AGW: atmospheric physics

[IanC]

not SSDD. the other guy, I forget his name offhand. the one who had the crackpot theory that mixed the characteristics of electric fields with plain radiation.

you spent your time and energy attacking me while saying nothing about his bilge.

I think you're thinking of wirebender.

thanks, it finally came to me.

 

[westwall]

I asked you if you were XXXX at that time. I would never report you to the mods because I only care about the ideas. did someone actually report you?

Yes. As I remember, there was a half a day or so where I couldn't post while I was cleared.

I can also show you "Saigon`s" posts where he did the same and tried to get me banned after I pulled his pants down, because the liar`s pants were on fire.
He managed to got me banned ( for one day) after I showed him that he is not in Finland with some funky Java script embedded in a picture I posted:

Your post was a perceived Security Threat. Now that it was checked out, your account has been restored. Don't play with code here. Pretty please.
Just needed to be sure that You weren't collecting IP info on users

Admin deleted my post that showed "the educated Journalist in Finland" `s IP and I promised not to do it again.
And right now the "nuclear engineer" is trying to do the same thing with Gslack, Westwall and me after we blew up his "I used to be a nuclear engineer" garbage.
It`s about time forum admin starts looking at the computer specific MAC addresses like every public WiFi provider....to see how many of these fraud artists are logging on with one ore more different user names and hi-5 their own posts.
If I do it it won`t be as easy as admin can do it if they wanted to.
I`ll get banned for good just for trying.
It`s not all that hard to hack admin accounts in php`s and I`m tempted to do so, had I not better things to do with my time.

Here I would counsel you not to.

First of all the board would miss you because you are both highly educated and amusing as hell! Especially when you rip these 'tards a new a-hole.

Secondly, even with all of their socks they are losing...and losing big time. I figure each of our posts is the equivalent of 30 of theirs.

And thirdly, it's unethical and beneath you as an engineer. You're worth 30 of these asshats and prove it with every post.

Just kick back and enjoy the collapse as they begin to realise they have followed a false religion for so looooong.

 

[IanC]

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.

he called this rearrangement of terms corrupt

some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.

 

[IanC]

As far as your comment that I "seemingly agree with SSDD"...:
He applies thermodynamics in a very rudimentary fashion, but I don`t shoot him down, because in the final analysis he is accurate within 2 places behind the decimal point as far as "back radiation" from CO2 is concerned if you actually do a quantitative spectral analysis:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

http://www.john-daly.com/hug2.gif
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]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 n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

you realize this post infuriates me, right?

is the Daly quote something that you just found? I have been saying for years that the CO2 effect is real, just exaggerated. and you told me I was full of shit. we argued for dozens of pages on one thread where you fought me tooth and nail over every niggling detail while ignoring howlers from wirebender and gslack. you endlessly brought up my careless use of the word energy rather than power even though I had used the proper terminology earlier in the same post. and yet you had nothing to say about wirebender confusing zero degrees F with zero degrees K, even though it was integral to his argument.

now you are giving SSDD a 'pass' because you dont think the amount is significant. SSDD/wirebender are saying that no radiation is returning to the surface from the atmosphere! given that the amount of radiation generated by the surface according to SB is larger than the amount of radiation being received from the Sun, I think we have a significant problem balancing the books. where is the extra energy coming from? if the surface is not radiating at the rate of S-B, is that not a violation of a 'LAW'.

 

[polarbear]

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.

he called this rearrangement of terms corrupt

some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.

Well Ian, I`m not wirebender.
But I always had an issue with it when people use the above equation to quantify how much CO2 absorbs and re-emits back down.
Because CO2 at T2 deg K does not absorb (T1^4 - T2^4) times the energy from a not so black body at T1 deg K. It can only absorb a tiny fraction of this energy at the quite narrow 15 µm band.
And when you actually MEASURE it how much, as Heinz did then you can see that it is only 1/80 th of what the IPCC says it does...and still use in their computer models.
Heinz Hug`s direct measurements were dead accurate and you get the same values with the calculations that Gerlich and Tscheuschner did.
You should read it:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

I can`t take the credit for finding the English translation on the internet.
Somebody who writes here at the US mssgboard found it and mailed it to me....which I really appreciate,...because if I translate the original German paper and quote it, then you would call it "long winded".
Well quantum physics is a bit "long winded" and I don`t know of any publication where it`s formatted like some brochure that you can read while you are in a waiting room and walk away with a degree in physics.
...Like the instant forum physics-expert-Googlers, who read enviro.org blogs...or the AGW favorite "Skepticalscience" web log short little bible stories that our warmer alarmists like quoting over and over again.
B.t.w. if an equation that incorporates IR energy integration over a certain bandwidth or the Poynting vector "infuriates" you, then you should stay away from physics and math altogether

 

[SSDD]

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.

he called this rearrangement of terms corrupt

some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.

Looks like they both say the same thing. One way gross energy flow in the first one...

Why would someone apply the distributive property to an equation that was already elegant? Im' not sure why someone would call it corrupt though. It's just bad math and certainly doesn't belong anywhere in science.

 

[IanC]

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.

he called this rearrangement of terms corrupt

some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.

Well Ian, I`m not wirebender.
But I always had an issue with it when people use the above equation to quantify how much CO2 absorbs and re-emits back down.
Because CO2 at T2 deg K does not absorb (T1^4 - T2^4) times the energy from a not so black body at T1 deg K. It can only absorb a tiny fraction of this energy at the quite narrow 15 µm band.
And when you actually MEASURE it how much, as Heinz did then you can see that it is only 1/80 th of what the IPCC says it does...and still use in their computer models.
Heinz Hug`s direct measurements were dead accurate and you get the same values with the calculations that Gerlich and Tscheuschner did.
You should read it:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

I can`t take the credit for finding the English translation on the internet.
Somebody who writes here at the US mssgboard found it and mailed it to me....which I really appreciate,...because if I translate the original German paper and quote it, then you would call it "long winded".
Well quantum physics is a bit "long winded" and I don`t know of any publication where it`s formatted like some brochure that you can read while you are in a waiting room and walk away with a degree in physics.
...Like they do on enviro.org blogs...or the AGW favorite "Skepticalscience" web log short little bible stories that our warmer alarmists like quoting over and over again.

there is always radiation for CO2 to absorb. the extinction distance gets lower and lower, as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. the closer to the ground for re-radiation, the higher the atmospheric temp, etc. I am not saying that either the surface or the atmosphere are perfect blackbodies or that there are not differences in flux. I am saying that CO2 makes a difference, even if we disagree over the amount.

 

[IanC]

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.

he called this rearrangement of terms corrupt

some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.

Looks like they both say the same thing. One way gross energy flow in the first one...

Why would someone apply the distributive property to an equation that was already elegant? Im' not sure why someone would call it corrupt though. It's just bad math and certainly doesn't belong anywhere in science.

Are you now saying that the cooler object stops.some radiation from the warmer object?

 

[SSDD]

Are you now saying that the cooler object stops.some radiation from the warmer object?

What cooler object? The equation is describing a black body radiating into cooler surroundings. It is describing a one way gross energy flow.

 

[polarbear]

this was what wirebender, and others disagree with when discussing 'backradiation'.

he called this rearrangement of terms corrupt

some people really are deniers. even when it comes to math.

Well Ian, I`m not wirebender.
But I always had an issue with it when people use the above equation to quantify how much CO2 absorbs and re-emits back down.
Because CO2 at T2 deg K does not absorb (T1^4 - T2^4) times the energy from a not so black body at T1 deg K. It can only absorb a tiny fraction of this energy at the quite narrow 15 µm band.
And when you actually MEASURE it how much, as Heinz did then you can see that it is only 1/80 th of what the IPCC says it does...and still use in their computer models.
Heinz Hug`s direct measurements were dead accurate and you get the same values with the calculations that Gerlich and Tscheuschner did.
You should read it:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

I can`t take the credit for finding the English translation on the internet.
Somebody who writes here at the US mssgboard found it and mailed it to me....which I really appreciate,...because if I translate the original German paper and quote it, then you would call it "long winded".
Well quantum physics is a bit "long winded" and I don`t know of any publication where it`s formatted like some brochure that you can read while you are in a waiting room and walk away with a degree in physics.
...Like they do on enviro.org blogs...or the AGW favorite "Skepticalscience" web log short little bible stories that our warmer alarmists like quoting over and over again.

there is always radiation for CO2 to absorb. the extinction distance gets lower and lower, as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. the closer to the ground for re-radiation, the higher the atmospheric temp, etc. I am not saying that either the surface or the atmosphere are perfect blackbodies or that there are not differences in flux. I am saying that CO2 makes a difference, even if we disagree over the amount.

I know what you are saying Ian and there is nothing wrong with what you just said...but don`t forget that CO2 is not some sort of optical diode which restricts in which directions atmospheric CO2 can radiate.

The extinction distance is also less for 15 µm IR that comes down from the sun and is a lot more intense than what comes from a 20 C earth terrain.

If there were no 120 km path of "greenhouse gases" like H2O with a trace of CO2 between the sun and us we would be cooked.

You realize of course that while molar ppm stay the same as the pressure drops the ppm v CO2 gets less and less with increasing altitude and the up path has less and less CO2 ppm v per meter path length than the down path...but that`s only half the story.
CO2 has a rather high optical density. If you fill an open vat half way up with CO2 you can actually see the boundary between CO2 and air as light is being diffracted as it passes into the optically denser layer....towards the vertical.
And the reverse is the case as the optical density gets less and less in the opposite direction.
So now plot a ray which is not exactly vertical but is going up into a progressively less optical density transparent medium.
You wind up on a tangent and a path length where the remaining 15 µm IR that is supposed to be "back-radiated" is as negligible as a fly having a head on collision with the heat energy convection freight train that's going the opposite way at the same time air is being warmed.
With moderate convection there are cubic miles of warm air per second way past the 10 meter path length that CO2 "traps"...and then would have to "back radiate" through 100 meters instead of 10 meters.
A 1000 feet per minute convection is considered "minor turbulence"...you should the V.S.I. what happens if you stray into a thunderstorm.
B.t.w. From a distance and @ ~ 2000 feet a.g.l. you can actually see the "lens effect" over urban heat islands even when there is no visible smog.

 

[polarbear]

IanC:
We sure could use a few red-star "back radiation" photons in Manitoba.
Should I read back to you what you said (last year in the Roy Spencer debunking thread) when I compared the CO2 "back radiation" photons to "back radiation" photons from a full moon (which is a lot closer) ?

I'll bite. are you talking about the reflected sunlight coming off the moon or the radiation emitted from the surface?

last year you seemingly agreed with gslacks' owner that photons magically 'expended' themselves against each other, in open space, with no matter present, and that the energy simply vanished. is that still your opinion?

Polarbear- is this the post that you keep referring back to with respect to "agreeing to SSDD"?

As in many past cases you have become confused and accused me of a strawman of your imagination. I suppose it is easier than quoting me and dealing with my actual statements. I left a pointed comment for you at Climate S.... Where you can respond without getting buried.

Edit- wirebender was the name I I couldn't dredge up

Holy shit IanC can`t you take a joke ?
That was a sarcastic remark that almost every news paper in Canada has been making about "global warming" while we are waiting for spring.
Let me explain it to you. First I`ll try and do it with math.
((x+a)^2 -x^2)/a = (x^2 + 2xa + a^2 -x^2)/ a= (2xa + a^2)/a =2x +a.
At which point will you say that the first differential of f(x)=x^2 is 2x and not 2x+a ?...How small do you want the "a" to be before you agree that the first diff. is 2x ?

Of course you are free to theorize how much taller an elephant is if he`s got a gnat sized wart on his head....like lunar or distant red star photons.
You might even show with a microscope just how big the gnat is, but by then the elephant became too huge to fit into the graph.

 

[gslack]

I'm back... BTW, Ian, mammooth, saigon, and doctrorisin, nice try...

 

[numan]

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder

The freeze-dried bear-brain is an untruthful flibberty-gibbet, isn't he?
.

 

[gslack]

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder

The freeze-dried bear-brain is an untruthful flibberty-gibbet, isn't he?
.

numan, I thought i smelled something.....

 

[mamooth]

It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made. And this one does it very well.

Your delusions aside, it is spamming, and it's directly against board rules.

"No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites."

PolarBear posted the exact same long stalkerbabble article across multiple threads. Hence, he violated the spamming rules.

Remember, my little stalkers. You are all free to stalk me. You just can't duplicate the exact same stalkerbabble across multiple threads. When you do that, I report you.

By the way, I always give decent, honest people the benefit of the doubt concerning board rules. I only report violations by my psychostalkers.

 

[gslack]

It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made. And this one does it very well.

Your delusions aside, it is spamming, and it's directly against board rules.

"No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites."

PolarBear posted the exact same long stalkerbabble article across multiple threads. Hence, he violated the spamming rules.

Remember, my little stalkers. You are all free to stalk me. You just can't duplicate the exact same stalkerbabble across multiple threads. When you do that, I report you.

By the way, I always give decent, honest people the benefit of the doubt concerning board rules. I only report violations by my psychostalkers.

Yes and no abusing the rep system, no sockpuppets,no harassing other posters all of which you have violated numerous times... They should get an anti- whiny punk crybaby, fraud policy, then we could lose two of you right away...

Go ahead and report everyone admiral, try and get everyone banned. Then no one will be able to save your butt. People accept so much whining and then they are done..

Now go cry again, prove me right once more.

 

[mamooth]

no abusing the rep system,

Then stop abusing the rep system. I certainly don't. I never initiate a neg, I only automatically counter-neg.

no sockpuppets,

Your "IamBorg" sock seems to have had one of the shortest lifespans ever. You certainly pulled the plug on that one quick, after I pointed out what a laughably obvious sock it was. But hey, just because he joined the board and instantly went straight only to the threads you posted on, and then suddenly vanished when I called you on it, that doesn't mean it was your sock. Oh wait, it does.

By the way, you still won't tell everyone who my socks are supposed to be, despite me asking you directly. 'Fess up. You're just making up stories, aren't you?

no harassing other posters all of which you have violated numerous times...

Oh, do tell. This should be good. Please detail this harassment for everyone.

Go ahead and report everyone admiral, try and get everyone banned. Then no one will be able to save your butt. People accept so much whining and then they are done..

When people go on month-long psychostalker lying campaigns against me, I lose patience with their crap. Anyone would. Cease the lying and stalking, and you won't have to worry about me. It's all up to you.

 

[westwall]

screw you polarbear. you are the one who swamps threads with your longwinded crap. the only one worse than you is rollingthunder

The freeze-dried bear-brain is an untruthful flibberty-gibbet, isn't he?
.

No, that would be you...

 

[westwall]

It's not stalking if it refutes an assertion that you have made. And this one does it very well.

Your delusions aside, it is spamming, and it's directly against board rules.

"No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites."

PolarBear posted the exact same long stalkerbabble article across multiple threads. Hence, he violated the spamming rules.

Remember, my little stalkers. You are all free to stalk me. You just can't duplicate the exact same stalkerbabble across multiple threads. When you do that, I report you.

By the way, I always give decent, honest people the benefit of the doubt concerning board rules. I only report violations by my psychostalkers.

Feel free to report me then. I will be exhonerated, and you will be investigated, and hopefully banned for false accusations and theft of ID from other folks and trying to pass it off as your own.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

All of you.

Knock it off.

If you want to flame, do it in the Flame Zone.