Lists

[skookerasbil]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

 

[IanC]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

there is a huge problem in understanding the dynamics of heat flow away from earth and into space. at ground level there is the saturation problem. once water vapour takes latent heat aloft there are questions about the radiation of that heat. vibrationally excited CO2 doesnt seem to very good at heating the N2 or O2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc.

there doesnt seem to be a coherent explanation for the whole cascade, and I have looked. most of the partial explanations focus on one single part but dont really give a solid estimate of how much energy is going through which routes and what the errors and uncertainties are. there are just enormous gaps of understanding between the heating of the earth from SW and the measurement of the escaping LW by satellites.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

dx = κρdz
The crucial thing is that there is a monotonic function relating x and z.

The atmosphere does not end at some height but trails off with lower and lower density. Thus z may not have have an upper limit but x may nevertheless have a finite level.

Since κρ has dimension of inverse length optical path length x is a dimensionless variable.


In terms of optical path length the Beer-Lambert Law takes the form

dI/dx = −I
The Case of an Absorbing-Emitting Medium
In a medium which absorbs radiant energy the temperature increases and it radiates energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula σT4. The Beer-Lambert Law is replaced by the Schwarzchild Equation

dI/dz = −κρI + ½κρR(z)
where R(z)=σT4(z). This formula presumes Kirchhoff's Law that the emissivity of a substance is equal to its absorptivity. It also presumes that half of the thermal radiation is in the forward direction.

In terms of the optical path length the Schwarzchild equation takes the form

dI/dx = −I + ½R
Since there is forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Let I+ be the radiation flux intensity in the direction of increasing optical path length x and I- the flux intensity in the opposite direction.

The two equations for the flux intensities are

 

[polarbear]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

dx = κρdz
The crucial thing is that there is a monotonic function relating x and z.

The atmosphere does not end at some height but trails off with lower and lower density. Thus z may not have have an upper limit but x may nevertheless have a finite level.

Since κρ has dimension of inverse length optical path length x is a dimensionless variable.


In terms of optical path length the Beer-Lambert Law takes the form

dI/dx = −I
The Case of an Absorbing-Emitting Medium
In a medium which absorbs radiant energy the temperature increases and it radiates energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula σT4. The Beer-Lambert Law is replaced by the Schwarzchild Equation

dI/dz = −κρI + ½κρR(z)
where R(z)=σT4(z). This formula presumes Kirchhoff's Law that the emissivity of a substance is equal to its absorptivity. It also presumes that half of the thermal radiation is in the forward direction.

In terms of the optical path length the Schwarzchild equation takes the form

dI/dx = −I + ½R
Since there is forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Let I+ be the radiation flux intensity in the direction of increasing optical path length x and I- the flux intensity in the opposite direction.

The two equations for the flux intensities are

See Ian & Mathew that`s what happens if an "Expert" in Physics quotes "Real Physics" and makes goobledigook speeches to appear educatued and intelligent, but has no idea what he is quoting.

He quoted this web Page and pasted some text in here that he pretends to understand:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

And here is where they...,OldRocks web site got it from,,...that web site copied a few equations and buzzwords, to appear as Experts in Physics...:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

Go there and You will soon spot a gigantic fraud how these swindlers alter original text from real Physics, like what the Schwarzchild equation, the Max Planck Equations well in short what every equation really stated

His man made GW "expert Physics" web site copied it from here:
WORD FOR WORD, what they liked and LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT!

first a quote from "OldRocks" web site quote:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

dI/dz = −κρI

where z is distance through the medium, ρ is a density and κ is an absorption coefficient.

And these bastards simply stole, copied and pasted it into their "expert" web page from here:
Barrett Bellamy Climate - Schwarzschild's Equation

The Schwarzschild Equation and Radiative Transfer



The Schwarzschild Equation for the transmission of radiation of a particular frequency through an absorbing medium is:
dI = -Ikr dz + Bkrdz

And some more buzzwords+ equations but chopped all the rest right off
And they left all that clean out what else the Physics they so shamelessly plagiarized did say in the mathematical discussion

A more appropriate equation would be:

To get an accurate answer requires more mathematics and computation, but that can be done and is done by programmes such as MODTRAN. Much more detailed calculations are incorporated into General Circulation Models, but the input files are MODTRAN results suitably parameterized to save computing time.

At some frequencies the absorption of radiation by some of the greenhouse gases (like Water vapor) is so great to allow the absorption to be 'saturated'. This means that any further addition of the gas will not change the amount of absorption and will not contribute further to warming of the atmosphere. For real saturation to occur the product krz has to be large enough to make the factor exp(-krz) equal to zero. In absolute terms this can only be achieved if krz has the value of infinity. So, saturation can never be achieved,

And You know who they actually stole parts of their text from?
Read to the bottom of Schwarzchild`s Equation "OldRocks" boasted with here in this forum:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

A German Professor Hartwig Volz from the University of Mainz. And Professor Volz and the other Doctor Heinz Hug who is one of the world`s foremost experts in Spectral Physics who I quoted also in this forum work together to point out the sever flaws in this man made "GW science"!
Remember my post where Heinz Hug`s actual measurements showed that these bastards exaggerated by a factor of at least 20 times
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/147932-2011-global-temperature-thread-13.html

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get

(9.79*10-4 cm-1 - 1.11*10-4 cm-1) / 0.5171 cm-1 = 0.17 %
Conclusions

It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

Professor Hartwig Volz and many other Scientists in Physics, Chemistry and Geo-science branches from Germany even went so far to travel to the U.S.A. and make a presentation on Capitol Hill what kind of fraud this man made GW is:
Fairy Tale

Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Wednesday, May 15, 2002 WASHINGTON – A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.

The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.

Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."
Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.
"Carbon dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Singer agreed. "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940.

Here is Herrn Professors Hartwig Holz homepage and e-mail address:
Hartwig Volz - Deutschland - E-Mail, Adresse, Telefonnummer und mehr! 123people.de
And here are the Results if You "Google" Herr Professor Volz:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Schwarzchild+Equation&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy&hl=en&lr=&source=hp&q=Hartwig+Volz+%2Bglobal+warming&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Hartwig+Volz+%2Bglobal+warming&fp=18bd74dd9a091784

Anybody here who is interested what REAL AND ESTABLISHED SCIENCE has to say about this man mad GW crap should click on this link I just posted here.
I have no idea why people would be deceived by what 97% of a bunch of total assholes and crackpot "scientists" agree on what is science and what is not.
Fuck they can`t even understand a simple Calaculus Equation...would they, they should HAVE NEVER QUOTED Schwarzchild, Max Planck and Professor Volz!
Unless they have suicidal tendencies...Hey I`m a Nazi and I could be of some assistance...in case Dr.Kevorkian retired...I`ll volunteer GLADLY..who wants to be first:
http://askbernhard.9f.com/

And these bastard Scharlatans that OldRocks quotes, get even with real scientiests by plagiarizing their work, steel equations to bolster the credibility of this moron "science" and even go so far to alter the text of well known physics laws to suit their purposes.
Well if that is not fraud, what does it take to get rid of these bastards...???

Keep on going playing scientist "OldRocks" the more of this "science" You quote/copy and paste here into this forum, the easier it is to show what kind of lying bastards You all are!

 

[polarbear]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

there is a huge problem in understanding the dynamics of heat flow away from earth and into space. at ground level there is the saturation problem. once water vapour takes latent heat aloft there are questions about the radiation of that heat. vibrationally excited CO2 doesnt seem to very good at heating the N2 or O2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc.

there doesnt seem to be a coherent explanation for the whole cascade, and I have looked. most of the partial explanations focus on one single part but dont really give a solid estimate of how much energy is going through which routes and what the errors and uncertainties are. there are just enormous gaps of understanding between the heating of the earth from SW and the measurement of the escaping LW by satellites.

I`ll get around to it...it is not as complicated as it may appear on first glance.
But first I have to fix yet another 1$ "treasure" my wife brought home from a thrift shop.
I thought I was done when I finally got the "authentic Schwarzwaelder Pendulum clock" made in China fixed.
Now she brought home a fancy water cooler/heater/coffe maker with all the wires ripped out ...gimme a couple of days!
I am cursed!...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw[/ame]

Just kidding, I`m not quite that good, but once I did almost change a lawnmower into a helicopter when the bloody thing actually started upside down
the "bloody" part almost became a reality as well...But that was during my learning "hockey stick curve"...ve dont do zat nicht mehr!

 

[polarbear]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

there is a huge problem in understanding the dynamics of heat flow away from earth and into space. at ground level there is the saturation problem. once water vapor takes latent heat aloft there are questions about the radiation of that heat. vibrationally excited CO2 does`nt seem to very good at heating the N2 or O2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc.

there doesnt seem to be a coherent explanation for the whole cascade, and I have looked. most of the partial explanations focus on one single part but don`t really give a solid estimate of how much energy is going through which routes and what the errors and uncertainties are. there are just enormous gaps of understanding between the heating of the earth from SW and the measurement of the escaping LW by satellites.

I can tell You how to account for about 90 % of it and how to calculate it...
But You have to do all the adding up yourself...:
Water enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol , 1 mol =18 grams.
So to evaporate 1 liter of water that takes 2258.33 kiloJoules.
To evaporate 1 cubicmeter Water that takes 10 000 * 2258.33 kiloJoules.
=22583333.33 kiloJoules and if You want to evaporate 1 cubic meter of Water per second that would of course take 22583333.33 Kilowatts of Power.
So the Rhine River in Germany, which never runs dry flows at an average of 2,200 cubic meters per second. To keep just that river going 49683333333.33 megawatts of solar heat energy was absorbed just to account for this single River...The water can come from the 7/10 Earth` surface covering Oceans or any surface soil moisture....Solar heat (Infrared) radiation does not discriminate!
So add all the River flow rates of all the rivers on this planet up in cubic meters per second then multiply this Number by 22583333.33 and then You have a handle on how much Solar Infrared Radiation was absorbed by water to keep these rivers flowing.

No, don`t start with the Rhine River, start with the Mississippi River and just do 1 State...and You`ll see what I am trying to say here

Water grabs Infrared over the entire IR Spectrum...lucky for us!...else we would all be fried by the sun.
That`s why I always made that analogy how much rain can a wire catch..IT IS AN ACCURATE ANALOGY, with how much IR can CO@ absorb with that narrow absorption band...even if we had lethal CO2 gas concentrations > 6% that would not amount to a whole lot in comparism with IR absorbed by water ANYWAY!!
But since only 3/10 of our planet is land with flowing rivers You have not even accounted for all the rain which fell on the oceans.
Nevertheless You get a perspective of the scale of about 90-95% of the solar heat radiation energy transfer...the other 5-10 % are for the most part within the partial range of "total reflection" where at this angle a "brown Greenland" reflects just as good as a blinding White Greenland, and at elevation angles higher than that well the brown will absorb more heat than white...but look at what latitude Greenland is...beyond 70 deg.s
So the angle of incident at midsummer is only 20 degrees elevation...and the rest of the year it`s in TOTAL DARKNESS!
The angle of total reflection for a pitch black paved road is about 5 degrees...
Which DOES NOT MEAN, that it does not reflect light AND INFRARED at say 10 degrees...I wrote about that somewhere here.

So consider all the above and judge for Yourself what is the elephant and what is the gnat..

the numbers You just may have just started adding up, and might be finished adding in about 3 months or so,.....I would not even bother
quite predictably they will dwarf the "man made Greenhouse gas-effect" which is about 0.002 % of the energy at the end of this graph where CO2 is marked:
Look again HOW MUCH IR the WATER GRABS

...eyeballing I think is good enough..!.why would You want to figure out an exact mass ratio of 1 single gnat weighing a few hundred milligrams and all the elephants in Africa and India..?
Okay, soory we want to be accurate here, the CO2 gnat is exactly 0.033 % in our air, that Number was actually MEASURED by Dr. Heinz Hug and for the accurate Water IR absorption, just the River "elephant" mass You have been "volunteered" now
..but that`s the way to actually calculate the numbers You are after.

And as for the re-radiated IR energy of the re-condensation cycle of evaporated water You gave the answer to that already Yourself:

vibrationally excited CO2 doesnt seem to very good at heating the N2 or O2 in the atmosphere, etc, etc

. They absorb way above that..
after all these "tuning forks" have much lighter "shanks" O-O, each one is only 16 AMU`s and N-N each is only 14 AMU`s.
O=[COLOR="Red"[B]]C=O[/B] [/COLOR]were[COLOR="Blue"] 16[/COLOR] and 14+16=30, so You had a "tuning fork" which rings at a frequency already way too low when it sucked up IR at the beginning!
For a frequency increase,... or that O2 and N2 could absorb that re-emitted CO2 IR,... an energy gain would have occurred right there according to Max Planck`s Law
WOW, if that would work all our energy problems would be solved...CO2 would be the Answer!...why research further into fusion reactors

You are right, they can`t because that IR is at a much much longer wavelength than it was absorbed at the bond vibration frequency!

would you have just a fraction of "Globalwarmingwitchdoctery" budget..well then that tally would not be a problem...except that You will be running into Numbers which make the Fed treasury numbers look like a few pennies in a jar!


Consider that just the mechanical energy slice we recover from the IR water evaporation enthalpy cycle was in 2006 approx. 3000 Terrawatts with hydro plants...all the other energy goes right by and back into the Oceans
And meanwhile "Climatologists" want to point at the little piss that runs from the bottom of a glacier in Greenland,,,which they say will flood New York in a hunderd years!

 

[Old Rocks]

http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

Kading
2
Abstract
This experiment explored the absorptivity of four peaks, 1437, 1955, 2013, and
2060 nanometers, in the near-IR (NIR) absorption spectrum of CO2. The NIR absorption
bands in CO2 can contribute up to 30% of the total solar heating in the mesosphere.
Between the heights of 60-85 km the heating can exceed 1 K/day. (Fomichev & Shved,
1988; Ogibalov & Fomichev, 2003; Fomichev et al., 2004) With CO2 concentrations
increasing (West, 2005) it is ever more important to understand the absorbance properties
of this molecule in all of its absorbance bands. Modeling of the Beer Lambert law found
the absorption coefficient at 1955 nanometers to be 0.25 m2 mol-1 and the absorption
coefficient for the peaks at 2013 and 2060 nanometers to be 0.43 m2 mol-1. The
absorption peak at 1437 nanometers had an absorption coefficient >>10.
Introduction
Due to the increase of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its highly politicized
global effects, there has been much research concerning the absorptivity of CO2 and its
thermal effects. CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing energy in the
infrared (IR) wavelengths, thus trapping heat within the boundaries of the earth’s
atmosphere. Climate models have been created to accurately portray our current model
and make predictions for the future (Berger & Dameris, 1993). Only recently have there
been attempts to paramaterize the effects of near-IR (NIR) absorption by CO2. This
research has shown that NIR absorption significantly contributes to heating of the
Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (MLT). (Fomichev & Shved, 1988; Ogibalov &
3
Fomichev, 2003; Fomichev et al., 2004) Thus, understanding and quantifying the CO2
absorption of NIR is an important endeavor at this point in time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr.Rocks can you explain how co2 warms the earth...In how that would go against beer-lambert law?

The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

dx = κρdz
The crucial thing is that there is a monotonic function relating x and z.

The atmosphere does not end at some height but trails off with lower and lower density. Thus z may not have have an upper limit but x may nevertheless have a finite level.

Since κρ has dimension of inverse length optical path length x is a dimensionless variable.


In terms of optical path length the Beer-Lambert Law takes the form

dI/dx = −I
The Case of an Absorbing-Emitting Medium
In a medium which absorbs radiant energy the temperature increases and it radiates energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula σT4. The Beer-Lambert Law is replaced by the Schwarzchild Equation

dI/dz = −κρI + ½κρR(z)
where R(z)=σT4(z). This formula presumes Kirchhoff's Law that the emissivity of a substance is equal to its absorptivity. It also presumes that half of the thermal radiation is in the forward direction.

In terms of the optical path length the Schwarzchild equation takes the form

dI/dx = −I + ½R
Since there is forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Let I+ be the radiation flux intensity in the direction of increasing optical path length x and I- the flux intensity in the opposite direction.

The two equations for the flux intensities are

See Ian & Mathew that`s what happens if an "Expert" in Physics quotes "Real Physics" and makes goobledigook speeches to appear educatued and intelligent, but has no idea what he is quoting.

He quoted this web Page and pasted some text in here that he pretends to understand:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

And here is where they...,OldRocks web site got it from,,...that web site copied a few equations and buzzwords, to appear as Experts in Physics...:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

Go there and You will soon spot a gigantic fraud how these swindlers alter original text from real Physics, like what the Schwarzchild equation, the Max Planck Equations well in short what every equation really stated

His man made GW "expert Physics" web site copied it from here:
WORD FOR WORD, what they liked and LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT!

first a quote from "OldRocks" web site quote:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect


And these bastards simply stole, copied and pasted it into their "expert" web page from here:
Barrett Bellamy Climate - Schwarzschild's Equation


And some more buzzwords+ equations but chopped all the rest right off
And they left all that clean out what else the Physics they so shamelessly plagiarized did say in the mathematical discussion


And You know who they actually stole parts of their text from?
Read to the bottom of Schwarzchild`s Equation "OldRocks" boasted with here in this forum:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

A German Professor Hartwig Volz from the University of Mainz. And Professor Volz and the other Doctor Heinz Hug who is one of the world`s foremost experts in Spectral Physics who I quoted also in this forum work together to point out the sever flaws in this man made "GW science"!
Remember my post where Heinz Hug`s actual measurements showed that these bastards exaggerated by a factor of at least 20 times
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/147932-2011-global-temperature-thread-13.html

We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get

(9.79*10-4 cm-1 - 1.11*10-4 cm-1) / 0.5171 cm-1 = 0.17 %
Conclusions

It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

Professor Hartwig Volz and many other Scientists in Physics, Chemistry and Geo-science branches from Germany even went so far to travel to the U.S.A. and make a presentation on Capitol Hill what kind of fraud this man made GW is:
Fairy Tale

Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Wednesday, May 15, 2002 WASHINGTON – A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.

The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.

Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."
Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.
"Carbon dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Singer agreed. "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940.

Here is Herrn Professors Hartwig Holz homepage and e-mail address:
Hartwig Volz - Deutschland - E-Mail, Adresse, Telefonnummer und mehr! 123people.de
And here are the Results if You "Google" Herr Professor Volz:
Schwarzchild Equation - Google Search

Anybody here who is interested what REAL AND ESTABLISHED SCIENCE has to say about this man mad GW crap should click on this link I just posted here.
I have no idea why people would be deceived by what 97% of a bunch of total assholes and crackpot "scientists" agree on what is science and what is not.
Fuck they can`t even understand a simple Calaculus Equation...would they, they should HAVE NEVER QUOTED Schwarzchild, Max Planck and Professor Volz!
Unless they have suicidal tendencies...Hey I`m a Nazi and I could be of some assistance...in case Dr.Kevorkian retired...I`ll volunteer GLADLY..who wants to be first:
http://askbernhard.9f.com/

And these bastard Scharlatans that OldRocks quotes, get even with real scientiests by plagiarizing their work, steel equations to bolster the credibility of this moron "science" and even go so far to alter the text of well known physics laws to suit their purposes.
Well if that is not fraud, what does it take to get rid of these bastards...???Keep on going playing scientist "OldRocks" the more of this "science" You quote/copy and paste here into this forum, the easier it is to show what kind of lying bastards You all are!

LOL Very convincing arguement.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Climate change" has become "Knowledge production"..................

Why is it that every resigning IPCC member comes out and says this organization uses "fake" data??

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the IPCC report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

This is all about engineering data to impact policy. Its what its always been. It is fcukking amazing that people think this is about science = stupid absurd. Who can be that naive?



UN Climate Scientists Speak out on Global Warming | Reprint

U.N. climate chief rejects resigning over glacier gaffe | Reuters

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers | Watts Up With That?

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/u-s-press-awol-on-climate-skepticism/




Science............my ass. It is about trillions of $$ up for grabs. Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch........

 

[skookerasbil]

And the purpose for these k00ks is to create a totally green economy............which in an age of zero job growth DESTROYS JOBS

Green Jobs: Hope or Hype Redux | Clearing the Air | NCPA.org


Green Jobs: Hope or Hype Redux
Filed in Air Problems, Energy, Environmental Education, Global Warming, Regulation and Risks, Waste and Recycling, Water Issues on September 21, 2010

On the campaign trail in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama announced a plan to create five million new “green collar” jobs. Since becoming president, he has repeatedly touted his support for green jobs; for instance, in his 2010 State of the Union address and Earth Day remarks on April 22, 2010. In addition, recent stimulus legislation and appropriations bills have contained provisions to subsidize or promote green job creation.

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that government support of green industries will cost more jobs than they create.

Spain. President Obama has identified Spain as a model for a new economy driven by green jobs. But a 2009 study from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University showed that for every green job the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were lost as energy-intensive industries either closed down or moved to other countries with lower energy costs:

The government’s green job push created approximately 50,000 jobs, but resulted in a loss of more than 110,000 jobs in other industries.
Only 1 in 10 of the new green jobs was permanent.
Each green job created since 2000 has required about $774,000 in government subsidies. [See the figure.]
Denmark. On Earth Day in 2009, President Obama cited Denmark as another country that has benefited from subsidized green job creation. Like Spain, Denmark’s green industry – primarily wind-powered electricity generation – was heavily subsidized and likely would not have existed without government support. According to “Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark,” a 2009 report by the Center for Political Studies, a Danish think tank:

The Danish government spent $90,000 to $140,000 to create each wind job.
About 28,400 people were employed in the Danish wind industry, but only about 1 in 10 were new jobs – the remaining 90 percent were simply positions shifted from one industry to another.
From 1999 to 2006, the average government-subsidized clean energy technology worker added $10,000 less to the Danish economy than did the average employee in other industrial and manufacturing sectors.
As a result, Danish gross domestic product was about $270 million less than it would have been if the wind industry work force were employed in other sectors.
Thus, a 2006 report from the Danish Economic Council concludes, “The wind power expansion in the 1990s is an example of a policy that was unprofitable from society’s point of view, even taking the economic advantages that the wind business enjoyed into consideration.”

 

[skookerasbil]

Electricity rates "will skyrocket"...............-Barak Obama


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4[/ame]


Now......skyrocketing electricity rates dont matter to social invalids who live in the middle of nowhere in fcukking Bumfook and make laughable mortgage payments. To a majority of Americans, they get fcukked in a green economy. Make no mistake here..........this is not at all about "science".......its about Obama picking winners and losers.

 

[IanC]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

 

[skookerasbil]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

Is kinda funny Ian........Rocks et. al. never address this.......just post up the same old regurgitated crap...........

 

[westwall]

The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

dx = κρdz
The crucial thing is that there is a monotonic function relating x and z.

The atmosphere does not end at some height but trails off with lower and lower density. Thus z may not have have an upper limit but x may nevertheless have a finite level.

Since κρ has dimension of inverse length optical path length x is a dimensionless variable.


In terms of optical path length the Beer-Lambert Law takes the form

dI/dx = −I
The Case of an Absorbing-Emitting Medium
In a medium which absorbs radiant energy the temperature increases and it radiates energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula σT4. The Beer-Lambert Law is replaced by the Schwarzchild Equation

dI/dz = −κρI + ½κρR(z)
where R(z)=σT4(z). This formula presumes Kirchhoff's Law that the emissivity of a substance is equal to its absorptivity. It also presumes that half of the thermal radiation is in the forward direction.

In terms of the optical path length the Schwarzchild equation takes the form

dI/dx = −I + ½R
Since there is forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Let I+ be the radiation flux intensity in the direction of increasing optical path length x and I- the flux intensity in the opposite direction.

The two equations for the flux intensities are

See Ian & Mathew that`s what happens if an "Expert" in Physics quotes "Real Physics" and makes goobledigook speeches to appear educatued and intelligent, but has no idea what he is quoting.

He quoted this web Page and pasted some text in here that he pretends to understand:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect

And here is where they...,OldRocks web site got it from,,...that web site copied a few equations and buzzwords, to appear as Experts in Physics...:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

Go there and You will soon spot a gigantic fraud how these swindlers alter original text from real Physics, like what the Schwarzchild equation, the Max Planck Equations well in short what every equation really stated

His man made GW "expert Physics" web site copied it from here:
WORD FOR WORD, what they liked and LEFT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT!

first a quote from "OldRocks" web site quote:
The Vertical Temperature Profile Established by the Greenhouse Effect


And these bastards simply stole, copied and pasted it into their "expert" web page from here:
Barrett Bellamy Climate - Schwarzschild's Equation


And some more buzzwords+ equations but chopped all the rest right off
And they left all that clean out what else the Physics they so shamelessly plagiarized did say in the mathematical discussion


And You know who they actually stole parts of their text from?
Read to the bottom of Schwarzchild`s Equation "OldRocks" boasted with here in this forum:
Schwarzschild-Equation-for-the-transmission-of-radiation-through-an-absorbing-medium

A German Professor Hartwig Volz from the University of Mainz. And Professor Volz and the other Doctor Heinz Hug who is one of the world`s foremost experts in Spectral Physics who I quoted also in this forum work together to point out the sever flaws in this man made "GW science"!
Remember my post where Heinz Hug`s actual measurements showed that these bastards exaggerated by a factor of at least 20 times
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/147932-2011-global-temperature-thread-13.html

Professor Hartwig Volz and many other Scientists in Physics, Chemistry and Geo-science branches from Germany even went so far to travel to the U.S.A. and make a presentation on Capitol Hill what kind of fraud this man made GW is:
Fairy Tale

Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Wednesday, May 15, 2002 WASHINGTON – A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.

The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.

Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."
Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.
"Carbon dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Singer agreed. "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940.

Here is Herrn Professors Hartwig Holz homepage and e-mail address:
Hartwig Volz - Deutschland - E-Mail, Adresse, Telefonnummer und mehr! 123people.de
And here are the Results if You "Google" Herr Professor Volz:
Schwarzchild Equation - Google Search

Anybody here who is interested what REAL AND ESTABLISHED SCIENCE has to say about this man mad GW crap should click on this link I just posted here.
I have no idea why people would be deceived by what 97% of a bunch of total assholes and crackpot "scientists" agree on what is science and what is not.
Fuck they can`t even understand a simple Calaculus Equation...would they, they should HAVE NEVER QUOTED Schwarzchild, Max Planck and Professor Volz!
Unless they have suicidal tendencies...Hey I`m a Nazi and I could be of some assistance...in case Dr.Kevorkian retired...I`ll volunteer GLADLY..who wants to be first:
http://askbernhard.9f.com/

And these bastard Scharlatans that OldRocks quotes, get even with real scientiests by plagiarizing their work, steel equations to bolster the credibility of this moron "science" and even go so far to alter the text of well known physics laws to suit their purposes.
Well if that is not fraud, what does it take to get rid of these bastards...???Keep on going playing scientist "OldRocks" the more of this "science" You quote/copy and paste here into this forum, the easier it is to show what kind of lying bastards You all are!

LOL Very convincing arguement.

If you understood basic science it is compelling. For someone like you where it flies right over your head it makes no impact at all. Kind of like describing TV to an aboriginal.

 

[westwall]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

It's actually more like the water is the millions of dollars and the CO2 is the cents, as regards relative numbers.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

Were you to read Dr. Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" you would see the world's leading climatologist state that the models are still far to simplistic, and do not, and cannot, take into account feedback effects we still do not understand.

You would also see how far off not only Dr. Hansen's predictions have been concerning the affects of the present warming. The 'alarmists' definately missed the boat on the sensitivity to even the warming that we have already experiance. The Artic sea ice is very much a case in point. And the Antarctic should not be losing mass by the models, it should be static or gaining slightly. The Greenland Cap should be gaining from increased precipitation, losing only on the coast. Yet we see the ice lowering even in central Greenland. It is not models that have the climatologists worried at present, it is the observed effects of the warming that we have already experianced.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

It's actually more like the water is the millions of dollars and the CO2 is the cents, as regards relative numbers.

A better anology would be a servo valve. The CO2 is the little valve that controls the big valve, water vapor.

 

[Old Rocks]

Electricity rates "will skyrocket"...............-Barak Obama


YouTube - Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket


Now......skyrocketing electricity rates dont matter to social invalids who live in the middle of nowhere in fcukking Bumfook and make laughable mortgage payments. To a majority of Americans, they get fcukked in a green economy. Make no mistake here..........this is not at all about "science".......its about Obama picking winners and losers.

All energy costs are going to skyrocket, along with food prices, whether we do something or do nothing.

 

[westwall]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.

If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.

that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

Were you to read Dr. Hansen's "Storms of my Grandchildren" you would see the world's leading climatologist state that the models are still far to simplistic, and do not, and cannot, take into account feedback effects we still do not understand.

You would also see how far off not only Dr. Hansen's predictions have been concerning the affects of the present warming. The 'alarmists' definately missed the boat on the sensitivity to even the warming that we have already experiance. The Artic sea ice is very much a case in point. And the Antarctic should not be losing mass by the models, it should be static or gaining slightly. The Greenland Cap should be gaining from increased precipitation, losing only on the coast. Yet we see the ice lowering even in central Greenland. It is not models that have the climatologists worried at present, it is the observed effects of the warming that we have already experianced.

Really, he admits that the computer models are woefully simplistic then tries to get the government to pass onerous regulations based on simplistic data? Really? And you support this?

 

[westwall]

I am much less than satisfied with either Old Rocks or Polar Bear's links. CO2 blocks 15um completely at the surface, evaporation takes the heat upwards with water vapour, cloud precipitation and the diminished air pressure release the latent heat, and CO2 slows the escape of 15um radiation above the water vapour. My questions involve the cloud cycle, what form does the latent heat take when it is released, and how much effect does the CO2 have on it and by which mechanisms.

while CO2 is what many are interested in, it is certainly obvious that H2O does almost all the heavy lifting. if our understanding of clouds if off by a small margin it is more than enough to obliterate the effect of CO2. and our understanding is weak. climate models put generalized inputs in for clouds and assume a positive feedback, even though there is not enough information to make those assumptions. again, a small miscalculation for clouds throws the whole model out of whack. water is the dollars, CO2 is the cents. $100~103.90~100.390. penny wise, pound foolish. our focus may very easily be in the wrong place.


that is from GISS. Cloud Climatology

how often do you hear the modelers talk about how uncertain their models are?

It's actually more like the water is the millions of dollars and the CO2 is the cents, as regards relative numbers.

A better anology would be a servo valve. The CO2 is the little valve that controls the big valve, water vapor.

That's certainly what you boys are trying to make us beleive, problem is once again no empirical data supports you. It does the opposite in point of fact.