On Oct 23, 1:43 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote:

This is one of the guys (qzectb), that uses the recievers at the
surface to analyze atmospheric radiation. In order to keep their
funding and favoratism with their high priest, Dancin Hansen, in any
of their studies regardless of the instrument, or the study, they
reach the conclusion that is consistent with Dancin Hansens
contribution to the ICPP and the ICpp's conslusion, that 3.5Wm-2 of
outgoing radiation is returned to the surface due to the increased
TRACE gases caused since the beginnning of industrialization.

They give only limited data from their instruments, but brag about how
much public money they are spending, so therefore you should believe
their unsupported statements.

In Dancin Hansen's most recent paper, June 2007,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...sen_etal_2.pdf

he talks considerably about what he calls 'long lived trace gases'. He
attributes a considerable value to the forcing of these trace gases
during the climate changes of the ice ages. Yet his consideration does
not include the supposed, 'feedback', effects of the increasing water
vapor with temperature. He barely mentions water vapor at all, and
gives no quantified values for water vapor. Of the supposed 150Wm-2
required for increase of 33C at 287K, almost all of this must be water
vapor.

It seems that Dancin Hansen knows of the data from these forms of
instruments, in which they cannot quantify the grenhouse effect from
these instruments and water vapor, which can be studied in varying
atmospheric concentrations.

So he is apparently covering his ass, by omitting water vapor from
what he produces to be an important document to the science of
climatology, as only the HIGH priest can deliver. In doing this he
leaves his little Bunnies such as 'qzectb' out on the limb, with their
theoretical format, which must include water vapor, or they must
entirely remodel their grenhouse theory to better fit their data.

Along with his vague quantifications for 1ppm reductions of GTG's, and
his irrational, indirect, and implied scaremongering of methane and
his suggestion that worldwide methane be reduced by 1/3. He doesnot
mention that as a longlived grenhouse gas. Methane in actuallity
decomposes to CO2 in 10 yrs.

Only outside analyses of Hansen's statistics revealed his 'error' that
made it seem that recent years were warmer than the 1930's. His
arrogance and willingness to promote his junk science without
supportive evidence, is clearly exemplified in this paper which was
published before he was caught using his fudged statistics.

He now proposes the propaganda slant, that he is justified in
distorting and falsifying his data due to the inherent value of the
holy mission of the AGW'ists and their cult of profit and
superstition, and that all of the little Bunnies should be proud of
him, for his overzealous attempt to support the cause of AGW.

KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

Dear RoidrAge:

Aren't you the same guy that was hyperventilating because you had
completely misinterpreted the Trenburth et al. paper on estimating the
radiative forcing from greenhouse gases? I'm pretty sure it was you. Let
me see .... Oh yeah, here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/ywu7vc

If you are so completely clueless about something as simple as that, I find
it hard to believe you are saying anything more intelligent now.

Semper furia!

--
Bill Asher-

To divide surface area by four and divide incoming radiation by this
value, is nonsense, if the energy is not instantly transmitted and the
surface area is not exactly the same temperature at alll points. But
mechanically inept idiots like you exist, and thus trenberth has an
his audience of fools and believers.

If you could even do the most basic of physics, you certainly would
not be defending this stupid paper and it's invalid theoretical
curves.

At least this asshole.trenberth, knew better than to put the peak
intensity in the wrong place. But he has a false slope to the
theoretical curve to better fit the premise that certain wavelengths
are 'missing', and to imply an importance for earth radiation at 15um
which does not exists.

Oh by the way, mathematical slug, 1 Wm-2 is enough energy to equate to
the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere and raise it 1C in 120
days. Come on, dillweed, the math is not that hard.

1 joule per second, over surface area of the earth with radius about
6400 kilometers, 4pir^2 your formula for area,
Mass of atmosphere, I think 10^21 grams,
Heat capacity of air, about 29 Joules per mol per degree,
Molar weight of 80% N2 and 20% O2 about 29.

Why can't you chumps ever talk math?
You repeat your little chunk of Wm-2 recital all the time, even
trenberth recognizes that it is 150Wm-2 from 240Wm-2 to 490Wm-2 which
is 57F.

So you idiots think that about 4Wm-2 is 'missing' due to trace gases
because your high priest says so?
This would raise the temperature of the atmosphere !C in 30 days.

Also the actual Boltzman Stefan equation is in ergs and centimeters,.
5.67E-5 ergs,, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4

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

wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:43 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote:

This is one of the guys (qzectb), that uses the recievers at the
surface to analyze atmospheric radiation. In order to keep their
funding and favoratism with their high priest, Dancin Hansen, in
any of their studies regardless of the instrument, or the study,
they reach the conclusion that is consistent with Dancin Hansens
contribution to the ICPP and the ICpp's conslusion, that 3.5Wm-2 of
outgoing radiation is returned to the surface due to the increased
TRACE gases caused since the beginnning of industrialization.

They give only limited data from their instruments, but brag about
how much public money they are spending, so therefore you should
believe their unsupported statements.

In Dancin Hansen's most recent paper, June 2007,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...sen_etal_2.pdf

he talks considerably about what he calls 'long lived trace gases'.
He attributes a considerable value to the forcing of these trace
gases during the climate changes of the ice ages. Yet his
consideration does not include the supposed, 'feedback', effects of
the increasing water vapor with temperature. He barely mentions
water vapor at all, and gives no quantified values for water vapor.
Of the supposed 150Wm-2 required for increase of 33C at 287K,
almost all of this must be water vapor.

It seems that Dancin Hansen knows of the data from these forms of
instruments, in which they cannot quantify the grenhouse effect
from these instruments and water vapor, which can be studied in
varying atmospheric concentrations.

So he is apparently covering his ass, by omitting water vapor from
what he produces to be an important document to the science of
climatology, as only the HIGH priest can deliver. In doing this he
leaves his little Bunnies such as 'qzectb' out on the limb, with
their theoretical format, which must include water vapor, or they
must entirely remodel their grenhouse theory to better fit their
data.

Along with his vague quantifications for 1ppm reductions of GTG's,
and his irrational, indirect, and implied scaremongering of methane
and his suggestion that worldwide methane be reduced by 1/3. He
doesnot mention that as a longlived grenhouse gas. Methane in
actuallity decomposes to CO2 in 10 yrs.

Only outside analyses of Hansen's statistics revealed his 'error'
that made it seem that recent years were warmer than the 1930's.
His arrogance and willingness to promote his junk science without
supportive evidence, is clearly exemplified in this paper which was
published before he was caught using his fudged statistics.

He now proposes the propaganda slant, that he is justified in
distorting and falsifying his data due to the inherent value of the
holy mission of the AGW'ists and their cult of profit and
superstition, and that all of the little Bunnies should be proud of
him, for his overzealous attempt to support the cause of AGW.

KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

Dear RoidrAge:

Aren't you the same guy that was hyperventilating because you had
completely misinterpreted the Trenburth et al. paper on estimating
the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases? I'm pretty sure it was
you. Let me see .... Oh yeah, here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/ywu7vc

If you are so completely clueless about something as simple as that,
I find it hard to believe you are saying anything more intelligent
now.

Semper furia!

--
Bill Asher-

To divide surface area by four and divide incoming radiation by this
value, is nonsense, if the energy is not instantly transmitted and the
surface area is not exactly the same temperature at alll points. But
mechanically inept idiots like you exist, and thus trenberth has an
his audience of fools and believers.

If you could even do the most basic of physics, you certainly would
not be defending this stupid paper and it's invalid theoretical
curves.

At least this asshole.trenberth, knew better than to put the peak
intensity in the wrong place. But he has a false slope to the
theoretical curve to better fit the premise that certain wavelengths
are 'missing', and to imply an importance for earth radiation at 15um
which does not exists.

Oh by the way, mathematical slug, 1 Wm-2 is enough energy to equate to
the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere and raise it 1C in 120
days. Come on, dillweed, the math is not that hard.

1 joule per second, over surface area of the earth with radius about
6400 kilometers, 4pir^2 your formula for area,
Mass of atmosphere, I think 10^21 grams,
Heat capacity of air, about 29 Joules per mol per degree,
Molar weight of 80% N2 and 20% O2 about 29.

Why can't you chumps ever talk math?
You repeat your little chunk of Wm-2 recital all the time, even
trenberth recognizes that it is 150Wm-2 from 240Wm-2 to 490Wm-2 which
is 57F.

So you idiots think that about 4Wm-2 is 'missing' due to trace gases
because your high priest says so?
This would raise the temperature of the atmosphere !C in 30 days.

Also the actual Boltzman Stefan equation is in ergs and centimeters,.
5.67E-5 ergs,, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4

Clearly, you are a man ahead of your time. Probably nobody has ever
thought of what you are suggesting ever before. What you need to do, and I
mean this sincerely, is write up your results for publication. Nobody is
going to take you seriously, no matter how many obscenities and slurs you
lace into the fabric of your science, unless you get published in the peer-
reviewed literature. A guy of your obvious mental capacities ought to be
able to set all of climate science straight in a couple of well-reasoned
papers.

Don't be afraid of failure, be afraid of trying.

Semper Furia!

--
Bill Asher

On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, William Asher wrote:


Dude:

You're arguing with a bot.

A week ago, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in. grrr

On Oct 26, 7:36 pm, qzectb wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, William Asher wrote:



Dude:

You're arguing with a bot.

A week ago, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in. grrr

A week ago you published your paragraph on 'thermal inertia'. This is
a contemporary Bunnie fartation. This is the propaganda slant used to
explain why the supposed heat retained by the 1/3 increase of CO2
cannot be detected, yet. The idea promoted is that 'thermal inertia'
is gaining and will eventually show up, so we should go ahead and
believe in what cannot be documented scientifically.

And then you forget, that the main premise of AGW, especially from
their main Bunnie Fartist, algore, is that it is human CO2 that is
melting the polar ice. Your example of 'thermal inertia' and the
boiling pot of water shows your complete invalidity in physics of heat
energy. All of the energy can be located from the burner to the water
in the pot in this example.

The temperatures have been high for a long time causing the ice to
melt. Temperatures are barely fluctuating in recent years, not nearly
enough to cause melting of the ice that would not occur otherwise. To
see the ice melting now, does not in any way indicate that we are
causing the heat to make it melt. But this is the Bunnie Fart you
emit, and the proof of your nonunderstanding and willingness to
distort basic facts of physics and chemistry.

KD

qzectb wrote:

On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, William Asher wrote:
Dude:

You're arguing with a bot.

A week ago, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in. grrr

It's that slow dramatic quivering voice that drew you in. :-)

But before you hide, please tell me where that north jet
stream is, this closed low and all those dry days really distort
the data set. Stagnant, stagnant, stagnant weather.

AGW not performing according to plan.

qzectb wrote in news:1193445366.057761.257090
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, William Asher wrote:


Dude:

You're arguing with a bot.

A week ago, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in. grrr

FWIW, I know who you are and all I can say is that you can't win. These
guys are impervious to facts, logic, rational explanations, and reference
to peer-reviewed studies. D-RoidRage has used this argument track
before, with people who also know radiative transfer even, so it's not
that this hasn't been explained to him already. My best guess is that
he's either a cleverer perl script than C-babe, or his mindset is that he
absolutely cannot accept the consequences of climate change being true,
even though nobody will ever ask him to sacrifice anything so all he will
feel is a little guilt (and even then, not so much). But he's the
typical male who feels society is stacked against him so even feeling
guilt is too much to ask of him, so the idea of anthropogenically induced
cliamte change *has* to be false. But the only way it can be false is
for radiative transfer to be wrong, and if it weren't radiative transfer
he were going off on, it would be CO2 and how it was really coming out of
the ocean, not tailpipes and smokestacks (which would torque my hot
button so I'm kinda glad he's fixed on radiative transfer).

But I would bet on the clever perl script explanation, most of what he
says he's said before, almost verbatim.

Rock on!

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:

qzectb wrote in news:1193445366.057761.257090
On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, William Asher wrote:
Dude:

You're arguing with a bot.

A week ago, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in. grrr

FWIW, I know who you are and all I can say is that you can't win. These
guys are impervious to facts, logic, rational explanations, and reference
to peer-reviewed studies.

Another psycho analyst joins in. :-)

Can't you guys quit teaching and discuss? Is the agenda
so important that you lose any sense of humor and become snobbish
over the weather?

How about trying to convince the heating and cooling
manufacturers to build small portable heat pumps only with
two hoses, rather than all-in-one A/C - Heat Pump - dehumidifier
expensive and complex gadgets with remote controls.

How about a little original thinking, does every trained
atmospheric scientist have to be a yes man to Hansen delusions
about "annual average global temperatures"?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm

Is "climate" average temperature? Not according to;

"The typical afternoon high temperature in Starkville, MS for the middle of
August is 95 degrees. However, the average high is about 92 degrees. What
happens is that in some years the high temperature is much cooler than
typical. In a 5 years period, the temperature may be 95 on 4 of those days
and then 80 on another due to a rainy overcast day. When averaged, the
average high is 95+95+95+95+80 / 5 = 92 degrees. Depending on location and
season the typical high or low could be more or less than the average high
or low. Thus, not always will 50% of the high or low temperatures for a
particular date be above or below the average high or low temperature.

When the high temperature is 75 on a day the average high is 75, this day
may not be typical. The high temperature just happened to fall between the
average of the extremes. If you ever wonder why the weather is not being
average, it is due to the average actually being the more rare occurrence."

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/227/

In weather, a typical temperature is sometimes atypical.

And not dependable enough to base economic and
political decisions on.

On Oct 26, 11:48 pm, William Asher wrote:
But I would bet on the clever perl script explanation, most of what he
says he's said before, almost verbatim.

I'd bet against the perl script. You're correct about the 'bot' part,
though, in the same sense that a virus can be either a piece of
software or a biological entity.

Verbatim repetition is a hallmark of some kinds of autism.

On Oct 27, 5:48 am, William Asher wrote:
qzectb wrote in news:1193445366.057761.257090
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, William Asher wrote:

Dude:

You're arguing with a bot.

A week ago, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn in. grrr

FWIW, I know who you are and all I can say is that you can't win. These
guys are impervious to facts, logic, rational explanations, and reference
to peer-reviewed studies. D-RoidRage has used this argument track
before, with people who also know radiative transfer even, so it's not
that this hasn't been explained to him already. My best guess is that
he's either a cleverer perl script than C-babe, or his mindset is that he
absolutely cannot accept the consequences of climate change being true,

Seems to go with the territory. Neocons and their bots consider it
their patriotic duty to inflict maximum environmental damage at every
possible opportunity.

Just in case there are any lay readers interested in the science of
atmosphere, radiative transfer and transparency CNES has a rather nice
introduction (from a CD ROM) online at:

http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-98/ce...e/dg/dgcon.htm

Most of the US dittohead lies can be easily debunked using data from
this remote sensing tutorial.
The main site root for the CD is http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-98/ce...ce/science.htm
(site navigation is a bit quirky)

Exposing the denialists as pathological liars occassionally may do
some good, but continuing the thread is pointless after that.

But I would bet on the clever perl script explanation, most of what he
says he's said before, almost verbatim.

I doubt the dittoheads will ever accept GW. Heck even Shrub has
conceded that AGW is important. And some enlightened and intelligent
Republicans like Arnie are actually trying to do something about it.

Unfortunately in a country like the USA where more than 30% the
general population are clinically obese and cannot be bothered to look
after their own bodies there is really not much hope of them looking
after the planet.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 30, 2:51 am, William Asher wrote:
wrote in news:1193701240.948855.163970
@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

Why do CO2 laser's emit around 10um. They absorb in the continous
spectrum of the infrared. They have the bands of low emisison.
Therefore, energy is radiated around 10um which is not radiated at the
low emission bands, which makes the use of CO2 in a laser possible.
That CO2 amplifies these frequencies, means that it also absorbs these
frequencies. That is the process of a laser. To put the lasing
material in a container where the frequencies it emits are reflected
back into it, where they are absorbed and emitted which converts
energy into these specific frequencies.

KRoidRage:

What do you use to wipe the spittle off your screen?

The CO2 in a CO2 laser is excited collisionally from vibrationally
excited N2 molecules. The population inversion is not created by direct
radiation of CO2. The point of a CO2 laser is that the emission lines
are dictated by the vibrational levels of the excited N2 molecules, whose
energy just happens to match a vibrational energy level of the CO2
molecule. When the excited CO2 molecule emits the photon, it comes out
as a 10.6 (or 9.4, depending on the cavity) micron photon. If a
different vibrational energy level of the N2 molecule matched a different
energy level of the CO2 molecule, CO2 would lase quite happily at other
wavelengths. Anyway, the operating wavelength of a CO2 laser has nothing
to do with the continuous absorption spectrum of CO2 from the ground
state, it has everything to do with emission of photons from an excited
vibrational state.

More than that Bill it's emission from an excited state to an excited
state. In order to lase there has to exist a population inversion
between the two states, i.e. the upper state has a higher population
than the lower. If the lower state is a ground state that's very
difficult to do so usually a laser transition is between a relatively
long lived excited state to a lower excited state which has a short
lifetime, thus allowing an inversion to be built up before stimulated
emission takes place. In the case of the CO2 laser the first excited
state of the Asymmetric vibrational mode is excited collisionally by
symmetrically vibrating nitrogen (excited electrically but long lived
since it can't emit radiation). Stimulated emission then takes place
to either the first excited state of the CO2 symmetric mode (10.6
microns) or to the 2nd excited state of the bending mode (9.4 microns)
depending on the tuning of the laser cavity. The two lower levels
are rapidly depopulated by collisions (He added to improve this) thus
establishing an inversion. The absorption at 15 microns takes place
between the ground state and the rotational manifold of the 1st
excited state of the bending mode.





I don't really expect you to understand this, or look it up to see how it
shows you are basically psychotic and completely clueless, I just want to
press your buttons again.

--
Bill Asher