On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 22, 11:50*pm, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing

wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:06*pm, abelard wrote:

btw what's wrong with the experiment on venus?

What experiment on venus?

it's as hot as mercury and much further out....
the global warming conspiracy reckons it's a greenhouse
* * *effect (term used to annoy you :-) )

You make the elementary error of confusing heat energy and
temperature.

I would bet you that if you check the range of temperatures
experienced on mercury it would be much greater than the range of
temperatures experienced on venus.

doubtless...
but what has that to do with average temperatures?

Unlike mercury venus has an
atmosphere and a particularly viscous one at that.

that is at the centre of global warming claims....
an atmosphere more viscous...to heat transfers.....

This fluid
atmosphere stores heat in the form of the translational energy of the
molecules that comprise it just as a pan of hot water or even a cup of
tea will store heat energy for a considerable time after they have
been heated.

not sure why you make this point...read on
we live in that pan....if t gets hotter much changes for the biosphere

as with link i last quoted to you....

Mercury on the other hand is no more than a chunk of rock orbitting
the sun. The sun side of this rock is heated during the Mercurian day
and temperatures will rise much higher than any on Venus. During the
night this heat will be dissipated into space by normal radiative
emission and temperatures will fall lower than any place on earth.

ok....but where are 'we' going....read on some more

For the same reason the surface of the airless moon will become more
torrid than any place on earth during the lunar day. At night it
becomes much colder than any place on earth. Nobody says the earth is
warmer than the moon.

a few metres below surface, perhaps the equivalent to
atmospheric conditions on earth....maybe 20*c below
ah, here's more
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surf...mperature.html

try making your case about the spectroscopic thingy for outgoing
* * *radiation....your claim about incoming radiation is persuasive
* * *to gullible me....

I was talking of outgoing radiation!

i did wonder....that at least is a positive change....

A plant consists essentially of cellulose, water, a little starch and
small amounts of various sugars dissolved in the water.

and lignin?

Lignin forms when living plant material (sapwood) dies and becomes
heartwood. Heartwood contains a lower proportion of water than sapwood
and so is much less susceptable to decay. I think this is what your
man means and is the reason why peoples in hot countries lay out meat,
fish and soft fruits in the sun so as to preserve them and why hay and
straw are placed in stooks and stacks.

Bugger all to do with CO2.

i'll believe you....
but the article is still claiming much more material formed....
higher temperatures also increasing formation...

which may move more quickly towards a new/faster carbon
balance/sequestration if we give it time, as some speculate....


the following is not much but also interesting....to me...
http://environment.newscientist.com/...rbon-sink.html
"A seasonal bloom of ocean plankton fertilised by the Amazon river
pulls much more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than researchers
had previously supposed.

The unexpected bloom may, in fact, be enough to turn the tropical
Atlantic Ocean from a net source of atmospheric carbon into a net
sink."

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:51:28 GMT, Paul Hyett
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 at 21:06:35, abelard wrote in
uk.sci.weather :

i don't believe it
btw what's wrong with the experiment on venus?

I've often wondered what the surface temperature of Venus would be, if
its atmospheric composition were the same as Earth's?

much lower according to all claims....


some calculations here....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/glo...hp#watervapour

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

As it stands at present, the science points to CO2 probably (always
probably) being the cause of the present warming. Probably around 90%
certain (IPCC). Some obviously don't like that - tough, really. No-
one's listening because they know you are highly likely to be wrong.
But that's where we stand and that's why the politicians are right to
take steps to begin to deal with the (probably) coming problem.

the arrogance is amusing though

regards...

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 23, 9:27 am, "John Bennett"
wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

...

Youre a ****ing idiot.

On what evidence do you base your theory that,Paul, has ever ****ed? :-))

Quite right but the term "stupid idiot" has lost a lot of its cachet
in the hi tech age of online ****wittedery.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

I'm so glad that no-one is listening to some of this morning's stuff.
Some of them abusive, from the usual quarters. Some of it quite
ridiculous. Some people thinking no-one has put any thought into this
subject except themselves.

As it stands at present, the science points to CO2 probably (always
probably) being the cause of the present warming. Probably around 90%
certain (IPCC). Some obviously don't like that - tough, really. No-
one's listening because they know you are highly likely to be wrong.
But that's where we stand and that's why the politicians are right to
take steps to begin to deal with the (probably) coming problem.

you may find the stuff linked here as useful...
http://www.abelard.org/news/science0..._method_070108

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 23, 12:44*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:23*am, "Gaz" wrote:

I'm so glad that no-one is listening to some of this morning's stuff.
Some of them abusive, from the usual quarters. Some of it quite
ridiculous. Some people thinking no-one has put any thought into this
subject except themselves.

Nobody is saying that those who (out of knowledge) promote AGW theory)
are daft. Quite the contrary!

Of course these objections have been addressed. The problem is that
more theory has been used in support of an initial theory.

The most important of these centres on the true fact that at low
pressures such as those found in the upper atmosphere, the absorption
lines broaden allowing frequencies previously transmitted to be
blocked.

The first question I would ask here is when we talk of global warming,
are we talking of a phenomenon that affects us here on the surface of
the earth or something that is happening 30,40 or 50 thousand feet
above our heads? If a temperature change measured in terms of tenths
of a degree way up there has such a significant effect down here then
by what mechanism?

The second question is more basic. All solar energy reaching the earth
must eventually leave it by means of radiation (since space is a near
perfect vacuum) However, only the very smallest proportion of heat
leaving the surface of the earth leaves either in the form of IR or if
it does reaches outer space directly. The earth surface cools
essentially through convection and latent heat used in the evaporation
of water. That radiation that is emitted is mmostly absorbed most
significantly by water vapour rather than CO2. These are the reasons
why at all times the surface of the earth is significantly warmer than
at altitude.

Radiation is signicant not here on the earth surface but at altitude
where water vapour is relatively absent and, although the proportions
of atmospheric constituent gases remain exactly the same the partial
pressures (concentrations) of all of them are much much lower and so
the relative spectroscopic properties of these gases are less
relevant. Radiation can occur from there relatively unimpeded.

So now I advanced the argument a stage further. I've no doubt that if
I delved further into the literature I would find suggested answers to
those questions also but that is hardly the point.

The AGW argument has acquired a momentum of its own and there are far
too many people involved (TV presenters, website compilers,
politicians, journalists, band wagon climbers, free loaders), some
influential, some less so, who lack the academic background necessary
even to appreciate the complexities of the issue let alone anything
else.

You apparently rank amongst their number.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jul 23, 6:16 am, "Redman" wrote:
"Robert S" wrote in message

...





On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you
wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.

Just killfile abelard, he's just a sad retard, he has a vested interest
like
all the GW loony scientists

Redman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thousands of scientists who, through examination of the science, feel
that CO2 is probably going to be found to be the cause of GW. All
loony retards.

I think that says little about them and much about you.

Paul

We will eventually see who has the last laugh and I'll bet it's me,
remember, this is some of the same scientists that were predicting a mini
Ice Age in the 70's, I'm still waiting for that to materialise

Redman

On 23 Jul, 17:37, "Redman" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jul 23, 6:16 am, "Redman" wrote:



"Robert S" wrote in message

...

On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you
wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.

Just killfile abelard, he's just a sad retard, he has a vested interest
like
all the GW loony scientists

Redman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thousands of scientists who, through examination of the science, feel
that CO2 is probably going to be found to be the cause of GW. All
loony retards.

I think that says little about them and much about you.

Paul

We will eventually see who has the last laugh and I'll bet it's me,
remember, this is some of the same scientists that were predicting a mini
Ice Age in the 70's, I'm still waiting for that to materialise

There are scientists who disagree with man-made global warming. And
it's not a democracy.

It'll get there in the end. But it takes time - group think and people
chasing grant money gives the thing inertia.

The politicization of science is the major danger though.

"John Bennett" wrote in message
...



Consider the facts Paul, the last glacier in the British isles disappeared
some time in the fifteenth century.

Really?
Have you any evidence of this?
And it has to be a proper glacier, not just rather more extensive
patches of snow that never melt in the summer.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking.

This may be true for the centre of the 15 micron band but there are
several fundamental bands of CO2 absorption. There is another strong
one about 4 microns, plus there are numerous weaker overtones,
combination bands, hot bands and isotopic bands. Many of these bands
are not saturated and increading levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will
lead to increased absorption.

These bands do not have a sharp edge as they are made up of many
individual absorption lines. The weaker lines at the edge of the 15
micron band are not saturated and increasing CO2 will cause this band
to broaden the region it absorbs over.