AGW: atmospheric physics

[mamooth]

And after over a hundred pages, we return to the "photons can't move from cold to hot!" claim. The cycle returns to its starting point. Very poetic. The world is still totally wrong, as the fringe cult can't be shaken from their religious beliefs.

 

[gslack]

Of course I edited the post. That's how grownups do things. If no one edited, every post would double in size until the board crashed. Geez, you're dim.

Now, my posts get read, because they're brief. Yours posts usually get ignored, because no one wants to wade through your whiny crap.

So, with that out of the way, let's get back to this latest issue that has you soiling yourself and running.

Scientists measure the increasing backradiation. See the previous references.

You claim backradiation is a myth.

If backradiation is a myth, then why is it present and measurable?

Funny but you just posted a different story on my visitor messages.. There you claimed that it was all good to insult family since I mentioned them...

What's up admiral? You little coward you edited it to save your butt from a mod. We both know it.. Coward... It's okay, you can play your little game until your busted...

But now... You are a proven coward and weasel, and you get no benefit of the doubt from me. From now on you get nothing from me but disdain.

Wannabe warrior fraud.

 

[gslack]

LOL, he keeps ignoring when I ask him about the rep problem he's having.. I think he got busted socking. And if so, it's about time. Hopefully more of them get busted soon.

With both farts and socks, he who smelt it, dealt it.

And we don't have to guess on at least one fellow puppeteer do we..

 

[polarbear]

Yeah, I've never heard of a water chem class either.

That's nice. Now can you explain why the ACA lists water chemistry as a category? Not hydrology, which is more a mechanical/civil engineering thing. Water chemistry.

I learned it as a Navy thing, but anyone running a boiler needs to know water chemistry. I guess that explains why none of my psychostalkers has the slightest inkling of it, as it goes along with their complete ignorance of anything having to do with the Navy. Heck, I'd guess none of those ivory tower nancyboys has ever seen a boiler in their lives. We had to dose the primary coolant with ammonia for pH control, control the scale and pH of the secondary loop water with trisodium and disodium phosphate, keep a crazy close eye on chloride levels, watch the potable water and dose that right.

Now, the ELT's actually did that work, but everything they did had to be run by the EOOW, which was me. So I would separately do all the calculations (caught them in an error a few times), reviewed their logs (catching the trends that they might miss from being too close, so I could tell 'em "Did you know your demineralizer resin is failing?"), spot checked their pH checks. They did have some pH gear like polarbear's setup, but contrary to his wacky claim, the Navy does not use liquids with pretty colors. That kind of useless color-coded silliness is reserved for polarbear frufru types. Navy guys just read the label.

Anyways, good to see that as I predicted, the kooks are now revising the last century of chemistry, to go along with their revision of the last century of physics.

It`s almost worth while to devote a new thread just to list your bullshit which would have to be sub categorized in chapters.
Let`s get started with "water chemistry". According to M-EOOW every Chemical engineer or Ph.D would have to turn in his diploma because he did not take a course in "water chemistry"...like a janitor who looks after the swimming pool. Which reminds me how surprised I was how lax the regulations are in the U.S. when it comes to boilers.
That`s about the only country that allows janitors to run high pressure boilers...after they took a course in "boiler chemistry"...which is probably way below mamooth "water chemistry science".
Anyway even these lowly "boiler chemistry" janitors knew, that it`s a big no-no to use Ammonia, which by the way is a gas to adjust the pH in boilers. In any case they would have used Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH) and not NH3 which is a gas. But had they there would be a huge risk, which is called "Siede Verzug" and boilers have been know to blow up when "Siede Verzug" (a.k.a. "bumping, boiling retardation, or boiling delay") happens.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdJ_xPIvyo"]Siedeverzug - YouTube[/ame]

That`s why "boiler chemists" unlike "mamooth water chemistry" graduates would use a Lewis base like Hydrazin instead of "Ammonia" like the M-EOOw idiot said he used...because Hydrazine Hydrate is also an Oxygen scavenger.
But that works only for primitive boilers that were used over a century ago, like in old steam locomotives which did not use Copper alloys.
Technical Paper on Copper Boiler Systems : Steam Generation Systems, Inc, Water Treatment Solutions and Consulting : Alexander C. McDonald Ph.D.

(NH4)+ ions corrode the Copper alloys by dissolving Cu and rapidly pitting the tubing used in the super heaters, the pre- heaters and the condensers.

pH control is the least of the problems because the ion exchange resins which are used to control the TDS contribute NaOH to the make up water anyway and the pH stays alkaline.
Nothing pertaining to the operation of a boiler would change the boiler water to go acidic...even a janitor who took a quickie course in "water chemistry" would know that... so you are full of shit:

So I would separately do all the calculations (caught them in an error a few times), reviewed their logs (catching the trends that they might miss from being too close, so I could tell 'em "Did you know your demineralizer resin is failing?"), spot checked their pH checks.

There is no change in pH when the ion exchanger has trapped as much Calcium as it could and exchanged the Ca++ with Na+ ions.
When that happens the TDS sensor on that particular cartridge would shut it down automatically anyway and all makeup water would come from one of the other regenerated cartridges.

The very fact that you never even mentioned Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the oxygen scavenger status tells me that you don`t have the vaguest idea about "water chemistry" or what`s what in a boiler.
But I already knew that when you were lecturing Westwall with

Steam tables...you would not even know what that is...I was fricking trained on these

And quoted it in calories per gram. Which was pretty funny considering how astronomical these numbers are even with a tiny 100 bhp boiler .
That`s how somebody who took a "Diet Science" course would quote a steam table.
No wonder that even the "choom gang graduate" Obama is convinced that the education system is failing the industry as US technology is being outpaced by other countries. We got too many "graduates" in "water chemistry", "diet science", first aid etc and too few MD`s, Real science Ph.D s in general and engineers .
To that add the latest "academic" option, a Ph.D. in "climate science" that requires only basic high school math and physics, + maybe a course in "water chemistry"...and presto you are a celebrity status "Ph.D." with a guaranteed taxpayer funded 6 figure paycheck and a platinum pension plan.
So now we can add a whole new field.."water chemistry" which makes "ink molecules" when you drop carbon& shellac into water:

If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace...

 

[mamooth]

According to M-EOOW every Chemical engineer or Ph.D would have to turn in his diploma because he did not take a course in "water chemistry"

Nah. But you couldn't run a reactor without learning it. Check out this handy DoE guide to Reactor Water Chemistry.

http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/Reactor Water Chemistry.pdf

Take note of the words "Water Chemistry" in the title.

And thus the kooks all fail hard again. When will they understand that reflexively calling me a liar always leaves them looking like crybaby retards? They try so hard to catch me at something, and always end up doing a face plant into a cow patty. But they just get up, wipe the cowshit off their faces, and try again.

That`s why "boiler chemists" unlike "mamooth water chemistry" graduates would use Hydrazin instead of "Ammonia" like the M-EOOw idiot said he used...because Hydrazine is also an Oxgen scavenger.

So is ammonia, in a reactor. Radiation breaks some ammonia down into N and H, and the H scavenges oxygen. That's reactor chemistry, understanding the additional radiation effects on the chemistry. You don't have a clue about it.

And don't nitpick. Ammonia in solution is ammonium hydroxide, but nobody calls the bottle of ammonia in the kitchen cabinet "ammonium hydroxide". It's just ammonia. It's assumed it will be dissolved, as handling ammonia gas is way more difficult. In the Navy case, we used 30% aqueous ammonia.

There's also no problem with Siede Verzug -- boiling delay -- because there's no boiling in a Navy reactor. Yet another basic concept you fail to understand.

(NH4)+ ions corrode the Copper alloys by dissolving Cu and rapidly pitting the tubing used in the super heaters, the pre- heaters and the condensers.

Which would be why ammonia isn't used on the secondary side. On the primary side, no copper alloys. Just stainless steel.

pH control is the least of the problems because the ion exchange resins which are used to control the TDS contribute NaOH to the make up water anyway and the pH stays alkaline.

No such resin on the secondary side, and the primary side resin is for filtering, not pH control. You're just not very good at this. You inexplicably keep incorrectly assuming your experience applies to Navy nuclear power plants.

Nothing pertaining to the operation of a boiler would change the boiler water to go acidic...

That's nice. Why are you rambling about such nonsense? As, is usually the case, did your voices tell you I said such a thing? Please, point out where I said it.

There is no change in pH when the ion exchanger has trapped as much Calcium as it could and exchanged the Ca++ with Na+ ions.

You just don't get it. There was no ion exchanger on the secondary loop. Wouldn't work when your water is treated with phosphates. The phosphates are what pulls out the calcium and magnesium to prevent scaling. The soft sludge falls to the bottom of the steam generator, and you do regular blowdowns to flush it out.

What I'm talking about is the demineralizer that the feed water gets run through to purify it before injecting it into the secondary loop. When you see the chloride concentration creeping up there, you know the resin is failing.

When that happens the TDS sensor on that particular cartridge would shut it down automatically anyway and all makeup water would come from one of the other regenerated cartridges.

No TDS sensors. Makes no sense in a phosphate chemistry system, since by design they have a huge crapload of TDS.

This is how you always screw it up hard. You always stupidly assume that your own experience _must_ apply to every other single thing in the world, and then you brainlessly scream that anyone with a different experience is a liar.

Boiler water can be treated either with hydrazine, or with phosphates. Your system used hydrazine. The Navy used phosphates, as dissolved oxygen in the water wasn't an issue, since the water came from an evaporator. Thus, the rest of your crank rambling is meaningless, as it only applies to a hydrazine chemistry system.

But I already knew that when you were lecturing Westwall with Steam tables...you would not even know what that is...I was fricking trained on these

Liar. I said I could get the steam tables. Future tense. You know that, but you _still_ choose to lie about it.

And quoted it in calories per gram.

Yep, because it was the simplest way to explain it. Good engineering. Compared to your suckass engineering, where no one can ever understand what you're babbling about. Good engineers communicate clearly, briefly, and to the point, and you can't do that.

 

[mamooth]

Funny but you just posted a different story on my visitor messages.. There you claimed that it was all good to insult family since I mentioned them...

Liar. I said it was good because you chose to pass along insults from that family member, who is also a board member. You didn't just mention your family. You deliberately brought your family into the insult festival, and then whined when I took a tiny jab. One would think that if you really thought your family was off limits, you wouldn't bring them into the insult festival.

So, is it possible for a human to get more cowardly than gslack? I don't see how it's possible to get lower than using family members as virtual human shields.

What's up admiral? You little coward you edited it to save your butt from a mod. We both know it.. Coward... It's okay, you can play your little game until your busted...

Seriously, what are you babbling about? No one can figure it out. You're getting hysterical again. Man up, snap out of it and stop shrieking. Then specifically tell everyone what I supposedly edited out that has you so outraged. Was it the voices that told you I wrote whatever those terrible things are?

But now... You are a proven coward and weasel, and you get no benefit of the doubt from me. From now on you get nothing from me but disdain.

Oh noes! No more high quality discourse from gslack!

Gslack, threatening to behave badly isn't a threat when you already behave as badly as is humanly possible.

I should pull a gslack, and get mom to sign up here. Then, if anyone was meeeeeeaaaaaan to me, mom could report them for attacking a family member. Rule abuse, baby, rule abuse!

Wannabe warrior fraud.

Poor jealous gslack. You still haven't explained why we can measure backradiation when you claim it doesn't exist. Remember the science?

 

[numan]

'
Why do you even bother to read gslack? I don't.

He's just another of the sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome on this site -- he never has anything substantive to say.

Just a waste of time and space to respond to him.
.

 

[gslack]

Funny but you just posted a different story on my visitor messages.. There you claimed that it was all good to insult family since I mentioned them...

Liar. I said it was good because you chose to pass along insults from that family member, who is also a board member. You didn't just mention your family. You deliberately brought your family into the insult festival, and then whined when I took a tiny jab. One would think that if you really thought your family was off limits, you wouldn't bring them into the insult festival.

So, is it possible for a human to get more cowardly than gslack? I don't see how it's possible to get lower than using family members as virtual human shields.

What's up admiral? You little coward you edited it to save your butt from a mod. We both know it.. Coward... It's okay, you can play your little game until your busted...

Seriously, what are you babbling about? No one can figure it out. You're getting hysterical again. Man up, snap out of it and stop shrieking. Then specifically tell everyone what I supposedly edited out that has you so outraged. Was it the voices that told you I wrote whatever those terrible things are?

But now... You are a proven coward and weasel, and you get no benefit of the doubt from me. From now on you get nothing from me but disdain.

Oh noes! No more high quality discourse from gslack!

Gslack, threatening to behave badly isn't a threat when you already behave as badly as is humanly possible.

I should pull a gslack, and get mom to sign up here. Then, if anyone was meeeeeeaaaaaan to me, mom could report them for attacking a family member. Rule abuse, baby, rule abuse!

Wannabe warrior fraud.

Poor jealous gslack. You still haven't explained why we can measure backradiation when you claim it doesn't exist. Remember the science?

Yes, yes, I see... So you have a need to feel important and respected by adults. I see this from you plainly.. Sad really... You know you could go and play with kids your own age, then perhaps you wouldn't have such a strong feeling of inadequacy.. Give it a try. You might find you like your age and won't need to play pretend on a web forum..

That session was free admiral. Next time, try to use the big boy voice okay..

 

[gslack]

'
Why do you even bother to read gslack? I don't.

He's just another of the sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome on this site -- he never has anything substantive to say.

Just a waste of time and space to respond to him.
.

Whats up with your rep dude? Somebody took it from you? Did CO2 burn it away? Did bigfoot take it?

 

[RollingThunder]

That report you linked to was proven to be a bunch of bull ....

By your crank blogger.

So show me a decrease in the OLR on the graphs above of IMG IRIS and TESS.

Yet you can't find a single source saying so, other than your crank blogger.

So in your estimation, NOAA is a crank blogger?

This is according to NOAA

You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney.

You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.

 

[SSDD]

You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney.

Look in a mirror thunder...it is you who posts fraudulent pseudoscience. Look back through my posts...95 percent of what I post is published peer reviewed material. Sorry that you visited the site and didn't know what you were looking at. It isn't an anonymous blogspot, it is a research tool that is part of the WMO regional climate center at KNMI. Sorry that you aren't bright enough to catch that. I thought I made it clear when I put it in blue text...guess it didn't help huh?

You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.

If you had half the brains that you think you do, you would be able to easily reconstruct the data from the vast cache of data at KNMI. Guess you can't.

Here is the dataset...maybe that will help.

*IPCC claim of "trapped" OLR 1975-2012 calculated using the IPCC formula: 5.35*ln(393.81/331.08) = .93 Wm-2
OLR values from the KNMI Climate Explorer:
# using minimal fraction of valid points 30.00

# olr [W/m^2] from Monthly means of OLR from interpolated OLR dataset
# cutting out region lon= -1.250 358.750, lat= -90.000 90.000 1975 234.1676
1976 233.3056
1977 231.9952
1978 227.6897
1979 232.2657
1980 230.0455
1981 230.6246
1982 230.7409
1983 231.3250
1984 230.8478
1985 231.5050
1986 231.6427
1987 231.5573
1988 232.2282
1989 232.7308
1990 231.7560
1991 230.7416
1992 229.6506
1993 229.5302
1994 229.9730
1995 232.1093
1996 231.7132
1997 231.5179
1998 231.5533
1999 230.0013
2000 229.3632
2001 231.1178
2002 231.5232
2003 233.2428
2004 232.9978
2005 232.9438
2006 233.0898
2007 233.2389
2008 232.9702
2009 233.1986
2010 233.0779
2011 232.8238
2012 232.2572

Guess that didn't help either...even with all the data, you still don't know any more than you did before, do you?

It really doesn't matter, you only believe what you choose to believe and if it doesn't match what your priests tell you, then you disregard it.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney.

Look in a mirror thunder...it is you who posts fraudulent pseudoscience. Look back through my posts...95 percent of what I post is published peer reviewed material.

LOLOLOL.....those are some of your delusions but, as always, they have no connection to reality.

Sorry that you visited the site and didn't know what you were looking at. It isn't an anonymous blogspot,

The actual address for that graph that shows up when your post is quoted is this (minus the 'h' at the beginning and the 'g' at the end so it won't auto-format):
ttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Gh-NsgvOWY/UTVkzC3ZgfI/AAAAAAAAFA4/zMR5z-2PyFg/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jp

It very obviously is an anonymous blogspot, nitwit.

Here's what you claimed:

Yet you can't find a single source saying so, other than your crank blogger.

So in your estimation, NOAA is a crank blogger?

This is according to NOAA

...SO WHERE'S THE LINK TO NOAA, YOU FLAMING RETARD???

Not some cherry-picked crap you supposedly cooked up on some data storage site but an actual link to the source at NOAA that you claimed for it, you stinking LIAR.

You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.

If you had half the brains that you think you do, you would be able to easily reconstruct the data from the vast cache of data at KNMI. Guess you can't.

You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "This is according to NOAA", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "reconstructed" from some "vast cache of data" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.

 

[SSDD]

You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "This is according to NOAA", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "reconstructed" from some "vast cache of data" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.

No, I expressly claimed that the data was from NOAA. Any retard should be able to do a graph from the data...I gave you the data.

Piss and moan all you like thunder...it doesn't change the fact that OLR is increasing and no one but you is arguing the fact. Even the crazy kitty can see that the data disputes her claims...

Your continued whining should comfort her somewhat....it should tell her that there is someone on this board even more intellectually stunted than her...But we already knew that about you didn't we? We know all about your deep feelings of inferiority and intimidation that make you behave as you do.....and we pity you for it.

 

[RollingThunder]

You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "This is according to NOAA", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "reconstructed" from some "vast cache of data" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.

No, I expressly claimed that the data was from NOAA.

Liar. Pretty retarded liar too, considering that your previous statements are still there on the thread for everybody to see. You "expressly and very clearly claimed that that graph you posted was from NOAA. It's not. Now you're trying to rewrite your previous lies and claim that you'd really said that "the data was from NOAA, but in fact, that is an unsupported claim since there is no link to any NOAA data sites, just to some site in the Netherlands that may or may not be using the complete NOAA data set. If it is really NOAA's data, why can't you cite them directly? All of their data is available. Nobody with any sense or memory of your previous lies would trust any cherry-picked data you hand them to support your idiotic denial of something as scientifically well established as the greenhouse effect. Your graph is a fraud.

it doesn't change the fact that OLR is increasing and no one but you is arguing the fact.

That's your denier cult myth. The fact is that comparisons of satellite measurements of the OLR at the TOA showed a decrease over the last four decades that matched the buildup of greenhouse gases and happened in the wavelengths those gases absorb, and nobody but you deluded denier cult cretins are arguing that fact.

You got caught lying about the source of the graph you posted and now you're just trying to spin it.

 

[westwall]

'
Why do you even bother to read gslack? I don't.

He's just another of the sufferers of Tourette's Syndrome on this site -- he never has anything substantive to say.

Just a waste of time and space to respond to him.
.

Whats up with your rep dude? Somebody took it from you? Did CO2 burn it away? Did bigfoot take it?

Nope, people figured out he's a sock troll so are slamming him at every opportunity.

 

[SSDD]

Liar. Pretty retarded liar too, considering that your previous statements are still there on the thread for everybody to see.

Yes, my statements are still there and prove beyond a doubt that you are either a liar or stupid. Personally, I think you are both. My original statement on the graph is HERE

I said "The graph above is courtesy of NOAA via the KNMI Climate Explorer."

So is that to difficult for you to read and understand or are you just completely unable to tell the truth about anything. Maybe the sentence is to complex for you...KNMI being a recognized scientific tool used to compile data from other sources, the sentence means that the data is from NOAA and compiled and put into graph form with the KNMI Climate Explorer. I didn't think that we really had to write in crayon and try very hard to use one syllable words in order to be understood by warmists but I guess I was wrong.

And my bet is that even if you had understood, you would have lied anyway because that is just who you are and what you do.

You "expressly and very clearly claimed that that graph you posted was from NOAA.

Again, I said "The graph above is courtesy of NOAA via the KNMI Climate Explorer."

Maybe you don't know what that little word after NOAA means. Via? Ever hear of it? Ever use it? Here is a defintion although the definition itself may have words in it that you don't know so it is really a pointless exercise in futility to try and simplify anything for you isn't it?

via - preposition -1. by a route that touches or passes through
2. by the agency or instrumentality of

Note the second definition is specific to the point at hand...data from NOAA by the instrument KNMI climate explorer.

So you ware wrong...now wiggle some more for the delight and entertainment of those who enjoy seeing you squirm.

Now you're trying to rewrite your previous lies

Not at all. As you can see I cut and pasted a direct quote from myself and clearly stated that the graph was produced at KNMI. You just can't comprehend the words that you read and are therefore always mischaracterizing what people say.

You got caught lying about the source of the graph you posted and now you're just trying to spin it.

The only one who got caught was you thunder. You got caught either not knowing how to read, or deliberately lying about what another poster said...or both. Now you are attempting to cover up your error by making a big deal over trivialities and in your attempt bury your original mistake in an ocean of bloviation.


By the way thunder, how often do you use graphs produced by someone other than the original collector of the data without going to the original source and bringing forward the entire data set to verify that your source used the entire data set correctly? I would say damned near every time you post a graph... Lets take a look to see just how big a hypocrite you are:

Why, in this very thread, just a couople of pages back inTHIS post you used this graph from a blogger and represented it as being from IPCC AR4 figures. I don't see the complete data set from the IPCC, or a link to the IPCC data set, and clearly yours is from a blogger...how do you know she used the entire data set correctly? By your definition, that means that every graph you have posted in which you don't provide links to an official agency graph and data set, must be invalid. Wow thunder, you have sure posted a whole lot of invalid information.

You have left a trail of just this sort of thing going back to your earliest days on the board thunder...providing graphs supplied by admitted blogs as opposed to the WMO recognized data analysis tool that I used and not providng the complete data set from the original recorder of the data in a single instance. So now we have you being dishonest, stupid, and a hypocrite. Congratuations.

 

[polarbear]

Here is another example just how utterly retarded these morons who think they can lecture us in physisc really are

Molecule absorbs backradiation photon, jumps to higher vibrational state. It's not complicated. You've just got this emotional block. You don't understand because you willfully don't want to understand.

Molecule can only absorb a photon at a higher frequency than itself. Lower frequencies are not absorbed.

Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!

Bohr atom

According to Bohr theory, which accurately predicts the energy levels for one-electron atoms like H, He+, Li2+, the energy of an electron in the nth energy level is given by:

The energy levels predicted by Bohr theory for the H atom are shown below:

Energy Levels in the Bohr Atomand Electronic Transitions of the Balmer Series

The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!

The same holds for molecules -- it just becomes more complex to calculate!
.

He is looking at the Bohr diagram which depicts how much more energy it takes to raise electrons that are closer to a nucleus at the n=1 shell to a higher orbital than for those are are more distant at the n=4 shell from the nucleus...which require less energy to go into a higher energy orbital the larger the distance or the shell is from the nucleus.
According to him Bohr said :
"The more excited an electron is, the less and less energy (lower frequencies) it takes to raise it to the next energy level. It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

As if!!!What Bohr said was thatouter shell electrons require less energy to do their quantum leap than inner shell electrons.
This moron has electrons going gradually with less and less energy to a " next energy level" as it was when nobody ever even heard about quantum physics and quantum leaps.
By saying that he also figured that during this process electrons from shell #1 wind up in the next higher shell number, because only then would such an electron require less energy .
And then crown his stupidity with the ultimate stupidity:
"It must absorb lower and lower frequencies or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

Like fuck "must it absorb" lower frequencies.
An electron in that shell will absorb at the exact same wavelength as it did before it did a quantum leap and then emits this energy quantum as a photon you moron.

"or else it will be knocked out of the atom, and the atom will become ionized!"

They do...all you have to do is heat a substance to the plasma state, like that big bright thing in the sky that keeps you from freezing you idiot.

But when I said to IanC with his retarded red star to white star "back radiation", that a plasma can`t absorb photons of that particular lower wavelength when the corresponding "ground state" electrons are missing after the substance was ionized ...IanC, the mamooth ink molecule idiot and you, the "quantum physisc expert" insisted that it can...
Yeah right...
Bohr, Einstein and all the other physicists would roll over in their graves hearing that,...because the only way that would work if the remaining inner shell electrons could absorb longer wavelength light after the outer shell electrons that ionization had removed.
The only way that could happen if you can stuff electrons from a lower shell number to a higher shell number.
How exactly is that supposed to happen ?
It could not possibly get any funnier than that, including the choice of your avatar

Oh, my lord! Imagine anyone claiming a knowledge of physics saying that! What a howler!! You've got it exactly ass-backwards!!

 

[flacaltenn]

You're a known liar, SSoooDDuuumb, who posts fraudulent pseudo-science, and since your graph has no link to NOAA, just some anonymous "blogspot", and since nothing like it shows up on google searches, I'm calling this one a phoney.

Look in a mirror thunder...it is you who posts fraudulent pseudoscience. Look back through my posts...95 percent of what I post is published peer reviewed material.

LOLOLOL.....those are some of your delusions but, as always, they have no connection to reality.




The actual address for that graph that shows up when your post is quoted is this (minus the 'h' at the beginning and the 'g' at the end so it won't auto-format):
ttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Gh-NsgvOWY/UTVkzC3ZgfI/AAAAAAAAFA4/zMR5z-2PyFg/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jp

It very obviously is an anonymous blogspot, nitwit.

Here's what you claimed:



...SO WHERE'S THE LINK TO NOAA, YOU FLAMING RETARD???

Not some cherry-picked crap you supposedly cooked up on some data storage site but an actual link to the source at NOAA that you claimed for it, you stinking LIAR.

You can prove me wrong by providing a direct link to an actual NOAA website containing that graph. But of course you can't because you just scraped it off of some denier cult blog that claimed it was from NOAA.

If you had half the brains that you think you do, you would be able to easily reconstruct the data from the vast cache of data at KNMI. Guess you can't.

You expressly claimed that the graph you posted was from NOAA - "This is according to NOAA", not something somebody somewhere supposedly "reconstructed" from some "vast cache of data" in the Netherlands. You are a liar.

STFU Princess and do some work.. Look up Climate Explorer and find the source of the data. As in ----

Climate Explorer: Field

Then go enter the SAME LAT LONG and time series info as is in SSDD graph of OLR.. You will get the same result..

If you were COMPETENT -- you'd know that an Interactive GUI type Data Retrieval like the Climate Explorer doesn't LINK to a particular result... It serves data based on your current entries and DOES NOT SAVE YOUR WORK..

So you are both LAZY and INCOMPETENT TinkerBelle, but now that I've taught you a new skill........ Do you want to comment about why it's hard to SEE A DECREASE in OLR over the years???

Or to you just want to play bully some more??