WA wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
CO2 warming is the theory of the meteorologist and
climatologist, they need to defend warming. But if it turns out
there is no warming, where is climate science?

Then CO2 cooling will be needed. Excuse me while
I turn on the heat, and get back to vector graphics.

Look, you are biting the big one here on Venus.

Didn't you see the urls I posted about others talking
about CO2 cooling the atmosphere?

I am a big fan of astronomy and was reading a lot of
science fiction in the 30's and early 40s, but so little is really
known about Venus, speculation is not mentally rewarding.

I wish we knew more.

Your theory is worthless
if it can't explain what is going on there.

Don't you think the fact that there is 4 times as much
N2 there as on Earth is interesting? Is the premise that
CO2 radiation downward being what holds the temperature
that high an absolute certainty?

Weren't you the one who claimed they wanted to discuss physics?

Of whether or not there is warming on Earth, and what the
cause is, yes. I have mentioned a number of things about
atmospheric physics that I thought would be very interesting,
but nobody seems interested. The local reduction in pressure
when water vapor undergoes a 200 to 1 reduction in volume when
condensing, and a 1 to 200 increase in volume when evaporating
would seem to be very important in meteorology, at least those
numbers are correct for steam.

Maybe it is only the fact that I try to discuss things in terms
of what the average person might understand that is uninteresting
to specialists.

Only now,
when you really need to discuss physics, it's back to vector graphics?

You tried to steer the discussion to force me to establish a firm
foundation for radiation physics, including one that would explain the
puzzle of the surface heat of Venus, when just understanding one
little bit about the temperature and energy exchange on Earth would
be a lot to accomplish in my estimation.

I don't like the idea that so many trained specialists have
talked against the extreme predictions made, and the even more
extreme predictions made and the concern that causes some.

It would be nice to know something definite with confidence.

So, whatcha working on? Rendering for a new 3-D bathroom/kitchen design
home remodelling program? That would be totally wicked.

No, just simple vehicle graphics in cut vinyl, a little boy
peeing on the words "global warming".

Bill Ward wrote in
news
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:28:11 +0000, William Asher wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:

snip

First, I am instantly suspicious when I hear you say phrases like:

"The premise is wrong, you can easily work the problem when the
simple truth of nature is known."

That is classic internet kook stuff.

And then it struck me that when you describe what you think is the
fundamental flaw in radiative transfer, it is like you are saying:

(1 + 1) + 2 = 4

and

1 + (1 + 2) = 4

so that this proves addition isn't associative because the
parentheses are in different places. See, you have all the physics
right, essentially, but then form this entirely bizarre conclusion
from it.

Anyway, any time you feel like going through Chandrasekhar's book and
pointing out how he has misunderstood the "simple truth of nature"
that you alone have discovered I am all eyes.

It's not Chandrasekhar's work that's in question, it's the way it's
applied. Since most heat transport through at least the temperate and
tropical troposphere is via poorly understood convection of latent
heat, you need to explain just which model you believe in and why.
Can you describe it in enough detail to be convincing?

Often "truth" is not simple.

The issue was not latent heat transfer or deep convection, the issue was
straight radiative transfer. Anyway, early on in my participation in
this thread I already stated that latent heat was more important in terms
of total heat fluxes. But it is the radiative flux that provides the
driver for climate change. WaFoo has a pet model that he claims explains
what really goes on with radiative transfer and that CO2 actually cools
the troposphere, regardless of what the latent heat flux is doing. I
claim WaFoo's model is non-physical and cannot explain other cases like
what happens on Venus (at that point, all of a sudden, WaFoo lost
interest in explaining physics (lucky for him you are here though eh?)).

As a second part of this discussion on radiative transfer, I have been
asking him or that C-babe dude to explain what part of Chandrasekhar's
work is so wrong it needs a completely different interpretation or
explanation as to physical mechanisms. Neither would do it, instead
displaying a complete lack of understanding of logic and asking me to
prove a theory was true. snort Now you are obfuscating the issue by
bringing in latent heat transport, which is a separate matter from
radiative transfer. Do you want to take a stab at explaining the
problems with radiative transfer theory in its currently accepted form?
Or are you going to waffle and dodge like Wa-C-Foo-babe and tell me I
don't understand it (which is irrelevant really, since all I am claiming
is that it is correct)? So, clearly, you must also think radiative
transfer is wrong or you wouldn't be trying to save WaFoo's bacon with
the misdirection, point out the equations in the radiative transfer that
are wrong, and why. Then we can go on to your likely completely bizarre
and erroneous interpretation of how latent heat transfer and deep
convection occur. But first things first.

--
Bill Asher

On Oct 2, 5:28 am, William Asher wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:

snip

First, I am instantly suspicious when I hear you say phrases like:

"The premise is wrong, you can easily work the problem when the simple
truth of nature is known."

That is classic internet kook stuff.

And then it struck me that when you describe what you think is the
fundamental flaw in radiative transfer, it is like you are saying:

(1 + 1) + 2 = 4

and

1 + (1 + 2) = 4

so that this proves addition isn't associative because the parentheses are
in different places. See, you have all the physics right, essentially, but
then form this entirely bizarre conclusion from it.

Anyway, any time you feel like going through Chandrasekhar's book and
pointing out how he has misunderstood the "simple truth of nature" that
you alone have discovered I am all eyes.

--
Bill Asher
addition is not associative

2+3x5=17 or 2+3x5=25 or (2+3)x5=25 or 2+(3x5)=17
correct..........wrong..........correct........... correct.......
association and distribution are isolated from the basic rule book
the laws as agreed to by consensus unless a single exception can be
found and proven.

davee wrote in
oups.com:

addition is not associative

2+3x5=17 or 2+3x5=25 or (2+3)x5=25 or 2+(3x5)=17
correct..........wrong..........correct........... correct.......
association and distribution are isolated from the basic rule book
the laws as agreed to by consensus unless a single exception can be
found and proven.

Excellent point. But you have some multiplication in there (that's what
the little 'x' symbol means) and when you mix multiplication and
addition, they are not associative in general. Here's a website that
discusses the associativity of addition:

http://www.learningwave.com/chapters...assoc_add.html

Ask your kid or grandkid or the neighbor's kid to explain it to you if
you are still having trouble understanding what the difference is.

Finally, as a rule, you should post and then drink heavily, not vice
versa.

--
Bill Asher

On Sep 26, 4:36 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
For those who have not quite mastered the concept yet,
below is the URL to yet another simplified explanation of
CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/...xidemodels.htm

Thank you, Mr. Tom Adams and the globalchange newsgroup.http://groups.google.com/group/globa...thread/be7cb1c...

WTF is that supposed to prove ? Why not do it with puppets ?

And Venus is hot because of all the volcanoes spewing out constantly,
****ing derrrr....

There is still not a ****ing lick of evidence that CO2 is causing the
temp to increase. There is no correlation b/n CO2 production and
temp.. So the AGW cult came up with this garbage called 'radiative
forcing' which is not radiative and not forcing ! This is pure
marketing-speak, it has no scientific validity at all.

On Oct 2, 6:30 pm, William Asher wrote:
davee wrote groups.com:

addition is not associative

2+3x5=17 or 2+3x5=25 or (2+3)x5=25 or 2+(3x5)=17
correct..........wrong..........correct........... correct.......
association and distribution are isolated from the basic rule book
the laws as agreed to by consensus unless a single exception can be
found and proven.

Excellent point. But you have some multiplication in there (that's what
the little 'x' symbol means) and when you mix multiplication and
addition, they are not associative in general. Here's a website that
discusses the associativity of addition:

http://www.learningwave.com/chapters...assoc_add.html

Ask your kid or grandkid or the neighbor's kid to explain it to you if
you are still having trouble understanding what the difference is.

Finally, as a rule, you should post and then drink heavily, not vice
versa.

--
Bill Asher

again a literal translation. you were using brackets where they dont
need to be.You did not illustrate the basic rules of mathematics
properly. BODMAS........

On Oct 2, 7:19 pm, davee wrote:
On Oct 2, 6:30 pm, William Asher wrote:





davee wrote groups.com:

addition is not associative

2+3x5=17 or 2+3x5=25 or (2+3)x5=25 or 2+(3x5)=17
correct..........wrong..........correct........... correct.......
association and distribution are isolated from the basic rule book
the laws as agreed to by consensus unless a single exception can be
found and proven.

Excellent point. But you have some multiplication in there (that's what
the little 'x' symbol means) and when you mix multiplication and
addition, they are not associative in general. Here's a website that
discusses the associativity of addition:

http://www.learningwave.com/chapters...assoc_add.html

Ask your kid or grandkid or the neighbor's kid to explain it to you if
you are still having trouble understanding what the difference is.

Finally, as a rule, you should post and then drink heavily, not vice
versa.

--
Bill Asher

again a literal translation. you were using brackets where they dont
need to be.You did not illustrate the basic rules of mathematics
properly. BODMAS........

1+2+3=2+1+3=3+1+2=6
dont need brackets because the result is the same because the
fundamental law (Brackets then Powers and roots then division and
multiplication and lastly addition and subtraction) is followed in
order.

I quoted an exception.

1+2x3=7, 2x3+1=7, 1+2x3=9 is false because the order of operation is
not followed. (1+2) the brackets force this calculation first because
of the rule book which is agreed to by consensus.

BW wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:28:11 +0000, William Asher wrote:
See, you have all the physics right, essentially,
but then form this entirely bizarre conclusion from it.

Anyway, any time you feel like going through Chandrasekhar's book and
pointing out how he has misunderstood the "simple truth of nature" that
you alone have discovered I am all eyes.

It's not Chandrasekhar's work that's in question, it's the way it's
applied. Since most heat transport through at least the temperate and
tropical troposphere is via poorly understood convection of latent heat,
you need to explain just which model you believe in and why. Can you
describe it in enough detail to be convincing?

Often "truth" is not simple.

Referencing an author is another meaningless way of
avoiding discussion, as if a single energy transfer process could
account for atmospheric physics with the bulk of the atmosphere
being two gases unable to radiate much in IR, along with CO2
and H2O which can act in a number of different ways that can
warm or cool.

But I was really worried that N2 and O2 could not radiate,
because they absorb heat in several ways, from the sun, and
even other sources of thermal energy at high temperatures can
heat them to rather high temperatures.

This thread has helped me a lot, seeing that CO2 can play
a major role in cooling the planet, though not as great as water
vapor, nevertheless, a very major role.

The emission of IR in all directions by CO2 explains a lot
of things satisfactorily, because there can be thousands of absorptions
and re-emissions per second, and the rate of transfer is not restricted
as is that of the sun to a stable source of thermal energy, or to radiation
from one temperature value.

The sun adds the energy to the pipe, and because a unit portion
of energy can be radiated, absorbed, and re-radiated many times in
a unit portion of time, any excess energy can be radiated away, and
the system stabilizes.

This rapid fire absorption and re-radiation is perfect as an
assistance to the broadband radiation of liquid water, the IR radiation
of water vapor, and the latent heat transport processes in cooling
all materials in the atmosphere and liquid and solid surface of the
planet.

The fact that it can occur at the speed of light, and in rapid
fire manner seems to make any mathematical treatment seem
inadequate in description of the cooling dynamics.
It is all about cooling, it always was, it never was about
warming, whoever thought warming was a problem.

On Oct 2, 2:42 am, person wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:36 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

For those who have not quite mastered the concept yet,
below is the URL to yet another simplified explanation of
CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/...xidemodels.htm

Thank you, Mr. Tom Adams and the globalchange newsgroup.http://groups.google.com/group/globa...thread/be7cb1c...

WTF is that supposed to prove ? Why not do it with puppets ?

And Venus is hot because of all the volcanoes spewing out constantly,
****ing derrrr....

You are an idiot.


There is still not a ****ing lick of evidence that CO2 is causing the
temp to increase.


You are a total idiot.

There is no correlation b/n CO2 production and
temp..

Who cannot understand science or read a graph.

So the AGW cult came up with this garbage called 'radiative
forcing' which is not radiative and not forcing ! This is pure
marketing-speak, it has no scientific validity at all.

Like you have any knowledge of science! LOL!

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:24:52 -0400, Whata Fool wrote:

David wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:58:38 -0400, Whata Fool wrote:
Apparently it has been, but only not fully considered as
possibly causing cooling.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/20...mosphere.shtml

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?titl...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

CO2 has been specified as the cooling agent of the atmosphere,
but apparently the AGW premise is that it warms the surface.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...kinin-fox.html

The surface is only warmed by sunlight and by the heat
retaining molecules of N2 and O2, any downward longwave
radiation is instantly radiated upward by broadband by the
surface.
How AGW claims of CO2 causing warming is difficult
to understand. The ability of the surface to radiate infrared
as quickly as it is absorbed does not seem to be consistent
with the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 as
only a cooling agent is consistent with the high Diurnal Temperature
Range on clear nights with dry air.

How can theory get turned upside down, could temperatures
actually be warmer if there was no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

It just kills you don't it? Give up. Learn to swim.

I don't know of any place where the water is warm enough
to suit me now, but I learned to swim in a creek in 1934.

Time for all the enlightened to learn a new script, back
to the global cooling, as CO2 concentrations go up, the atmosphere
has to get cooler.


You must be old or something. What abouth methane?