to the Smithsonian is actually a 1.3% sample, came blindingly to book? It was just two years before the original Yellowstone estimates were checked by proper measurements taken by Werner & Brantley. By itself, the Yellowstone volcanic province puts out 78±6 MtCpa - which is three times that of all previous estimates of total subaerial volcanogenic CO2 emissions. . Of course, three million submarine volcanic seamonts as estimated by Hillier & Watts (2007) at an activity rate of 4% (Batiza, 1982) gives us 120,000 submarine intraplate volcanoes all chundering out CO2 at typical oceanic intraplate rates. Kilauea at 870 KtCpa is the one single lonely oceanic intraplate that Kerrick and previous authors thought to include, so while it is far from statistically significant, if we play the numbers like Kerrick (multiply 10% by two): that's 10% x 120,000 x 2 x 870 KtC = 20880000 KtC = 20.88 GtCpa - and that explains a lot - even with Kerrick's choice of understatement. You can't make 20 GtCpa (76.27 GtCO2pa) just go away unless you can come up with better facts (and other guesses are not facts) - and until you have better facts, the only way to explain Manning et al (1999) in this context is to admit that some of the sinks you (and Manning et al) overlooked are alot bigger than ye realise. . The fact that you need to attack me personally speaks to your own problems, and has nothing to do with the veracity of the facts I present - the citations are there if anyone bothers to check, unlike some people: . Batiza, R., 1982, "Abundances, distribution and sizes of volcanoes in the Pacific Ocean and implications for the origin of non-hotspot volcanoes", Earh & Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 60, pp. 195-206 . Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, "Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data", Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874 . Keeling, C. D., 1979, "The Suess Effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon Interrelations", Environment International, Vol. 2, pp. 229-300 . Kerrick, D. M., 2001, "Present and Past Nonanthropogenic CO2 Degassing From the Solid Earth", Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 39, pp. 565-586 . Perfit, M. R., Gust, D. A., Bence, A. E., Arculus, R. J., & Taylor, S. R., 1980, "Chemical Characteristics of Island Arc Basalts: implications for mantle sources", Chemical Geology, Vol. 30, pp. 277-256 . Symonds, R. B., Rose, w. I., Bluth, G., & Gerlach, T. M., 1994, "Volcanic gas studies: methods, results, and applications", in M. R. Carroll & J. R. Holloway [Editors], Volatiles in Magmas: Mineralogical Society of America Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol. 30, pp. 1-66 . Werner, C., & Brantley, C., 2003, "CO2 Emissions from the Yellowstone Volcanic System", Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems: an electronic journal of the earth sciences, Vol. 4, 1061, doi:10.1029/2002GC000473 . Wilson, M., 1989, Igneous Petrogenenis: A Global Tectonic Approach., ISBN13:978-0-4125-3310-5 . Incidentally, metallic iron _is_ found naturally, although not much as it has meteoric or deep mantle source and must be protected from weathering. The Earth Sciences department at the University of Melbourne had quite a spectacular iron-pyroxene-olivine mantle chunk recovered from South America. You probably don't realise that you can get natural metallic copper and nickel from komatiite deposits as well. . If you bother look at some rocks and try to understand some of the geochemistry, Martin, you'll discover that your generalisations are, in fact, untruthful. . -- Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num...@timothycasey.info Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security http://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
> Bill Ward wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:31:11 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> Bill Ward wrote: > >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:15:41 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>> Bill Ward wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>>> Bill Ward wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence you > >>>>>>>> do not believe AGW has now become a significant climate forcing > >>>>>>> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be > >>>>>>> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has > >>>>>>> convinced me there is no significant link between CO2 and surface > >>>>>>> T. > >>>>>> There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead to > >>>>>> higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. > >>>>> That's the link between T and CO2 shown in the ice core data.
> >>>>>> And this holds whether the initial > >>>>>> forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the > >>>>>> Earth's orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* > >>>>>> because of additional CO2 emitted. > >>>>> You are assuming a link between CO2 and T that's not shown in the > >>>>> data. Your logic is thus circular. > >>>> Not at all. Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere necessarily > >>>> blocks some outgoing long wave radiation from escaping and the planet > >>>> must warm slightly to compensate. > >>> That's the incorrect assumption. The planet can simply emit radiation > >>> from a lower, warmer layer. That's one negative feedback from WV. Or > >>> the planet can reflect more solar energy (increase albedo) from low > >>> clouds. That's another negative feedback from the change of state of > >>> water. Both have been observed. > >> Although clouds are a very double edged sword. At night they slow down > >> the escape of heat considerably - a clear sky is much warmer. And for > >> most of the high cloud types plenty of light and heat gets through and > >> less gets back out.
> > You said you read Lindzen & Choi 2009. If you did, please explain why > > you say the above. They find net negative feedback.
> At the latitudes they considered. It is disingenuous to extend that > result even if it is correct to the entire planet. And the results they > claimed are still subject to interpretation.
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:56:56 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:31:11 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:15:41 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:21:58 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am puzzled why if you have looked at the scientific evidence >>>>>>>>> you do not believe AGW has now become a significant climate >>>>>>>>> forcing >>>>>>>> When I first became interested, I thought the AGW theory might be >>>>>>>> plausible, but the scientific evidence I have seen since has >>>>>>>> convinced me there is no significant link between CO2 and >>>>>>>> surface T. >>>>>>> There is a two way link. Higher temperatures will on average lead >>>>>>> to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. >>>>>> That's the link between T and CO2 shown in the ice core data.
>>>>>>> And this holds whether the initial >>>>>>> forcing comes from a change in insolation as happens when the >>>>>>> Earth's orbital elements vary over the Milankovitch cycle *or* >>>>>>> because of additional CO2 emitted. >>>>>> You are assuming a link between CO2 and T that's not shown in the >>>>>> data. Your logic is thus circular. >>>>> Not at all. Increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere necessarily >>>>> blocks some outgoing long wave radiation from escaping and the >>>>> planet must warm slightly to compensate. >>>> That's the incorrect assumption. The planet can simply emit >>>> radiation from a lower, warmer layer. That's one negative feedback >>>> from WV. Or the planet can reflect more solar energy (increase >>>> albedo) from low clouds. That's another negative feedback from the >>>> change of state of water. Both have been observed.
>>> Although clouds are a very double edged sword. At night they slow down >>> the escape of heat considerably - a clear sky is much warmer. And for >>> most of the high cloud types plenty of light and heat gets through and >>> less gets back out.
>> You said you read Lindzen & Choi 2009. If you did, please explain why >> you say the above. They find net negative feedback.
> At the latitudes they considered.
The tropical region is where most of the energy is radiated. Are you not accepting the results because you don't like the implications?
> It is disingenuous to extend that > result even if it is correct to the entire planet. And the results they > claimed are still subject to interpretation.
You might want to try and support that with an alternative explanation.
>>>>>> You again make the unsupported assumptions that CO2 affects T, and >>>>>> that there is some "CO2/H2O feedback mechanism".
>>>>> It isn't an unsupported assumption. >>>> Then support it. Don't just stand there. Show us the data. >>> Hang on. Have you forgotten about the CO2 measurement technique that >>> relies on delta-T from pinging CO2 molecules in their absorption band. >> How does that show CO2 significantly affects surface temperature? It >> shows only that CO2 can convert IR to heat and back. So does WV, which >> completely overwhelms CO2 in the troposphere, resulting in local >> thermodynamic equilibrium - warmer air.
> And the two together are slightly more effective than eithe roe on its > own.
That's not support for your unfounded assumption. Explain how you think CO2 significantly affects surface temperatures.
>>> Temperature causes CO2 changes in the historical record (and it does). >>> But that does not alter the fact that increased CO2 also causes some >>> warming just an amount that is less than the initial externally >>> applied change.
>> So you say. It would be far more convincing if you could point to the >> ice core data and show the resultant ringing. I don't see any.
> The excursions from the mean are larger than could be explained without > some amplification of the initial stimulous. You don't necessarily get > ringing with small to moderate amounts of positive feedback.
> 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 grows monotonically and converges to 2
> 1 + x + x^2 + ... converges to 1/(1-x)
Do you have even the slightest experience in signal analysis? If you have enough positive feedback to make a significant difference, it has to show up as an echo on the output (T record). I don't see any, do you?
>>>>> When the CO2 concentration is changing in response to an external >>>>> stimulus then it will always lag behind the stimulus to some extent. >>>> Are you referring to the temperature as an "external stimulus"? >>> No. The brightness of the sun, or variation of the Earths orbital >>> elements either of which can change the global energy balance. And >>> since VSOP87 an later revisions it is possible to study the orbital >>> dynamics over a long period.
>> Why would CO2 respond to either of those stimuli rather than >> temperature? If it's responding to temperature, how does it know what >> caused the temperature change?
> The stimulous is generally accepted to be a change in the total absorbed > insolation as the Earths orbital elements evolve with time. That drives > the temperature to change slightly and feedback from both CO2 and WV > enhance it.
So the CO2 is responding to changes in temperature. How does it know what's causing the temperature change?
>>>>>>> *We* are actually changing the composition of the atmosphere. And >>>>>>> it is possible using SIRA to show that the CO2 in the atmosphere >>>>>>> is taking on the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon. This is >>>>>>> not CO2 coming out of the oceans - in fact at the moment the >>>>>>> oceans are still a net sink of the CO2 we emit and becoming more >>>>>>> acidic as a result. That will not hold true forever the Southern >>>>>>> Oceans are beginning to saturate. >>>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for >>>>>> hundreds of millions of years. One would think eventually some >>>>>> sort of equilibrium would be established. >>>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come >>>>> from organic life. Life tends to concentrate the low mass isotopes >>>>> preferentially. >>>> You don't count shellfish as "life"? Where do you think most >>>> limestone comes from, lava?
>>> It is mainly photosynthesis which concentrates the C12 CO2. That makes >>> corals a bit dodgy.
Are you saying it's some special type of photosynthesis that doesn't affect the isotope ratios?
>> Where do you think corals get their energy from? H2S in volcanic >> vents?
> Their symbiotes the zooxanthelle are photosynthetic and trade sugars and > nutrients with the coral polyps in return for a home as well as what > they can catch.
Then the carbon in their shells is of organic origin and should have the same isotopic signature as fossil fuel, shouldn't it not? Again it appears you are trying to reject facts on the basis of their implications rather than any logical explanation.
> By comparison shellfish and certain plankton are more reliable for > deltaC13 in carbonates. As are some obscure slow growing deep corals. It > is the photosynthesis reaction that is isotopically selective.
Then how do you distinguish between "fossil fuel", and "shellfish" carbon?
> A paper on the PETM is online and shows how isotopic signatures can be > used to unravel the past. The initial cause of the Paleocene-Eocene > thermal maximum is still hotly disputed but its occurrence is not in > doubt and it was geologically fast.
That sounds like you are admitting that shell carbonate is of organic origin, just like fossil fuel. Are you withdrawing your claim above that the isotopic ratio uniquely identifies CO2 from fossil fuel combustion?
>>>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present.
>>>> In an equilibrium, there should be constant exchange of C between the >>>> CaCO3(s) in the ocean and CO2 in the air. How do you differentiate >>>> between CO2 from fossil fuel and CO2 from fossil shellfish? >>> There isn't that much exchange.
>> The Earth's surface is 70% water. CO2 is quite soluble in water. >> Winds agitate the surface. How do you propose stopping atmospheric CO2 >> from exchanging with the ocean?
You seemed to ignore the above question. Are you withdrawing your claim that there is little exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere?
>>> Part of the way the global carbon >>> balance is tracked relies on the differences between deltaC13 for the >>> various sources.
>> Maybe that's part of the problem.
> Then again you deny any and all evidence that conflicts with your > position. The same isotopic ratio and concentration data shows a phase > lag from the industrial north to the mostly oceanic southern hemisphere.
Looks to me like you're the one trying to dodge the experimental evidence with irrelevant tidbits. Explain the relevance if you expect to be taken seriously.
>>>>> It is only applicable in the tropics. I still think ERBE will be the >>>>> way to verify and validate the models and I reckon some of Lindzens >>>>> critiques are actually very useful in that regard. >>>> Have you even read the paper? >>> Yes.
>> Then why do you think there is net positive feedback? His paper >> essentially rules it out.
> It is only one paper and the results are subject to interpretation and > only applicable to a specific latitude range. Hardly convincing.
Then what do you think is wrong with it. It covers the region where most of the cooling takes place. Again, you reject inconvenient facts because of the implications. You need to explain why.
>>>> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message >>>> news:ei7ge51k91vsr83sjpje160bsk3uggo0p5@4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:15:27 +1100, "Timothy Casey" >>>>> <sixth-prime-num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>>>>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1ZTFm.17299$Xq1.874@newsfe10.iad... >>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for >>>>>>>> hundreds >>>>>>>> of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of >>>>>>>> equilibrium would be established.
>>>>>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> organic life. >>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>> . >>>>>> This mythical "isotopic signature" is identical to that of CO2 >>>>>> derived >>>>>> from >>>>>> magma. Any textbook on igneous petrogenisis whill give you dozens of >>>>>> references to studies finding depleted C13 in magmatic fluids - and >>>>>> there >>>>>> are more than enough submarine volcanoes - and yes this is to do with >>>>>> subduction of terrestrial 13C depleted plant carbon in basin >>>>>> sediments >>>>>> and >>>>>> consequent 13C depletion of magmatic carbon. >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy who >>>>>>> started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both >>>>>>> sides of >>>>>>> the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The answer is >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> clear. >>>>>> . >>>>>> Can someone please name a CO2 monitoring station that isn't sited at >>>>>> or >>>>>> on >>>>>> an active volcano (and don't say "south pole" either - there is >>>>>> nothing >>>>>> there - the nearest base is McMurdo -right next to Erebus!)??? >>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the >>>>>>>> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2 >>>>>>>> equilibrium, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>>>>>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present. >>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>> . >>>>>> No it is precisly the point that falsifies the Suess effect and casts >>>>>> doubt >>>>>> on the origin of the CO2 rise, which could just as easily be volcanic >>>>>> because volcanic CO2 is magmatic, which is too old for measurable >>>>>> 14C. >>>>>> .
>>>>> Most of the AGW gossip groupies seem to think >>>>> that fossil C13 levels are greater than atmospheric, >>>>> an example of the gossip fad. >>>> . >>>> In my opinion, it's a shell game combining both bait and switch >>>> debating >>>> tactics with the characteristically green fallacy that can be described >>>> as *generalisation by omission*. It does confuse people, as this kind >>>> of >>>> argument is usually intended to do - but the risk inherent in employing >>>> this kind of argument is the likelihood of backfire - and in this case, >>>> people evidently get confused on both sides of the trenches. >>>> . >>>> The Carbon Isotope Shell Game starts with the Suess Effect being cited >>>> in >>>> the classic generalisation that anthropogenic CO2 is isotopically >>>> distinct from all "Natural" CO2 because plant respiration CO2 contains >>>> the cosmogenic and geologically short-lived 14C - as opposed to fossil >>>> fuels which are too old contain measurable amounts of 14C. The problem >>>> here is that vegetation is not the only source of natural CO2 and >>>> volcanoes produce old CO2 with the same 14C signature as fossil fuel >>>> emissions - notably zip. When you point this out, the debater >>>> introduces >>>> a classic bait & switch argument (called an "apple-cucumber" in some >>>> parts of Australia) by saying "Yes but we were really talking about >>>> 13C". >>>> Well, that isn't the Suess Effect. >>>> . >>>> A valid response to a bait and switch argument if you don't have a >>>> ready >>>> response to the switch, is to fall back on relevance and insist that >>>> the >>>> point remain confined to the bait. In this case, the Suess Effect does >>>> not differentiate volcanic and fossil fuel CO2 regardless of what the >>>> differences in 13C might be. If you are ready for the switch in this >>>> case, you can always point out that magmatic carbon is 13C depleted >>>> just >>>> like photosynthesising biomass, fossil fuels, and fossil fuel >>>> emissions.
>>> And it is you who are playing bait and switch here. >>. >>Dare I say, speak for yourself Martin! >>You can call a cat a bird, but you can't make it fly. >>. >>>Classic denialist lies. >>. >>Care to substantiate that claim? >>. >>Eg. >>. >>There are plenty of papers showing that magmatic CO2 is too old to contain >>measurable 14C >>True or False? >>. >>There are plenty of papers showing that magmatic CO2 is 13C depleted. >>True or False? >>. >>Who's in denial now, Martin? >>. >>>We can measure the corresponding decrease in the atmospheric oxygen >>>content >>>that balances our rate of fossil fuel combustion with sufficient >>>precision >>>to know for certain that the amount staying in the atmosphere is a little >>>over half of what we emit. See for example:
>>> http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf >>. >>So what? Combustion of fossil fuels is not the only consumer of oxygen. >>Magmatic carbon may well be oxidised by reaction with mineral phases in >>the >>mantle, but how do you think oxygen gets into the mantle in the first >>place? >>Of course, once extruded, mineral oxidation processes remove some oxygen >>from the atmosphere, followed by weathering which removes yet more oxygen >>and some CO2, then we have the depositional systems of sedimentary >>environments that coax even more oxygen out of the atmosphere (eg Fe >>oxidation to form redbeds), chemical sedimentary systems producing massive >>carbonates consume yet more oxygen and CO2, and 200-500my later, >>subduction >>takes it down into the mantle where volatile hydrated weathering minerals >>are reduced and subducted kerogen+hydrocarbons are oxidised to form H2O & >>CO2. How much does that throw out your so-called balance? >>. >>Once again, it's the classic "green fallacy" of generalisation by >>omission. >>If we omit all other oxidation processes on the planet, we can claim the >>apparent "balance" between CO2 enrichment and O2 depletion in the >>atmosphere >>actually means the CO2 accumulation is all from fossil fuel combustion >>(and >>go on to deny significant alternative CO2 sources such as volcanoes)! What >>martin is denying by imitating the oversight of Manning et al., are all >>the >>other oxygen sinks on the planet; b-horizon calcrete and ferricrete >>formation offer just two of so many examples. >>. >>>> Watch out for the distinction between atmospheric enrichment in 13C by >>>> plant respiration and plant matter depletion in 13C - that's your shell >>>> game right there and this interesting twist on the green fallacy >>>> (generalisation by omission) is probably the source of much of the >>>> confusion. The technique here is to stick rigidly to the structure of >>>> your own information rather than trying to adapt to the often >>>> convoluted >>>> structure of your opposite. >>>> . >>>> Keep It Structurally Simple and most of the shell game blues should >>>> fade >>>> away.
>>> The scientific evidence is clear - fossil fuel CO2. Dittohead lies and >>> YEC >>> lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating not withstanding. >>. >>In point of fact, we *don't* _have_ all the scientific evidence. We do >>have >>enough scientific evidence to know better than to generalise or otherwise >>omit the potential impact of significant oxidation processes in >>depositional >>and weathering systems. We also have enough scientific evidence to know >>that >>CO2 is the most abundant volcanic gas {other than steam, and according to >>Perfit et al (1980, "Chemical Characteristics of Island Arc Basalts: >>Implications for mantle sources", Chemical Geology, Vol. 30, pp. 277-256), >>other than carbon monoxide} >>. >>Moreover, "YEC lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating" is clearly >>*not* an honest characterisation of the argument that the Suess effect >>cannot isolate magmatic CO2 because magmatic and fossil fuel sources are >>both too old. >>.
> Do you have any information that touches on > the rate of change in atmospheric oxygen compared > to the increase in CO2 concentration?
. Not enough information available to the public. .
> Martin mentioned something about oxygen > depletion as a result of combining with carbon and > I assume those doing such a study also consider > combining with hydrogen. > But he mention a problem the investigators > did not fully understand, and after I mentioned > that plants need to take hydrogen from water to > make hydrocarbons, I have no way of knowing > if anybody read it.
. It's Keeling & the Scripps Institute again if memory serves: Manning et al (1999) The correlation is fine (1.3±0.02 mol O2 per mol CO2) implying 5.67 GtO2pa consumption of oxygen. The problem is where Manning and friends assume that 1.44 mol of O2 consumed per CO2 produced corresponds to "all the air was polluted by fossil fuel combustion from fossil fuels only". What they leave out are all the weathering and other oxidation processes involving neither carbon nor
...
Discussion subject changed to "Errata: This is what happens when you type in your sleep... Re: Interesting Experimental Sideline - who did it? WAS:Re: Is Ethane a dangerous greenhouse gas ?" by Timothy Casey
Subject: Errata: This is what happens when you type in your sleep... Re: Interesting Experimental Sideline - who did it? WAS:Re: Is Ethane a dangerous greenhouse gas ?
>>>>> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message >>>>> news:ei7ge51k91vsr83sjpje160bsk3uggo0p5@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:15:27 +1100, "Timothy Casey" >>>>>> <sixth-prime-num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1ZTFm.17299$Xq1.874@newsfe10.iad... >>>>>>>> Bill Ward wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:35:12 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>>>>> The ocean has been in contact with an excess of solid CaCO3 for >>>>>>>>> hundreds >>>>>>>>> of millions of years. One would think eventually some sort of >>>>>>>>> equilibrium would be established.
>>>>>>>> The isotopic signature is of fossil fuels - material that has come >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> organic life. >>>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> This mythical "isotopic signature" is identical to that of CO2 >>>>>>> derived >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> magma. Any textbook on igneous petrogenisis whill give you dozens of >>>>>>> references to studies finding depleted C13 in magmatic fluids - and >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> are more than enough submarine volcanoes - and yes this is to do with >>>>>>> subduction of terrestrial 13C depleted plant carbon in basin >>>>>>> sediments >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> consequent 13C depletion of magmatic carbon. >>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> Anyway since very high precision paramagnetic measurements of O2 in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> atmosphere have been perfected by Ralph Keeling (son of the guy who >>>>>>>> started the Mauna Kea CO2 measurement series). So we can see both >>>>>>>> sides of >>>>>>>> the combustion equation and check the balance sheet. The answer is >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> clear. >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> Can someone please name a CO2 monitoring station that isn't sited at >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> an active volcano (and don't say "south pole" either - there is >>>>>>> nothing >>>>>>> there - the nearest base is McMurdo -right next to Erebus!)??? >>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> AIUI, the isotopic data only shows that the carbon is as old as the >>>>>>>>> fossils, perhaps of biological origin, not that it necessarily came >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> "fossil fuels". CaCO3 is at the root of the oceanic CO2 >>>>>>>>> equilibrium, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> some of it's old, and of biological origin.
>>>>>>>> But irrelevant to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere at present. >>>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> No it is precisly the point that falsifies the Suess effect and casts >>>>>>> doubt >>>>>>> on the origin of the CO2 rise, which could just as easily be volcanic >>>>>>> because volcanic CO2 is magmatic, which is too old for measurable >>>>>>> 14C. >>>>>>> .
>>>>>> Most of the AGW gossip groupies seem to think >>>>>> that fossil C13 levels are greater than atmospheric, >>>>>> an example of the gossip fad. >>>>> . >>>>> In my opinion, it's a shell game combining both bait and switch >>>>> debating >>>>> tactics with the characteristically green fallacy that can be described >>>>> as *generalisation by omission*. It does confuse people, as this kind >>>>> of >>>>> argument is usually intended to do - but the risk inherent in employing >>>>> this kind of argument is the likelihood of backfire - and in this case, >>>>> people evidently get confused on both sides of the trenches. >>>>> . >>>>> The Carbon Isotope Shell Game starts with the Suess Effect being cited >>>>> in >>>>> the classic generalisation that anthropogenic CO2 is isotopically >>>>> distinct from all "Natural" CO2 because plant respiration CO2 contains >>>>> the cosmogenic and geologically short-lived 14C - as opposed to fossil >>>>> fuels which are too old contain measurable amounts of 14C. The problem >>>>> here is that vegetation is not the only source of natural CO2 and >>>>> volcanoes produce old CO2 with the same 14C signature as fossil fuel >>>>> emissions - notably zip. When you point this out, the debater >>>>> introduces >>>>> a classic bait & switch argument (called an "apple-cucumber" in some >>>>> parts of Australia) by saying "Yes but we were really talking about >>>>> 13C". >>>>> Well, that isn't the Suess Effect. >>>>> . >>>>> A valid response to a bait and switch argument if you don't have a >>>>> ready >>>>> response to the switch, is to fall back on relevance and insist that >>>>> the >>>>> point remain confined to the bait. In this case, the Suess Effect does >>>>> not differentiate volcanic and fossil fuel CO2 regardless of what the >>>>> differences in 13C might be. If you are ready for the switch in this >>>>> case, you can always point out that magmatic carbon is 13C depleted >>>>> just >>>>> like photosynthesising biomass, fossil fuels, and fossil fuel >>>>> emissions.
>>>> And it is you who are playing bait and switch here. >>>. >>>Dare I say, speak for yourself Martin! >>>You can call a cat a bird, but you can't make it fly. >>>. >>>>Classic denialist lies. >>>. >>>Care to substantiate that claim? >>>. >>>Eg. >>>. >>>There are plenty of papers showing that magmatic CO2 is too old to contain >>>measurable 14C >>>True or False? >>>. >>>There are plenty of papers showing that magmatic CO2 is 13C depleted. >>>True or False? >>>. >>>Who's in denial now, Martin? >>>. >>>>We can measure the corresponding decrease in the atmospheric oxygen >>>>content >>>>that balances our rate of fossil fuel combustion with sufficient >>>>precision >>>>to know for certain that the amount staying in the atmosphere is a little >>>>over half of what we emit. See for example:
>>>> http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf >>>. >>>So what? Combustion of fossil fuels is not the only consumer of oxygen. >>>Magmatic carbon may well be oxidised by reaction with mineral phases in >>>the >>>mantle, but how do you think oxygen gets into the mantle in the first >>>place? >>>Of course, once extruded, mineral oxidation processes remove some oxygen >>>from the atmosphere, followed by weathering which removes yet more oxygen >>>and some CO2, then we have the depositional systems of sedimentary >>>environments that coax even more oxygen out of the atmosphere (eg Fe >>>oxidation to form redbeds), chemical sedimentary systems producing massive >>>carbonates consume yet more oxygen and CO2, and 200-500my later, >>>subduction >>>takes it down into the mantle where volatile hydrated weathering minerals >>>are reduced and subducted kerogen+hydrocarbons are oxidised to form H2O & >>>CO2. How much does that throw out your so-called balance? >>>. >>>Once again, it's the classic "green fallacy" of generalisation by >>>omission. >>>If we omit all other oxidation processes on the planet, we can claim the >>>apparent "balance" between CO2 enrichment and O2 depletion in the >>>atmosphere >>>actually means the CO2 accumulation is all from fossil fuel combustion >>>(and >>>go on to deny significant alternative CO2 sources such as volcanoes)! What >>>martin is denying by imitating the oversight of Manning et al., are all >>>the >>>other oxygen sinks on the planet; b-horizon calcrete and ferricrete >>>formation offer just two of so many examples. >>>. >>>>> Watch out for the distinction between atmospheric enrichment in 13C by >>>>> plant respiration and plant matter depletion in 13C - that's your shell >>>>> game right there and this interesting twist on the green fallacy >>>>> (generalisation by omission) is probably the source of much of the >>>>> confusion. The technique here is to stick rigidly to the structure of >>>>> your own information rather than trying to adapt to the often >>>>> convoluted >>>>> structure of your opposite. >>>>> . >>>>> Keep It Structurally Simple and most of the shell game blues should >>>>> fade >>>>> away.
>>>> The scientific evidence is clear - fossil fuel CO2. Dittohead lies and >>>> YEC >>>> lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating not withstanding. >>>. >>>In point of fact, we *don't* _have_ all the scientific evidence. We do >>>have >>>enough scientific evidence to know better than to generalise or otherwise >>>omit the potential impact of significant oxidation processes in >>>depositional >>>and weathering systems. We also have enough scientific evidence to know >>>that >>>CO2 is the most abundant volcanic gas {other than steam, and according to >>>Perfit et al (1980, "Chemical Characteristics of Island Arc Basalts: >>>Implications for mantle sources", Chemical Geology, Vol. 30, pp. 277-256), >>>other than carbon monoxide} >>>. >>>Moreover, "YEC lunacy against isotopic and radiocarbon dating" is clearly >>>*not* an honest characterisation of the argument that the Suess effect >>>cannot isolate magmatic CO2 because magmatic and fossil fuel sources are >>>both too old. >>>.
>> Do you have any information that touches on >> the rate of change in atmospheric oxygen compared >> to the increase in CO2 concentration? >. >Not enough information available to the public. >. >> Martin mentioned something about oxygen >> depletion as a result of combining with carbon and >> I assume those doing such a study also consider >> combining with hydrogen. >> But he mention a problem the investigators >> did not fully understand, and after I mentioned >> that plants need to take hydrogen from water to >> make hydrocarbons, I have no way of knowing >> if anybody read it. >. >It's Keeling & the Scripps Institute again if memory serves: Manning et al >(1999) >The correlation is fine (1.3±0.02
> I first stated that I thought plants released oxygen > from both CO2 and water, then I got the impression > Martin was saying that all released oxygen was from > water, which didn't make sense if there is 4 times a > difference per molecule.
OK. I will try again. The main photosynthesis reaction that requires light, chlorophyll and an enzyme catalyst - the very hard step is where the plant splits a water molecule and releases oxygen to the atmosphere.
The plant then uses that hydrogen as stored energy to reduce CO2 creating water and the basic building blocks for plant acids and sugars. There is an animation diagram of the key reaction steps online at:
> For years I have read that even if all fossil fuel > was burned, there would still be plenty of oxygen, > yet now there seems to be claims otherwise.
There would still be plenty of oxygen. The measurements of atmospheric oxygen are looking at tiny changes on a large baseline which is why it took so long to be able to do it with the required precision. By comparison the CO2 measurements are easy.
Even if we got CO2 up by another 1000ppm it would only rob the atmosphere of 1000ppm O2 so that an initial 20% would be down to a shocking 19.9%. That would not be a noticeable reduction.
> No doubt there are lots of different ways > different plants do the process, but the oxygen > from CO2 has to go someplace when hydrocarbons > are made, so I don't understand Martin's answer > at all.
There are really 3 main ways plants do it C3, C4 and CAM. The oxygen from the CO2 ends up back as water in the plant. Water molecules that may subsequently be split by photosynthesis I suppose.
> Calling any of the chemicals involved in any > plant process dangerous would seem to need > some explaining, a lot of the AGW alarmism > seems extraordinarily extreme.
I suspect you have been reading one of Idso's misleading pro CO2 sites. I think you would do well to remember that plants have their own agenda and are not necessarily benign. If you think about it plants also synthesise defence molecules like nicotine, strychnine, urushiol and monofluoacetate. All very dangerous natural chemicals.
BTW Did you know that too much oxygen is also bad for you?
> > The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and > > have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in > your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting > thing you said so far.
This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption spectra only represents the principle series.
It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra, where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the bright lines of emission.
The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated for each frequency.
The important point here is that 41% of the energy is radiated in the infrared. Virutally all of this energy is radiated from the hydrogen gas. If you have mathematics to show otherwise, please present them instead of your interminable redefinition of terms and statements that I am incorrect in accord with your unsupported rhetoric.
A simple and valid analysis of the sun's radiated energy and it's composition, proves that the hydrogen gas is absorbing and radiating all the wavelengths. The sun radiates for overall energy and distributrion as a blackbody near 6000K, as duplicated in the laboratory.
It is utterly impossible that the motions of the hydrogen molecules is the source of the energy of the radiation. Regardless of your need to redefine terms in order to appear to make your fallacious and failed theoretical perspectives have some credibility.
At each frequency is a quantity of energy being radiated. The peak intensity obey's Wiens Law, 4.95kT / h.
There are only trace amounts of the elements which produce the line spectra. Negligible to overall radiated energy. The hydrogen gas is not transparent to infrared as the theory of greenhouse gases would wish to state.
If you cannot see that the numbers prove this, then you are mathematically inept, and wish to stay that way. Save your philosophy for your readings at the local coffee house and leave physics the hell alone.
> > > The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and > > > have no representation in the dark absorption spectra.
> > Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in > > your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting > > thing you said so far.
> This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been > observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption > spectra only represents the principle series.
> It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not > apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra, > where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission > spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the > bright lines of emission.
> The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the > continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen > gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases > have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated > for each frequency.
> The important point here is that 41% of the energy is radiated in the > infrared. Virutally all of this energy is radiated from the hydrogen > gas. If you have mathematics to show otherwise, please present them > instead of your interminable redefinition of terms and statements that > I am incorrect in accord with your unsupported rhetoric.
> A simple and valid analysis of the sun's radiated energy and it's > composition, proves that the hydrogen gas is absorbing and radiating > all the wavelengths. The sun radiates for overall energy and > distributrion as a blackbody near 6000K, as duplicated in the > laboratory.
> It is utterly impossible that the motions of the hydrogen molecules is > the source of the energy of the radiation. Regardless of your need to > redefine terms in order to appear to make your fallacious and failed > theoretical perspectives have some credibility.
> At each frequency is a quantity of energy being radiated. The peak > intensity obey's Wiens Law, 4.95kT / h.
> There are only trace amounts of the elements which produce the line > spectra. Negligible to overall radiated energy. The hydrogen gas is > not transparent to infrared as the theory of greenhouse gases would > wish to state.
> If you cannot see that the numbers prove this, then you are > mathematically inept, and wish to stay that way. Save your philosophy > for your readings at the local coffee house and leave physics the hell > alone.
> KD
A couple of more comments which you are bound to ignore in your need to reiterate your failed dogma since you cannot incorporate these facts,,,
there are many stars which have no other elements than hydrogen and helium,, the helium is concentrated near the core of the star and is not important in the emission spectra.
At 6000K, the sun radiates about 60 million Joules per sq meter. RT is only about 50,000 Joules. RT represents the kinetic energy of the molecules for their linear motions and velocities.
It is of no point to make up theoretics as to how the energy of the sun is composed, since these results can be duplicated in the laboratory.
You also completely must ignore the simple experiment in which the nitrogen gas, and other gases, can be shown to transfer actual energy which can be captured and quantified in which it can be proved that this transfer of energy is NOT DONE by the absorption and transfer by motions or collisions or conduction.
This simple proof shows that these gases absorb the continous spectrum of the infrared from about 1-2um. This entirely subverts the theory that only some gases are reactive or absorb in the infrared at the particular bands. This entirely subverts the supposed analysis done for atmospheric gases.
There are many other laboratory means to prove this assertion. This also proves the detachment of theoretical physics from actual scientific fact, and the lack of interest in this field for scientific determination beyond the purely theoretical speculation.
Since it is clear that no one in theoretical physics can objectively look at these facts, but to a person can only repeat their failed rhetoric and theory, the day will come when people outside this field do the analysis which will discard this theory and those who claim profiency in such mathematics and scientific analysis.
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com"
>>> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and >>> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra. >> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in >> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting >> thing you said so far.
> This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been > observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption > spectra only represents the principle series.
> It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not
You are clueless and confused. The lines of hydrogen are dark when you look towards the suns brilliant photosphere and bright when you look through the chromosphere towards the blackness of space.
> apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra, > where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission > spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the > bright lines of emission.
Not true. As papers describing early IR spectroscopy of the Paschen series make clear. Dark seen against the photosphere but bright by comparison with the sky.
> The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the > continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen > gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases > have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated > for each frequency.
Yes they do. As the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum bear witness.
They alter the amount of radiation escaping at the characteristic resonant frequencies of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements escaping from the star. If the chromosphere is optically dense at the relevant wavelength then some proportion of the light that leaves the surface of the sun is absorbed and then re-emitted isotropically.
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com"
> >>> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and > >>> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra. > >> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in > >> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting > >> thing you said so far.
> > This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been > > observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption > > spectra only represents the principle series.
> > It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not
'> You are clueless and confused. The lines of hydrogen are dark when you '> look towards the suns brilliant photosphere and bright when you look '> through the chromosphere towards the blackness of space.
Pretend that you are now defining the situation and that I am incorrect? Of course we are dealing in theoretics, huh, and no one can prove a thing with your vague and invalid redefinitions? As long as you fucking punks get together and agree that you are right in your vagueness, in full view of scientific evidence and means to PROVE you invalid?
But the theoretical idiots of theoretical science have eliminated the concept of 'proof' from their dogmatic renditions, so that they neither need proof, expect proof, respect proof, or FEAR proof.
It is not the relative brightness that is in question here. The hydrogen emission lines of the Lyman series, and the other lines which represent the principle series appear as bright lines against the continuous spectrum, in which ALL frequencies of the continuum are present where each frequency represents 1 whole value of Planck's constant.,,,,,,,,hv, or h x cycles per second, which denotes a particular and specified quantity of energy with no intermediate values other than the integers of hv.
When a continuous spectrum is passed through cool hydrogen gas, these dark lines appear. These are absorption lines and the temperature of the cool hydrogen gas is increased according to the quantity of energy which is stopped from passing through the gas. You are nonsense with your idea that it is merely the background which determines if the line is a dark absorption band or a bright emission band.
Absorption lines of the Lyman series are hard to find, since these frequencies are in the ultraviolet and are ALL absorbed by gas molecules anyway. People thought the Balmer series were the only series of hydrogen until evacuated apparatus was developed which allowed the study of the Lyman series, which is the series which is mathematically fuctional to the energy of the ionization potential of the atom, as the priciple series of other elements are.
For the most part, visible light frequencies can pass through most gases without being absorbed. But around 1-2um, all frequencies of the infrared are absorbed by all gas molecules, although this energy is imediately radiated at other frequencies.
The dark BANDS of the infrared are not the same as the dark absorption bands of the visible.
There is a very great difference in the absorption spectra of hydrogen, and the emission spectra of hydrogen, although they are represented at the same frequencies. It has nothing to do with the background, dillfuss.
> > apear in absorption spectra. This is evident in the sun's spectra, > > where the principle series are superimposed on the bright emission > > spectra and the absorption spectra, while the subseries only have the > > bright lines of emission.
> Not true. As papers describing early IR spectroscopy of the Paschen > series make clear. Dark seen against the photosphere but bright by > comparison with the sky.
> > The sun is gaseous. The energy of the sun is dispersed into the > > continous spectra throughout due to the high pressure of the hydrogen > > gas just near the surface. The emisison spectra of the rarified gases > > have no important effect upon the quantity of energy being radiated > > for each frequency.
'> Yes they do. As the Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum bear witness. '>
You are nonsense. The Fraunhofer lines are particulary the absorption spectra of the cooler gases at higher levels. These frequencies are directly correlated to particular frequencies of particular elements which correspond to particular emission lines of the PRINCIPLE series only.
You guys are outrageous brats, as you try to evade the fact that I am particulary right in saying that the dark absorption spectra of the elemental gases correspond ONLY to the principle series of the emission spectra. The very important subseries, the sharp and diffuse, ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN ABSORPTION SPECTRA.
These absorption lines, which are absorbing the particular frequencies, (not bands), of the continuous spectrum from the compressed hydrogen gas within, are split and superimposed with the bright emission lines of the principle series of the same element which are produced at lower levels that are still very hot, but rarified, or low pressure.
There are thousands and thousands of emission lines in the sun's spectrum, but only the relevant frequencies of the principle series is represented in the absorption lines.
The sun has all the elements of the periodic chart and therefore a very complex spectrum. Some stars have a very simple spectrum, with only hydrogen and helium. Very few absorption or bright emission lines in the continuous spectrum produced by the hydrogen molecules. Some stars are red giants and burn and are composed of mostly helium.
The sun is at equilibrium. These means that the probability of a molecule being at a particular energy level obeys Planck's Law for radiation distribution according to frequency. As the molecules absorb and radiate the photons, which possess the energy which is also distributed according to this probability, the probability holds for the distribution of energy escaping the gases.
This distribution obeys Wiens Law for peak intensity, which is also due to the 'probability' for the energy level at time of emission. The molecules act as an oscillator, and although the absorption and emisison occurs at the velocity of light, there is a time of continuance.
> They alter the amount of radiation escaping at the characteristic > resonant frequencies of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements > escaping from the star. If the chromosphere is optically dense at the > relevant wavelength then some proportion of the light that leaves the > surface of the sun is absorbed and then re-emitted isotropically.
SO WHAT? Can you quantify and support your statements with any DIRECT science, or is your love for the literature and philosophy of theoretical meanderings enough to form your concept of SCIENCE?
These absorption bands have no means to alter the amount of radiation 'escaping' in total. A quantity of energy is produced by the nuclear reactions in the core, and this quantity of energy escapes the sun, regardless of it's composition, in order for the sun to be at constant temperature and thermal equilibrium, which it has been for about 5 billion years.
==================
The point here is that there is no means the gases in the sun can absorb and emit the quantity of energy in their molecular collisions and motions. The idea of the greenhouse gases is PROVED defunct.
This concept has no direct science or laboratory proof which would be easily forthcoming if it were true. For this reason this idea was abandoned by modern chemistry and science and only revived by theoreticians out of touch with reality.
There is no evidence for this property in valid analysis of gases which is documented by the Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling, in his book which is easily available to anyone, 'General Chemistry', and availlable for free online somewhere.
This concept can be proved invalid by proper scientific inquiry. These proofs also prove the theorists of present theoretical physics and climatology to be completely out of touch with real science and proper physics.
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:21 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" >>>>> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and >>>>> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra. >>>> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in >>>> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting >>>> thing you said so far. >>> This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been >>> observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption >>> spectra only represents the principle series. >>> It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not > '> You are clueless and confused. The lines of hydrogen are dark when > you > '> look towards the suns brilliant photosphere and bright when you > look > '> through the chromosphere towards the blackness of space.
> Pretend that you are now defining the situation and that I am > incorrect? Of course we are dealing in theoretics, huh, and no one can > prove a thing with your vague and invalid redefinitions? As long as > you fucking punks get together and agree that you are right in your > vagueness, in full view of scientific evidence and means to PROVE you > invalid?
> But the theoretical idiots of theoretical science have eliminated the > concept of 'proof' from their dogmatic renditions, so that they > neither need proof, expect proof, respect proof, or FEAR proof.
Are you a bot? Your "Dittohead Science" is a joke.
The long screed of delusional babble you posted looks suspisciously like output of the Shannoniser. Actually that program might make more sense.
The statements I have made are experimentally verifiable. Narrowband H-alpha filters for observing the suns chromosphere are now accessible to amateur astronomers the world over. The same basic principles apply to any species that can absorb and emit photons at specific wavelengths when illuminated with continuum radiation.
> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:21 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> kdth...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> On Oct 29, 1:23 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On Oct 28, 6:35 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" > >>>>> The sharp and diffuse spectra only have the bright emission lines, and > >>>>> have no representation in the dark absorption spectra. > >>>> Really? Now this looks interesting. I would be very interested in > >>>> your references to this effect. This is about the only interesting > >>>> thing you said so far. > >>> This is very, very basic spectroscopy. The Balmer lines have been > >>> observed in astronomical observations. Otherwise, the absorption > >>> spectra only represents the principle series. > >>> It is for you to show reference otherwise. These subseries do not > > '> You are clueless and confused. The lines of hydrogen are dark when > > you > > '> look towards the suns brilliant photosphere and bright when you > > look > > '> through the chromosphere towards the blackness of space.
> > Pretend that you are now defining the situation and that I am > > incorrect? Of course we are dealing in theoretics, huh, and no one can > > prove a thing with your vague and invalid redefinitions? As long as > > you fucking punks get together and agree that you are right in your > > vagueness, in full view of scientific evidence and means to PROVE you > > invalid?
> > But the theoretical idiots of theoretical science have eliminated the > > concept of 'proof' from their dogmatic renditions, so that they > > neither need proof, expect proof, respect proof, or FEAR proof.
> Are you a bot? Your "Dittohead Science" is a joke.
> The long screed of delusional babble you posted looks suspisciously like > output of the Shannoniser. Actually that program might make more sense.
> The statements I have made are experimentally verifiable. Narrowband > H-alpha filters for observing the suns chromosphere are now accessible > to amateur astronomers the world over. The same basic principles apply > to any species that can absorb and emit photons at specific wavelengths > when illuminated with continuum radiation.
> Regards, > Martin Brown-
Your logic goes nowhere. Studying H-alpha is basic to astronomy. So what has that to do with anything? A lot of mapping is done in this wavelength, and also in the hydrogen 20cm line.
H-alpha is the first line of the Balmer series. It is in the visible region. In the excitation of hydrogen, the first Lyman line appears first, in the energy levels. However this line is far into the ultraviolet. At the second energy level of hydrogen, the second line of the Lyman series appears along with the first line of the Balmer series. From this point there is a corresponding line of the Balmer series for each line of the Lyman series. However the Balmer series are exactly 1/4 the energy of the corresponding Lyman line.
For this reason, the harmonics of the Balmer series are in line with the harmonics of the Lyman series, and parts of the Balmer series appears in absorption spectra. The sub-series of the other elements are not mathematically harmonic to the principle series, and therefore do not appear in absorption spectra.
The Lyman series of hydrogen, and the principle series of the other elements, is mathematically a harmonic of the energy level of the ionization potential. The first line of the Lyman series appears at the energy level that is exactly 3/4 the energy of the ionization potential.
The energy of the photons at particular wavelength is available in electron volts by taking the reciprocal of the wavelength and multiplying this by 12398, since a photon with wavelength of 1.2398um has the energy of 1 electron volt. If a photon has a frequency per second and travels at c, this will be the number of pulsations in the distance of 2.99E10 cm. So the distance between pulsations, or wavelength is 2.99E10 divided by frequency,,, and 2.99E10cm divided by wavelength gives number of pulsations per second, or frequency,
A principle series as spectral lines which are separated by intervals mathematically defined by Shroedinger as functions of differential operators, which is called the 'eigenfunction' for the series. These intervals become closer together and reach the 'series limit' at the point that the intervals become one whole value of h, therefore cannot be divided further. This point is the energy level of the ionization potential, so the mathematics of the series is inherent to this value of the ionization potential.
At this point the series rejoins the continuum, and the spectra beyond this point of the continuous spectrum are called 'spark spectra' and produced with the ionization of the atom or dissacociation of the electron from the atom.
Planck's actual hypothesis which revolutionized all of physics, is that,,, 'for each spectral line, there is a corresponding electron oscillator of particular and specific energy, hv'.
People miss the important point that he states of the existence of the 'electron oscillator'. Classical physics wished to describe radiation as caused by the motions of the molecules which produced radiation. But it is very clear at high temperatures with gases, that there is no possibility that these motions can ,, contain, absorb, transfer or transmit, the quantities of energy which are involved.
This applies to all infrared and visible radiation. The molecules of a gas have a molecular shell composed of at least one electron, which is the diameter of the molecule and the surface for collisions and the surface for absorption and emission of photons which are packets of energy.
Fact of science ignored by theoretical science since it does not fit the need to say that energy is only absorbed in particular quantums, and to attempt to maintain the false theory of greenhouse gases.
So Martin, lets look at some math and you can explain how your side remarks are pertinent in the least. I know I am guilty of heresy in your church, but please don't start gathering the wood to burn me at the stake, as all good little religous zealots wish to do with those who do not bow to the doctrine handed down from their god, (algore).
================ The hydrogen gas near the surface of the sun at 5780K radiates at 63,284,071.51 JOULES PER SECOND PER SQ METER.
5780 fourth power, x 5.67E-8
Surface area of the sun at radius, 696,000 kilometers, is,,
6.08735E18 sq meters,,,, x Joules per sq meter =,,
3.85E26 JOULES PER SECOND, as total luminosity of the sun.
This is the energy at the sphere of the surface of the sun. The inverse square law is analogous to the increased area of a sphere at the increased distance. The density of the energy is diminished according to the diminishing area of an enlarged sphere.
So,,, the earth's mean orbital radius from the sun being 1.496E11 meters,, A sphere with this radius would have surface area, 4pir^2 of,,, 2.82E23 sq meters.
Luminosity of sun, surface area of sun divided by surface area of sphere at earth's mean orbital radius, which gives the diminishment of the density of the radiation for the distance to the earth according to the inverse square law for energy density at distance,,,
3.85E26 Joules per second / 2.82E23 sq meters =
1369.77648 JOULES PER SECOND PER SQ METER
for the density of radiation energy at mean earth orbital radius. This is also a rate, since the velocity of the radiation remains at c, and to increase the rate one must increase the density of the energy traveling through the plane of 1 sq centimeter per second.
So Martin, let's see some relevance of your discourse to anything pertinent about the energy radiated or recieved. You just make some half assed reference to something you think is scientific and then pretend you have some scientific wisdom which you can't quite explain or quantify.
In the meantime you ignore and miss all my important points, dweezzleshit.
HAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHHA
KD The AGWBunnies, Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern society,,, They keep going,,, and going,,,
> On Oct 20, 9:51 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > This is also proved by the CO2 laser. The dark bands of CO2 force the > > emissions at the bands at which CO2 is supposedly 'transparent', near > > 10um. Any laser only uses the parrallel mirrors to augment the > > frequencies which the lasing substance absorbs and emits.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > In a CO2 laser, for example, stimulated emission selectively > creates photons that are identical to the original photon. In > stimulated emission, the photon that is emitted moves in the same > direction as the photon that was absorbed. > The laser cavity selects for photons that are emitted in a very > specific direction. If there was no such selection, as is the case in > the atmosphere, radiation coming in in random directions would result > in radiation moving in random directions. In fact, radiation that > started out moving in a specific direction would end up totally > randomized. > Even in a laser, there is energy lost in spontaneous emission. If > the photon is emitted spontaneously, without stimulation by other > photons, the radiation comes out randomized in direction and > frequency. > If you placed a large amount of a greenhouse gas in a CO2 > laser cavity, the laser would stop lasing. One would think, using your > argument, that a absorbing material in the cavity couldn't interfere > with the operation of the laser. However, absorpbing materials do > interfere with the operation of a laser. Since the
You are a total punk for telling me I am wrong, when I am right. You should be worried that politicians may listen to you and make any decisions. But your defunct logic doesn't consider such things either.
Support your damn statements, philosopher. I damn sure do, and when you presume me to be wrong according the the rhetoric you yourself do not understand, you are also defunct.
Proof is required by theoretical physics and AGW to remodel our use of carbon fuels. Good luck hiding as you do in theoretical modeling in which no proof can be derived, or so you presume.
Here I make valid statements about the CO2 laser. That the CO2 and the N2 are absorbing and therefore emitting radiation at the 10um bands in which the CO2 laser operates, which is in keeping with the basic principle of any laser, which is that the laser is actually formed by the two parrellel mirrors which reflect frequencies back into the lasing material which the material is favarable to absorb and emit, and therefore bring the production of these frequencies to high levels.
Visible or line lasers are much different than 'band' lasers which are produced with infrared.
In order to maintain your false theory, that CO2 and N2 are 'transparent' or non-reactive to these frequencies, you and your comrades do an incredible amount of invention of stupid little dynamics, and then you also pretend to be grownups as you collectively believe your imaginitive falshoods about the physics involved.
It is simple to prove this also, that you are stupid and have no interest in distinguishing fantasy from science.
This can be proved by actual analysis of the luminesence of gases. Helium and neon have ionization potential around 25 electron volts. This means their first energy level of luminesence occurs near 20 electron volts. These high energy ultraviolets do not pass through gases without being absorbed, and are the critical component in the transfer of energy into the 2 bands of the CO2 laser which occur around 10um.
Your theoy of the CO2 laser and your attempt to maintain your false theory of radiation and gases, proves you defunct in any actual viable theoretical physics or science.
I can also fully support and PROVE this statement.
The CO2 laser is called the CO2 laser because CO2 is the critical component for it's construction. This is because CO2 has the dark bands of non-transmission in the higher regions of the infrared, 2.7um and 4.2um. These bands extend for a great region of the continous spectrum. This forces CO2 to radiate absorbed energy at other frequencies. This does not in any way affect the thermal properties of CO2 in normal conditions, AS ALL LABORATORY ANALYSIS SHOWS.
In your analysis of the CO2 laser, you are proved DEFUNCT, because you do not incorporate the actual fact of the luminisence of the gases. If mirrors are used on pure CO2, an increase in the frequencies at 10 occurs. But not nearly enough for a viable band laser.
The CO2 laser requires about 50% helium or neon, 25% N2 and about 25% CO2. It also works better with about 5% hydrogen gas.
What you miss, is the fact that the helium and neon, when excited with the high energy electrons from the cathode, become luminesent with the production of their principle series, which begins far into the ultraviolet. The ultraviolet photons do not pass through gases, but penetrate the molecules and are absorbed.
It is only by this, that the CO2 laser becomes a viable band laser in which about 30% of the imported energy can be delivered into the beam. In most visible lasers, one is very lucky to get even 1% of the energy into the beam.
The high energy photons from about 20 electron volts, are absorbed by the gases, and this energy is converted to lower frequencies and immediately re-emitted. CO2, in not radiating at the higher infrared bands, defeats the production of these frequencies and forces the production of frequencies to the 10um bands.
If the nitrogen were not present, the CO2 alone would absorb too much energy and to the point of dissassociation of the carbon and oxygen. With the Nitrogen also absorbing and radiating, the energy is passed out of the gas mixture and does not increase the temperature beyond a workable level.
The energy from the cathode electrons, when absorbed by the helium or neon, is converted to the high energy ultraviolet photons, which cannot then pass through air or glass without being absosrbed and converted to lower frequencies. The absorption of these ultraviolets, which is omitted entirely from your falsified theory of this laser, transfers the energy into the molecules which then radiate this energy at the 10um bands, which is actually the peak intensity for Wiens law around normal temperatures, 80F or so.
The molecules absorb and immediately radiate photons of infrared frequencies, and ultraviolet frequencies. Thus, the emission is more probable for the energy of absorption, although sometimes photons are added together or split.
The mirrors augment the bands at 10um, in which the N2 absorb and radiate. The CO2 defeats the production of frequencies of higher infrared energies, (which for wavelength are smaller numbers).
The Nitrogen helps to absorb and radiate, to keep the temperature from exceeding dissassociation levels. The helium or neon is critical to the efficiency of the laser of 30%, because of their production of the 20eV photons, which cannot pass through air or glass, and therefore the energy they carry must be converted to lower frequencies or will continually be increasing the temperature. The energy must be supplied with high energy electrons from the cathodes, in order to bring the helium or neon to luminesence, without a temperature higher than the dissassociation levels of the molecules of N2 and CO2.
Proof that you and present theoretical science are inept and defunct. You do not have the critical information that of the high energy ultraviolets which must occur for the gases to be luminescent.
Even a neon laser, which produces a beam in the visiable region, must reach luminesence with the first energy level of it's principle series which is very far into the ultravioet in which the photons cannot pass through gases or glass. The emission which is seen in the neon laser, are very specific lines in the visible of sharp spectra, which are of much less energy than the principle series, BUT WHICH DO NOT APPEAR UNTIL THE LUMINESCENT LEVEL, OR FIRST ENERGY LEVEL OF THE PRINCIPLE SERIES IS REACHED WHICH IS NEAR 20eV.
CO2 and N2 are not 'transparent' or 'non-reactive' to the frequencies around 10um, as the false theory of greenhouse gases MUST state. The frequencies of the infrared are absorbed and radiated by all gases.
Calculations on the effect that only CO2 and methane absorb outgoing infrared, and therfore are important to temperature and climate at trace levels is the biggest bunch of bullshit, by the biggest bunch of overgrown schoolchildren and corrupt and embezzling scientists who are trusted by the most complacent, pampered and naive people, who are willing to believe this farce and these lies without forcing any demonstration of fact or proof.
And this movement is a full blown psuedo religion, with the followers clearly defined to be insane and hostile to innocent people.
Facts which will one day come to a head with their demented wish to destroy our energy and economic infrastructure under their false pretenses of being concerned with the environment or welfare of any person, other than their narcissistic and fantastical mental masturbation.
> This simple proof shows that these gases absorb the continous spectrum > of the infrared from about 1-2um. This entirely subverts the theory > that only some gases are reactive or absorb in the infrared at the > particular bands. This entirely subverts the supposed analysis done > for atmospheric gases.
You like simple proofs? An ideal black body source can not show any emission lines or any absorption lines. Solar spectra show emission lines superimposed on black body spectra. Therefore, the sun can not be an ideal black body source. The reason a black body source can not show any spectral lines is that radiation energy is absorbed and remitted by atoms many times before leaving the source. shifts associated with vibration, rotations and translational energy randomize the radiation, producing the black body spectra. The reason that the sun is not a perfect black body emitter is that the density near the surface of the sun is small enough so small enough to let some light out without being reabsorbed. The concept is called optical depth. I note that in the case of solar spectrum, the continuous part of the spectrum happens to be close to that of a black body. This makes your arguments somewhat plausible in the case of solar spectra because this shows the light from the sun has been absorbed and remitted a few times. This is not always a given because of pressure broadening. The light coming from an incandescent bulb has a continuous spectrum but is not really a black body spectrum. Basically, you are seeing emission bands from tungsten. The light coming from the filament is not absorbed and remitted many times before leaving. Just showing that the spectrum is "continuous" does not indicate that the source is a black body. You would be more convincing if you could tell us what fraction of the emitted energy of the sun is in spectral lines, and what fraction of the emitted energy is in black body radiation. Then we could judge how valid your implied approximation is. Your citing the black body formula is not very convincing if you haven't shown how closely the source approaches the black body formula. Similarly, the technical part of your polemic would be more convincing if you could tell us what portion of the earth's emitted radiation, seen from space, is in black body radiation. You could break it down into the portion that fits the black body formula, the portion that shows spectral lines, and the portion that shows pressure broadening. One thing that seems particularly unconvincing is the implication in some of your posts that a pressure broadened spectrum is automatically a sign that radiation is being absorbed and remitted. I think atmospheric modelers take pressure broadening into account through phenomenological parameters such as albedo. Even if the spectral line of a fluorocarbon are broadened by pressure, this doesn't ensure that a the energy absorbed by the molecule is randomized in the way you are claiming. A substance can have a characteristic spectrum without have narrow emission lines. If these global warming environmentalists are wrong, it is important to show they are wrong. However, I am sure that their analysis has not violated any fundamental principles in spectroscopy. Those phenomenological constants they use can still be challenged. I suggest that what you are describing is a rather naive misapplication of the black body formula. This sort of thing can back fire. The worse thing that can happen for your position is that these arguments are presented in a court of law.
> > This simple proof shows that these gases absorb the continous spectrum > > of the infrared from about 1-2um. This entirely subverts the theory > > that only some gases are reactive or absorb in the infrared at the > > particular bands. This entirely subverts the supposed analysis done > > for atmospheric gases.
> You like simple proofs? > An ideal black body source can not show any emission lines or any > absorption lines. Solar spectra show emission lines superimposed on > black body spectra. Therefore, the sun can not be an ideal black body > source. > The reason a black body source can not show any spectral lines is > that radiation energy is absorbed and remitted by atoms many times > before leaving the source. shifts associated with vibration, rotations > and translational energy randomize the radiation, producing the black > body spectra. > The reason that the sun is not a perfect black body emitter is > that the density near the surface of the sun is small enough so small > enough to let some light out without being reabsorbed. The concept is > called optical depth. > I note that in the case of solar spectrum, the continuous part of > the spectrum happens to be close to that of a black body. This makes > your arguments somewhat plausible in the case of solar spectra because > this shows the light from the sun has been absorbed and remitted a few > times. This is not always a given because of pressure broadening. The > light coming from an incandescent bulb has a continuous spectrum but > is not really a black body spectrum. Basically, you are seeing > emission bands from tungsten. The light coming from the filament is > not absorbed and remitted many times before leaving. Just showing that > the spectrum is "continuous" does not indicate that the source is a > black body. > You would be more convincing if you could tell us what fraction of > the emitted energy of the sun is in spectral lines, and what fraction > of the emitted energy is in black body radiation. Then we could judge > how valid your implied approximation is. Your citing the black body > formula is not very convincing if you haven't shown how closely the > source approaches the black body formula. > Similarly, the technical part of your polemic would be more > convincing if you could tell us what portion of the earth's emitted > radiation, seen from space, is in black body radiation. You could > break it down into the portion that fits the black body formula, the > portion that shows spectral lines, and the portion that shows pressure > broadening. > One thing that seems particularly unconvincing is the > implication in some of your posts that a pressure broadened spectrum > is automatically a sign that radiation is being absorbed and remitted. > I think atmospheric modelers take pressure broadening into account > through phenomenological parameters such as albedo. > Even if the spectral line of a fluorocarbon are broadened by > pressure, this doesn't ensure that a the energy absorbed by the > molecule is randomized in the way you are claiming. A substance can > have a characteristic spectrum without have narrow emission lines. > If these global warming environmentalists are wrong, it is > important to show they are wrong. However, I am sure that their > analysis has not violated any fundamental principles in spectroscopy. > Those phenomenological constants they use can still be challenged. I > suggest that what you are describing is a rather naive misapplication > of the black body formula. This sort of thing can back fire. The worse > thing that can happen for your position is that these arguments are > presented in a court of law.
Wrong. I can quantify. You do not even attempt it.
It is very clear that the quantity of energy reaching the earth at mean orbital radius, is ~1370 Wm-2, from a temerature of about 5780K. Refer to my calculations in my 3rd post back. Simple Stefan's law and inverse square law. So you show me pertinent quantification for the spectral lines or shut the fuck up.
You think that the spectral lines of the elements play any important part in this quantity of energy?
There are stars which are ONLY hydrogen and a little helium. So you are saying there is any difference in temperature due to the presence of the elements in some stars? You are nuts.
So is the radiational temperature greater or less with the presence of the spectral lines and absorption lines. HAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHhahahahHAHAHhahahaha
You have no means to answer that within the law of conservation of energy. Please don't start looking for a lie in the energy of enthalapy for molecular bonds. Any such thing would also reach equilibrium.
You like to say that the earth does not radiate as a blackbody. You need to tell this to the cardinals of the church who produced the state of the art rendering for 'Earth annual energy budget'
This cartoon is fully accepted as top of the line calculations and figuring. Notice thieir connotation for 'balance' at 392Wm-2. This is the energy of Stefan's Law, therefore Planck's radiation Law, and the quantity for Blackbody emissions at the temperature of 57F or 13C, which is then stated to be 'average' temperature of the earth.
Notice the complete mathematical failure of this diagram, in not denoting if one is using the mean root fourth power, or the mean fourth power root for the calculations. But the rinky dinky fools of climatology, theoretical physics, and the organizations which give their sanction to the false theory of AGW by greenhouse gases, accept this cartoon without any such criticism on their blatant failure at valid mathematics.
You should send THEM a note, that their value of 392Wm-2, has no value for temperature of the earth or anything else, and they should rescind this bullshit and make it known to the public and politicians their severe error in the fantastical meanderings through their bullshit thoeretics derived from the garbage of classical physics in which no qauntificatin of energy could be achieved.
Notice also in their first graph which supposedly depicts satellite readings with the theoretical Planck curve, that the distribution is wrong for this temperaure, although they at least have the peak intensity correct. But you allow such rinky dink science, also, and have no mathematics which relate to actual energy quantities at all.
Your word streams with poorly defined terms upon which you rely, and which you ineptly attempt to state me to be invalid, are worthless without some forthcoming quantification.
What is the quantitive effect upon temperture of a star which does have complex molecules in it's mixture of gases? HAHAHAHHAHAHHhahahahahahHAHAHAHhahahhahaha
KD The AGWBuniies, Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern society which they plan to pursue from their completely safe vantage in their ivory towers,,,
On Nov 8, 10:32 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:33 pm, "kdth...@yahoo.com" <kdth...@earthlink.net> wrote: > I suggest that what you are describing is a rather naive misapplication > of the black body formula. This sort of thing can back fire. The worse > thing that can happen for your position is that these arguments are > presented in a court of law.
When people's lives are affected, this bullshit will damn sure go to court. Someone tell algore and his followers, THE DEBATE IS JUST BEGINNING, and this time it will be for all the marbles.
This has nothing to do with my position. My position is taken entirely from modern physics and chemistry. Please read the rendering on gases from Linus Pauling, General Chemistry, from the 1950's in which he gives a good accounting of the facts and understanding of gases. Notice clearly, in this analysis of gases is no mention of the property of greenhouse gases, although Arwheenieass and others believed in this property. No scientific merit for this idea. Pauling only refers to CO2 as a 'normal gas'.
This means that it obeys the law of partial pressures. One liter of CO2 mixed with one liter of N2 and one liter of O2 at the same temperature and pressure, makes exactly 3 liters of gas. No special determination or difference for the CO2 or other normal gases at ordinary temperatures and pressures.
Bunch of malarchy.
Any application of the 'blackbody formula' is only important in quantification of ENERGY.
One must respect Stefan's Law, which states a specific quantity of energy leaving the surface of a thermal body and applies also to gases. Boltzman defined Stefan's Law in energy per sq cm, which then if integrated for surface area, gives total radiated energy at any specific temperature.
Distribution is defined by Planck's Radiation Law for thermal equilibrium. If the curve is graphed in frequency, the area beneath the curve is directly proportional to total energy. Each photon is a packet of energy. The sum total of these packets is total energy.
All your attempts to redefine, blackbody and such is meaningless in regards to actual energy at specific temperature. By the simple analysis of energy transfered by a gas to solid surfaces, it is easily determined and proved that the gases which you believe transparent to infrared, are actually absorbing and emitting the entire continous spectrum. This is the only means to account for the energy which a gas can transfer to the solids, which then radiate clearly according to Stefan's Law for temperature.
It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non- reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate. No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with no scientific support.
Very simple, and clear proof, for those who may be interested in the truth, and not only interested in repitition of non-quantifiable rhetoric, which seeks to maintain the failed Bohr dogma of absorption in only specific quantums.
> It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non- > reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and > methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate. > No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern > science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with > no scientific support.
>> It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non- >> reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and >> methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate. >> No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern >> science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with >> no scientific support.
>>> It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non- >>> reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and >>> methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate. >>> No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern >>> science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with >>> no scientific support.
>>>> It is absolute bullshit the idea that N2 and O2 are transparent or non- >>>> reactive in the infrared regions, and that trace gases of CO2 and >>>> methane are not and can affect the atmospheric temperature or climate. >>>> No scientific support for this bullshit idea, abandoned by modern >>>> science and revived by the idiots of theoretical science, still with >>>> no scientific support.
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:51:07 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> >> Nope--Each greenhouse gas is important in the overall climate picture.
> How important is each one?
Similar questions to yours: o Which of your fingers is more important? o Which electron in a CO2 molecule is more important? o Which enzyme in your body is most important?
Those are stooopid questions just like how important is each greenhouse gas. They are all important!
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:40:22 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:51:07 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
>>> Nope--Each greenhouse gas is important in the overall climate picture.
>> How important is each one?
>Similar questions to yours: > o Which of your fingers is more important? > o Which electron in a CO2 molecule is more important? > o Which enzyme in your body is most important?
>Those are stooopid questions just like how important is each >greenhouse gas. They are all important!
Yes, CO2 is important, no, it is essential if we want food, what we eat is made from CO2 and water.
If somebody figures out how to do that without the plant taking a few weeks or months, it could end hunger.
But the atmosphere would be warm enough for life without GHGs, only there could be no life as we know it, we need CO2 and water for that.
And GHGs are also essential to cool the atmosphere.
|
