On Oct 12, 3:54*am, Tom P wrote:
chemist wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:06 pm, Tom P wrote:
chemist wrote:
I will bet that Roger Coppock's progeny cannot demonstrate
*that Ethane is *a dangerous greenhouse gas using
a *greenhouse gas experiment of their choice.
It warms at *the same rate as air in the experiment
that "proves" CO2 is a GHG and:
it melts as much Ice as air in the the the that "proves"
that Methane is a GHG.
Firstly, ethane is a greenhouse gas. This can be determined by examining
its IR spectrum. *You can look up the spectrum or read about it in the
literature. You are a chemist, aren't you?

* Secondly, what do you mean by dangerous? The gas itself or its
presence in the atmosphere? *At a concentration of less than 1ppb it can
hardly be considered dangerous.

You daft bat . If it cannot be demonstrated to be greenhouse gas
by experimental means then no other gas can be either.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...ed6060 2f09fa
' Try looking up the definition of a greenhouse gas:

'"A gas, such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane,
' chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
that
' absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation"

' You are a chemist, aren't you?

You cannot demonstrate that the 'greenhouse gases' inordinately absorb
infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is pure energy which can be
quantified according to hv. Your theoretical interpretaion of the dark
spectroscopic bands cannot stand up to actual scientific
investigation.

If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10
feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.

This is because the gas molecules all absorb infrared and emit
infrared. The dark spectroscopic bands are not absorption bands, but
bands at which the CO2 does not radiate. The gas molecules absorb
radiant energy and emit this energy in the continuous spectrum of the
infrared.

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.

All molecules, such as liquids and solids have bands in their infrared
spectrum, but all substances reach the same temperature in cavity
oven, demonstrating that overal absorption and emission is not
dependent upon the substance. This is the primary theorem from
Kirchoff, 1859, which began the proper school of theory culminating
with Planck and Einstein, who clearly defined radiation energy as
packets or photons.

Since the gas molecules of O2 and N2 are absorbing and radiating at
these frequencies, they do not produce the dark bands. But the small
amounts of CO2 defeat the production of these frequencies. Since
generally the gas molecules absorb a photon and then radiate the
energy near to the energy of the absorbed photon, the production of
the frequenies is defeated. This causes the experimental fact of no
effect upon temperature of the gases because the energy is simply
radiated at other frequencies.

To define CO2 and other gases as you do, you therefore must
differentiate these gases to those you claim to not be greenhouse
gases such as N2 and O2.

In your theory you claim non-greenhouse gases only exchange energy by
conduction or collision of the molecules. These energies are clearly
defined by Boltzman by kT, and RT. kT is the average energy of a
molecule. RT is the total energy of the molecules in 1 mole of gas due
to their motions and collisions.

It is not difficult to prove that N2 transfers far more energy to
solid surfaces than can be accounted for by mere collisions.

The concept of 'greenhouse gases' was dropped by modern chemistry in
the early 20th century due to proper experimental techniques and lack
of experimental data to confirm the postulate. It was revived in the
1960's by theoretical scientists, still with no direct laboaratory
evidence.

Someday this simple proof of the fallacy of this cocept will be the
DEATH NELL of the greenie movement.and the so called 'scientists' of
theoretical physics who have no connection with experimental reality
in their use of such words as 'greenhouse' gases and 'infrared
radiation', 'energy' or 'temperature'.

The movement to control GHG's according to the theory that these gases
are to cause drastic changes in climate can be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, to be clear CRIMINAL FRAUD.

KD
The AGWBunnies
Beating their little drum for their holy war against modern society,,,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10
feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
[SNIP]
..
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem to get
are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given the range of
error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and fibbery seem to be a
major focus as well.
..
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to indicate that
what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all the computer-modeling
spam. Can you point me at a reference to who did that spectral experiment
you mention and first remembered to check the temperature as the composition
changed?
..
Thanks in advance...
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email:
Softwa http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
wrote:

" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10
feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
[SNIP]
.
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem to get
are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given the range of
error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and fibbery seem to be a
major focus as well.
.
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to indicate that
what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all the computer-modeling
spam. Can you point me at a reference to who did that spectral experiment
you mention and first remembered to check the temperature as the composition
changed?
.
Thanks in advance...

Can you be more specific, would spectra show
what you want, I don't think spectra shows quantity
or rate of energy transfer.

Careful with Kd wording, he sometimes omits
the confidence factor.

As far as GHGs go, I think an experiment with
just plastic sheet that is transparent to all LWIR bands
could be used in a long hallway to determine how
much absorption and emission each gas or gas
mixture is capable of.

Dry nitrogen is readily available, as is CO2,
and water vapor is easy to make. and very accurate
thermal addition to a gas is easy to measure using
electric resistance heat input.

If a gas emits and absorbs as claimed, the
gas in one compartment warmed, should warm
the same gas in another compartment in the
hallway.

A result greater than in the middle troposphere
should be expected because the hallway will almost
certainly be warmer than the atmosphere.

I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
like this have not been done, the classroom demos
are not scientific at all.


I also wonder about the claim of how much
the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
then a square meter air column would have to
radiate that much.

Things like this are what makes skeptics
skeptical, even handling of the UHI should be
more appropriate, there is essentially no UHI
when it rains quite a bit, but in most cities in
moderate zones there is at least 3 degrees
UHI on a dry day.
3 degrees would make a big change
in the data since most stations used are in
cities or airports.

And it is discouraging that more definite
information is not available, it seems satellite
data always shows cooler temperatures than
the surface stations.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:

" wrote in message
news:d57d1c91-df12-489d-807e-
...
[SNIP]
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10 feet
of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE
IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
[SNIP]
.
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem to
get are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given the
range of error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and fibbery
seem to be a major focus as well.
.
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to indicate
that what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all the
computer-modeling spam. Can you point me at a reference to who did that
spectral experiment you mention and first remembered to check the
temperature as the composition changed?
.
Thanks in advance...


You may want to try searching for "photoacoustic CO2 analysis", or "non-
dispersive IR gas detection".

There are commercially successful gas detectors that work by detecting
the small changes in pressure that occur when a sample absorbs a chopped
beam of IR.

Here's a paper on a CO2 detector using the 1.5u line:

http://www.if.pwr.wroc.pl/~optappl/pdf/2008/no2/optappl_3802p341.pdf

Figure 1 on pg 343 has a schematic diagram. It would be hard to deny
that CO2 absorbs IR, since the resulting heat is what causes the pressure
changes.

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
wrote:

" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10
feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
[SNIP]
.
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem to
get
are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given the range
of
error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and fibbery seem to be a
major focus as well.
.
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to indicate
that
what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all the
computer-modeling
spam. Can you point me at a reference to who did that spectral experiment
you mention and first remembered to check the temperature as the
composition
changed?
.
Thanks in advance...

Can you be more specific, would spectra show
what you want, I don't think spectra shows quantity
or rate of energy transfer.
..
I'm looking for experiments measuring temperature variation in response to
compositional changes conducted in the presence of constant total incident
radiation.
..
So far, KD's description is the closest fit to what I'm looking for - but
without a citation I've got no idea who, when or how the work was
undertaken.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email:
Softwa http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net

"Bill Ward" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:

" wrote in message
news:d57d1c91-df12-489d-807e-
...
[SNIP]
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication of
ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of CO2
are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2 for
the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about 10 feet
of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE
IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
[SNIP]
.
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem to
get are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given the
range of error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and fibbery
seem to be a major focus as well.
.
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to indicate
that what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all the
computer-modeling spam. Can you point me at a reference to who did that
spectral experiment you mention and first remembered to check the
temperature as the composition changed?
.
Thanks in advance...


You may want to try searching for "photoacoustic CO2 analysis", or "non-
dispersive IR gas detection".

There are commercially successful gas detectors that work by detecting
the small changes in pressure that occur when a sample absorbs a chopped
beam of IR.

Here's a paper on a CO2 detector using the 1.5u line:

http://www.if.pwr.wroc.pl/~optappl/pdf/2008/no2/optappl_3802p341.pdf

Figure 1 on pg 343 has a schematic diagram. It would be hard to deny
that CO2 absorbs IR, since the resulting heat is what causes the pressure
changes.
..
It would be hard to deny that CO2 absorbs IR, since we are yet to discover a
material from which a perfect white-body can be made. Not quite what I'm
looking for, but thanks anyway.
..
I'm after published documentation of experiments measuring
_temperature_variation_ (not pressure, not thermal radiation) in response to
compositional changes conducted in the presence of constant total incident
radiation.
..
So far, KD's description is the closest fit to what I'm looking for - but
without a citation I've got no idea who, when or how the work was
undertaken.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email:
Softwa http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
like this have not been done, the classroom demos
are not scientific at all.
..
That shoots my lit survey down in flames before I even get to the juicy
bits. Are you sure nobody's published anything here?
..
I also wonder about the claim of how much
the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
then a square meter air column would have to
radiate that much.
..
A square metre of surface gets a lot more from thermal contact conductance
between air and surface I think. The Wood experiment demonstrated this in
1909.
..
Things like this are what makes skeptics
skeptical, even handling of the UHI should be
more appropriate, there is essentially no UHI
when it rains quite a bit, but in most cities in
moderate zones there is at least 3 degrees
UHI on a dry day.
3 degrees would make a big change
in the data since most stations used are in
cities or airports.
..
Methinks UHI follows an inflected hyperbola between two parallel
asymptotes - something _like_ (not equal to) the arc tan function. You have
the natural mean at the base, and the maximum potential temperature if every
square centimetre of the planet was urbanised up top. The problem with
fitting the curve is that even in terms of reading error, the range of error
exceeds the instrumental record's mean variation over the last 130 years. In
other words, that means the instrumental variation is not statistically
significant. In English, this makes the instrumental variation 0. So why
bother trying to get an inferred satellite equivalent temperature from data
that still has an error of plus or minus half a degree Kelvin without the
urban contamination and Stevenson screen siting errors?
..
The satellite margin of error is much less, not relying on apes to divide
millimetre graduations, and the trends are, in this case, of statistical
significance. Extrapolating this curve backwards would be interesting but
UHI corrected instrument readings would be an invalid estimate given the
degree (or rather, half degree) of error.
..
Sea surface and marine sediment isotopic studies are a good solid bet.
Unless there is documented evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable
to assume that, being diurnal, evaporative cooling at sea is cancelled out
by condensation warming. Overall trends in satellite and isotope studies
correspond, so this is probably the better basis for correction of UHI prior
to the satellite record.
..
And it is discouraging that more definite
information is not available, it seems satellite
data always shows cooler temperatures than
the surface stations.
..
Well, the atmosphere is cooler than the concrete, which is why Stevenson
screens are supposed to be situated two metres above lawn turf (and isolated
from exhaust and building heat). It would be interesting to compare the
degree and distribution of geographic variations in the satellite data with
that of the instrumental record - as this is where I'd expect to see the
true nature of the human touch.
..
Why trust a person do a computer's job, eh?
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email:
Softwa http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:27:25 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
.. .
[SNIP]
I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
like this have not been done, the classroom demos
are not scientific at all.
.
That shoots my lit survey down in flames before I even get to the juicy
bits. Are you sure nobody's published anything here?

There isn't much in the way of science posted
here, this is a discussion group, with a lot of speculation.

.
I also wonder about the claim of how much
the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
then a square meter air column would have to
radiate that much.
.
A square metre of surface gets a lot more from thermal contact conductance
between air and surface I think. The Wood experiment demonstrated this in
1909.

Well, on clear nights, the surface (not the air near
the surface directly) is being cooled at a rapid rate, that
is the reason for frost and dew.

How this radiational cooling is handled in the
computer models, I don't know.

.
Things like this are what makes skeptics
skeptical, even handling of the UHI should be
more appropriate, there is essentially no UHI
when it rains quite a bit, but in most cities in
moderate zones there is at least 3 degrees
UHI on a dry day.
3 degrees would make a big change
in the data since most stations used are in
cities or airports.
.
Methinks UHI follows an inflected hyperbola between two parallel
asymptotes - something _like_ (not equal to) the arc tan function. You have
the natural mean at the base, and the maximum potential temperature if every
square centimetre of the planet was urbanised up top. The problem with
fitting the curve is that even in terms of reading error, the range of error
exceeds the instrumental record's mean variation over the last 130 years. In
other words, that means the instrumental variation is not statistically
significant. In English, this makes the instrumental variation 0. So why
bother trying to get an inferred satellite equivalent temperature from data
that still has an error of plus or minus half a degree Kelvin without the
urban contamination and Stevenson screen siting errors?
.
The satellite margin of error is much less, not relying on apes to divide
millimetre graduations, and the trends are, in this case, of statistical
significance. Extrapolating this curve backwards would be interesting but
UHI corrected instrument readings would be an invalid estimate given the
degree (or rather, half degree) of error.
.
Sea surface and marine sediment isotopic studies are a good solid bet.
Unless there is documented evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable
to assume that, being diurnal, evaporative cooling at sea is cancelled out
by condensation warming. Overall trends in satellite and isotope studies
correspond, so this is probably the better basis for correction of UHI prior
to the satellite record.
.
And it is discouraging that more definite
information is not available, it seems satellite
data always shows cooler temperatures than
the surface stations.
.
Well, the atmosphere is cooler than the concrete, which is why Stevenson
screens are supposed to be situated two metres above lawn turf (and isolated
from exhaust and building heat). It would be interesting to compare the
degree and distribution of geographic variations in the satellite data with
that of the instrumental record - as this is where I'd expect to see the
true nature of the human touch.
.
Why trust a person do a computer's job, eh?
.

My contention is that UHI is mostly due to dry
surfaces and the loss of evaporative cooling in cities
and airports, the area immediately close by the recorder
may not be the only factor, the air all over a city or an
airport may be warmer because of loss of evaporation
from vegetation and surfaces.

My car has a pretty good outdoor digital thermometer,
and if I just drive through a grove of trees on a hot day in
the city, the temperature drops 4 degrees F.

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:27:25 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
. ..
[SNIP]
I find it very odd that all kinds of experiments
like this have not been done, the classroom demos
are not scientific at all.
.
That shoots my lit survey down in flames before I even get to the juicy
bits. Are you sure nobody's published anything here?

There isn't much in the way of science posted
here, this is a discussion group, with a lot of speculation.

.
I also wonder about the claim of how much
the atmosphere radiates downward, if a square
meter of the surface is supposed to receive n.watts,
then a square meter air column would have to
radiate that much.
.
A square metre of surface gets a lot more from thermal contact conductance
between air and surface I think. The Wood experiment demonstrated this in
1909.

Well, on clear nights, the surface (not the air near
the surface directly) is being cooled at a rapid rate, that
is the reason for frost and dew.
..
Drop the incident radiation, and what gets dumped out into the tropopause
isn't coming back until tomorrow - but when we measure atmospheric temps. we
use the combination of thermometer glass and stevenson screen to exclude, as
much as practical, radiant heat.
..
How this radiational cooling is handled in the
computer models, I don't know.
..
[SNIP]
My contention is that UHI is mostly due to dry
surfaces and the loss of evaporative cooling in cities
and airports, the area immediately close by the recorder
may not be the only factor, the air all over a city or an
airport may be warmer because of loss of evaporation
from vegetation and surfaces.

My car has a pretty good outdoor digital thermometer,
and if I just drive through a grove of trees on a hot day in
the city, the temperature drops 4 degrees F.
..
I agree that vegetation has an important effect on climate. White (1994,
"After the Greening: The Browning of Australia") is an eye-opener.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email:
Softwa http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:00:31 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 21, 1:49Â*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:13:02 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
" wrote in message
news:d57d1c91-df12-489d-807e-

...





[SNIP]
If particular gases absorb infrared and others do not, this could be
clearly demonstrated by TEMPERATURE since temperature is indication
of ENERGY, and increased temperature is indication of and requires
increased ENERGY.

If one has pure O2 and N2 in a chamber, the dark spectral bands of
CO2 are not present. When one adds CO2, it doesn'e take very much CO2
for the bands to appear. These bands appear within 3 meters or about
10 feet of passage of infrared through the gases. BUT NO EFFECT ON
TEMPERATURE IS DETECTABLE.

If there is any effect upon temperature it must occur with these few
meters in which the dark bands appear. BUT THE SCIENTIFIC FACT IS NO
EFFECT UPON TEMPERATURE CAN BE DETECTED.
[SNIP]
.
I've been looking for reading material on the experimental effects of
compositional changes to temperature in gas mixtures - but all I seem
to get are computer models based on conjecture, supposition and given
the range of error (eg. 5 deg plus or minus 4.5); fairy tales and
fibbery seem to be a major focus as well.
.
I'm at my wit's end with this, but what you just said seems to
indicate that what I'm looking for _is_ buried *somewhere* under all
the computer-modeling spam. Can you point me at a reference to who
did that spectral experiment you mention and first remembered to
check the temperature as the composition changed? .
Thanks in advance...

You may want to try searching for "photoacoustic CO2 analysis", or
"non- dispersive IR gas detection".

There are commercially successful gas detectors that work by detecting
the small changes in pressure that occur when a sample absorbs a
chopped beam of IR.

Here's a paper on a CO2 detector using the 1.5u line:

http://www.if.pwr.wroc.pl/~optappl/pdf/2008/no2/optappl_3802p341.pdf

Figure 1 on pg 343 has a schematic diagram. Â*It would be hard to deny
that CO2 absorbs IR, since the resulting heat is what causes the
pressure changes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Screw you Bill ward. You are a subterfuege for the greenie weenies. You
refer to this Gdamn detector and you cannot point to actual scientific
documentation of the property? Because you have none, and are promoting
a fraud with your reference to these detectors.

Your attempt to prove the property of greenhouse gases in this INDIRECT,
INVALID AND NON-SCIENTIFIC MEANS, puts you and the weenies with their
petulant eduction in supposed 'physics', as equally culpable with the
greenie weenies.

You cannot define science, or submit science to back up a damn thing you
say. If the carbon tax goes through, you and your creed will be held
partially responsible for the serious crime of this fraud.

Well, KD, what are you going to tell 20 years worth of happy, repeat
customers for NDIR CO2 detectors? Google "NDIR CO2" and take your pick.

For example, here's an excerpt from an app note by Airflow:

"The IAQ920 measures carbon dioxide concentration by relying on one of
the natural properties of CO2 molecules: CO2 molecules absorb light at a
specific wavelength of 4.26 μm. This wavelength is in the infrared (IR)
range. High concentrations of CO2 molecules absorb more light than low
concentrations. This technique is called non-dispersive infrared (NDIR)
detection."

That's also true for 15u, but the gas would need to be chilled to about
200K (-73C) to read it.

Stick your little detectors up your ass and get a reading, greenie
weenie sucker.

Your reference to these is fraud, if you cannot submit a formal
scientific documentation of full analysis of variables which shows the
CO2 to have inordinate absorption of infrared.

Is successful commercial application proof enough?

http://www.tsi.com/en-1033/models/3976/iaq920.aspx

There are also a number of patents, but they don't really prove much.

Also, it can be proved that you are mathematically inept, it you cannot
quantify the energy of a gas by RT and it's heat capacity, in relation
to the actual energy which can be contained and transfered by the gas.

There is no validity to your ideas on heat and energy. The relative
values of energy of heat capacity of water and air is about 3200 for
volume, meaning the heat for 1degC of 1cc of water can raise the
temperature for 1cc of air by about 3200degC. This means your beliefs
from classical science of waves and energy are entirely false.

You are only supporting the fraud of AGW with your fraudulent
theoretical rendering. This fact is duly noted, retard.

You need to pay more attention to my posts.

And calm down. Your eccentric rants aren't helping show anyone how we
know AGW is a fraud - they just raise questions about your stability.