It was cute for awhile.. But I'm startin' to see "queer porn" at the grocery check-out lane and trying to avoid calling the bagger a fucktard.. We gotta stop humoring this human compost pile..
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're so full of crap! If you knew how to read an encyclopedia entry it is quite clear you moron. Gosh you're stupid. Can you wipe your own ass without help?
Have you ever seen anyone as stupid as him? I thought rocks was the quintecential AGW idiot, but bobo makes rocks look like a rhodes scholar.
Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact).
The last half million years is current geologic history, the mere blink of a geologically referenced eye. Given the age of Geo, a half a million years is about one ten thousandth of geological existence. That barely takes us back over the last few interglacials. In recent geological history would probably stretch back at least fifty million years (roughly one percent of Geo's existence). Which puts us within approximation to the PETM.
So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?
Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.
So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?
Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.
And what happened during the PETM? I'll let wiki explain it....
"Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.
The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]
In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]
The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26] which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]"
So, in a nutshell, certain species of forams suffered very high extinction rates. Different species on the other hand did very well. Mammals did exceptionally well and contrary to the incessant nonsense about heat killing the opposite is true. Warmth allowed plants to grow well and that allowed fauna to do well.
How do you explain that?
Paleocene
Sounds like warm weather is favorable to mammals.
Its not a simple matter of being tuned to a specific frequency.. The absorption/emissions spectra consists of MULTIPLE "lines" at which the matter is free to accept/discharge (in this case) IR as RF energy. All this has nothing to do with heat transfer and thermo either. Only the radiative balance (input/output) of the material due to IR (electromagnetic) transmission.
But hey... Whatever predicts the right answer --- Right?
This was about ian's own ideas about how CO2 causes warming. He, and some other luke warmers believe that CO2 somehow keeps IR in the atmosphere for a longer time by bouncing the IR around from one CO2 molecule to another, thus causing a build up of energy somehow.
That, however, is not possible because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. CO2 has a very narrow absorption wavelength and even the small change in wavelength that a "packet" of IR realises between absorption and emission precludes it being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.
Here is the paper I referenced to ian and while he can grasp that the wavelength emitted is different than the wavelength absorbed, he seems to think that either no energy is lost or that somehow the CO2 molecule, by emitting multiple "photons" from the original absorbed "photon" can somehow regain that lost energy. Here, have a look at the explanation as to why ian's description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is not possible.
Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle
interesting presentation there.. Here's the simple deal.. This discussion always sounds to me like the "ThermoDynamics" class notes got mixed and shuffled with the "Fields and Waves" class notes. HEAT -- is transferred by agitation of molecules. Conduction, Convection, whatever. IR is transported by photons. It's an EM phenomenom. Different college classes --- different rules. But -- they are tied together because IR absorption/emission CHANGES the heat content of the matter. Air actually IS a heat conductor and various gases have different heat capacity and conduction properties. That's the Thermo part.
Also your reference is hung up on whether CO2 can re-radiate IR.. That's not even the Greenhouse.. All incident wavelengths contribute to surface heating. So energy that passed cleanly thru CO2 on the way in (like even UV) contributes. The SURFACE is the "wavelength convertor" to IR going skyward. Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact).
It all comes out right because the IR absorptive props of CO2 are largely filtered by water vapor. and thus it doesn't matter as much as AGW types want us to believe.
Peace out...
![]()
This discussion always sounds to me like the "ThermoDynamics" class notes got mixed and shuffled with the "Fields and Waves" class notes.
Just like water vapor, CO2 is gonna keep you warm at nightime. (Except that GW science can't confirm that fact).
No. Water vapor keeps you warm at night because water actually has the capacity to absorb and retain energy. CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit with no actual energy retention.
The bottom line is that radiation accounts for such a small bit of the energy transfer from the surface to space until you reach the outer edges of the atmosphere that it really doesn't matter anyway. Radiation across the whole spectrum amounts to about 8% of the total energy transfer into the upper atmosphere. Now look at the bands in which CO2 can absorb and relate that to 8% of the total energy movement from the surface to space and you have to see that CO2 is meaningless even before you apply the laws of physics to the so called greenhouse effect.
Mammals which could migrate or proliferate away from the equator did relatively well, during PETM. Given human emissions, defoliation, and stupidity, 7 billion is too many humans, to survive MEE6. And our rate of CO2 emissions is 10x PETM and accelerating.
The CO2/temperature took 200,000 years to reduce from peak; look that up, since I'm not looking shit up, today. Unless humans aggressively re-green, humans will go on the endangered list, sooner, not later.
So did anybody completely model all absorption, refraction, reflection, diffusion, deflection, emission, and heating coefficients? No? Looks like Wiener needs to go back over all this, watch some more queer porn, with Wally, and explain the quantum physics of Earth's atmosphere and surface, in one post.
Wally, I don't know why an asshole like you even posts. A retard on meth, like suckasbil can't control himself. But I guess right-wingpunk fucktards have compulsions, so heeeere's Wally, no graphs, no live links, except for soft-core queer porn.
So are you joining in the PETM is proof positive in a happened 3 times in 4.5 billion years kind of a way that CO2 causes warming instead of the other way around?
Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.
And what happened during the PETM? I'll let wiki explain it....
"Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.
The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]
In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]
The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26] which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]"
So, in a nutshell, certain species of forams suffered very high extinction rates. Different species on the other hand did very well. Mammals did exceptionally well and contrary to the incessant nonsense about heat killing the opposite is true. Warmth allowed plants to grow well and that allowed fauna to do well.
How do you explain that?
Paleocene
I really wish you would keep your outlandish ideas to yourself rather than spam them to other people as fact. I am not saying that all the radiation from excited CO2 molecules is absorbed in turn by another CO2 molecule but I am saying that the absorption spectra is exactly the same as the radiative spectra for CO2 or any other simple molecule.
ian, you acknowledged yourself that you could grasp that the IR exits a CO2 molecule at a different wavelength than that which it entered. I gave you a formal paper on the topic which gave you exactly the wavelength at which IR exits a CO2 molecule. I asked you which absorption band the IR exiting from one CO2 molecule might be absorbed by another CO2 molecule but alas, there were none so you simply didn't answer.
Face it ian, you are wrong. Your personal idea of how warming occurs is no more plausible than the official greenhouse effect as voiced by the IPCC.
This was about ian's own ideas about how CO2 causes warming. He, and some other luke warmers believe that CO2 somehow keeps IR in the atmosphere for a longer time by bouncing the IR around from one CO2 molecule to another, thus causing a build up of energy somehow.
That, however, is not possible because one CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule. CO2 has a very narrow absorption wavelength and even the small change in wavelength that a "packet" of IR realises between absorption and emission precludes it being absorbed by another CO2 molecule.
Here is the paper I referenced to ian and while he can grasp that the wavelength emitted is different than the wavelength absorbed, he seems to think that either no energy is lost or that somehow the CO2 molecule, by emitting multiple "photons" from the original absorbed "photon" can somehow regain that lost energy. Here, have a look at the explanation as to why ian's description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is not possible.
Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle
Mammals which could migrate or proliferate away from the equator did relatively well, during PETM. Given human emissions, defoliation, and stupidity, 7 billion is too many humans, to survive MEE6. And our rate of CO2 emissions is 10x PETM and accelerating.
Wally, I don't know why an asshole like you even posts. A retard on meth, like suckasbil can't control himself. But I guess right-wingpunk fucktards have compulsions, so heeeere's Wally, no graphs, no live links, except for soft-core queer porn.
ALL animals everywhere did well babaganoosh. There are no fossil assembleges predominant in any geomorphic region. Try reading a book sometime.
I agree that wirebender has mixed up and misremembered many things from his education.
If your understandings are significantly at variance with any of this information, please indicate specifically what you disagree with and what you feel is more representative of your understandings with regard to that particular and specific issue.
I won't argue a paper I haven't read, but the concept of long-free pathways vs short-free pathways is not, in itself, dependent upon what re-absorbs the CO2 emitted photons, it is that it alters the shortest mean free-path to exiting the earth's environment for the surface emitted thermal IR. Lengthening the mean free-path extends the persistence of that energy in the system and increases the likelihood of it being absorbed and re-emitted by something else in the environment adding still more length to the mean free-path and increasing the residence of the energy.
If your understandings are significantly at variance with any of this information, please indicate specifically what you disagree with and what you feel is more representative of your understandings with regard to that particular and specific issue.
Absorption and emission are not where climate science and I reach an impass. The problem arises when climate science claims backradiation from the cool atmosphere is causing the warmer surface of the earth to warm further. Or when certain elements of climate science claim that CO2 somehow delays the escape of IR from the atmosphere.
In the first case, the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that energy can not move from cooler objects (the atmosphere) to warmer objects (the surface of the earth)
In the second case, IR radiating from the surface of the earth is moving at, or very near the speed of light. A single encounter with a CO2 molecule does not appreciably slow down the escape of that IR "packet" into space. The only way CO2 might serve to delay the escape of IR from the atmosphere would be if the IR went from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule, to CO2 molecule but alas, that can not happen as a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission from another CO2 molecule.
In short, the described mechanisms by which CO2 is claimed by the various warmist and luke warmist camps to cause warming are simply not physical.
Physics (specifically radiation transfer mechanics) provides the compellingly supported understanding that CO2 is capable of acting like a "greenhouse" gas, the PETM is nothing more than a recent geological example of what happens when you rapidly (over the period of ~ 10k years) flood the Earth's atmosphere with climatically significant volumes of such greenhouse gases. We are currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere at ~10x the rate that occurred during the PETM and our rate of emissions is still increasing.
What is the measuring device that shows beyond any question that the CO2 rose before the Temperature rose?
What caused the temperature to drop again to the levels prevalent right before the dramatic increase and then what caused the temperature to continue the slow rise to the same peak that the PETM rose to?
If the content of GHG in the air is the driving factor and the increase in temperature continues driven by the GHG and the feedback effect of increasing GHG's is more GHG's, how does the temperature EVER reduce from a peak?
Since the PETM was about 14 degrees C warmer than now, is this an appropriate parallel to the world we now live in? There wasn't a glacier on the planet at that time near sea level.
Absorption and emission are not where climate science and I reach an impass. The problem arises when climate science claims backradiation from the cool atmosphere is causing the warmer surface of the earth to warm further. Or when certain elements of climate science claim that CO2 somehow delays the escape of IR from the atmosphere.
In the first case, the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that energy can not move from cooler objects (the atmosphere) to warmer objects (the surface of the earth)
In the second case, IR radiating from the surface of the earth is moving at, or very near the speed of light. A single encounter with a CO2 molecule does not appreciably slow down the escape of that IR "packet" into space. The only way CO2 might serve to delay the escape of IR from the atmosphere would be if the IR went from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule, to CO2 molecule but alas, that can not happen as a CO2 molecule can not absorb the emission from another CO2 molecule.