MURTHA: Unparalleled Perfidy(IBD)

[White_Male_Canada]

Unparalleled Perfidy

War On Terror: The party of John Murtha shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Congress the terrorists wanted is doing their bidding.

"We're trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, (but) by redirecting money," explained Murtha.

As we've noted on several occasions, Democratic talk of "redeployment" has encouraged terrorist groups around the world.

Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said before the 2006 vote: "Americans should vote Democratic," adding that "it is time the American people support those who want to take them out of the Iraqi mud." The statement could have come from Murtha, Kerry, Hillary or any number of Democrats.

We'd have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.

They are working on the game plan of al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In October 2005, Zawahiri outlined al-Qaida's plan in a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, late head of al-Qaida in Iraq:

"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority . . . over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=256522262721962

[guyone]

:rock2

[trish]

Al-Zawahiri doesn't think the troop surge is wrong. where'd you get that? oh...you made it up. bushy has been playing into the hands of the terrorists ever since he gave up on Afganistan and invaded Bagdad.

[guyone]

When did the US give up on Afghanistan? You better tell the troops over there.

[trish]

the stated purpose of the war in Afganistan was to remove both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Bush gave up on Afganistan and settled for Kabul. Afterall, Haliburton had no real interest in Afganistan.

[guyone]

Well you better tell the two NATO soldiers who died there today that you've determined it wasn't Afghanistan.

Sorry the troops are not living up to your expectations. They owe you a very big apology.

[White_Male_Canada]

Al-Zawahiri doesn't think the troop surge is wrong. where'd you get that? oh...you made it up. bushy has been playing into the hands of the terrorists ever since he gave up on Afganistan and invaded Bagdad.

This from the girl who thinks CO2 accumulates exponentialy!?

Al Qaida deputy leader Ayman Al Zawahiri mocked US President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq by saying, " "Why send 20,000 only? Why not send 50 or 100,000? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies...Iraq, the country of the caliphate and of jihad, is capable of being a tomb for 10 of your armies."

This from a guy who hides in caves.

[White_Male_Canada]

When did the US give up on Afghanistan? You better tell the troops over there.

.. 8)

[trish]

WMC ejaculates another pathetic dud of a lie:
This from the girl who thinks CO2 accumulates exponentialy!?

Point to where I claimed that. You pointed to a curve and said it wasn't exponential over the interval from 1800 to 2000. I fit a exponential equation to it. I never made the generic claim that CO2 accumlates exponentially. Moreover, you know it and you admitted it. Get some integrity. I handed you your ass. Get use to it. :P :lol: :lol: :P

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC ejaculates another pathetic dud of a lie:
This from the girl who thinks CO2 accumulates exponentialy!?

Point to where I claimed that. You pointed to a curve and said it wasn't exponential over the interval from 1800 to 2000. I fit a exponential equation to it. I never made the generic claim that CO2 accumlates exponentially. Moreover, you know it and you admitted it. Get some integrity. I handed you your ass. Get use to it. :P :lol: :lol: :P

You`re delusional.

I questioned a graph that some maintained it proved exponential CO2.

You posted an equation that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 values. Nothing, zero, nada.

You`re posting equations that you do not even understand and have YET to post any equation proving exponential CO2. Because if you do it will be proven false. CO2 is logarithmic, not exponential.

You posted that Al Zarqawi agreed with President Bush on the troop surge to end sectarian violence in Baghdad.

That too was false.

You`re delusional girl. 8)

[specialk]

:arrow:

[trish]

WMC:
...the girl who thinks CO2 accumulates exponentialy!?

WMC:
You posted an equation that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 values. Nothing, zero, nada.

in the context you cite these two statements, made by you are contradictory. which lie do you want to push...make up your vacuum-packed mind before it implodes.

[chefmike]

:lol: 8) :P

[trish]

WMC quotes


Al Qaida deputy leader Ayman Al Zawahiri mocked US President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq by saying, " "Why send 20,000 only? Why not send 50 or 100,000? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies...Iraq, the country of the caliphate and of jihad, is capable of being a tomb for 10 of your armies."

exactly what i said to guyone...right? Al Zawahiri agrees with Bush on the surge. Their disagreement is on numbers. by the way. why aren't you over there fighting? imitating our fearful leader?

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC quotes


Al Qaida deputy leader Ayman Al Zawahiri mocked US President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq by saying, " "Why send 20,000 only? Why not send 50 or 100,000? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies...Iraq, the country of the caliphate and of jihad, is capable of being a tomb for 10 of your armies."

exactly what i said to guyone...right? Al Zawahiri agrees with Bush on the surge. Their disagreement is on numbers. by the way. why aren't you over there fighting? imitating our fearful leader?

You post a meaningless CO2 chart and have zero clue as to why CO2 is logarithmic and not exponential.

Al Zawahiri does not agree that the US Coalition should be victorious. In fact Al Zawahiri agrees with the democrats, that the US should suffer another ignominious defeat in the exact same manner the democrats handed south east Asia to the Communists and the 2 million ensuing deaths.

Sniff, sniff...something reeks in here,

oh yeah, that`s the smell of your desperation.

[trish]

Again: you pointed to a curve and claimed it wasn’t exponential. I fit an exponential to it (go back and READ the thread if you have to). Curve fitting is pure statistics. It doesn’t matter what the curve represents…could be CO2 concentrations, could be Teddy Bears. I suspect if the chart had purported to display “the rise in the quality of life in capitalist societies since 1800” you would not have been so blind to its similarity to exponential growth.

It was obvious you wanted me to commit to more. I didn’t. Nowhere did I ever claim that exponential rise in CO2 concentrations was a consequence of first principles. My only theoretical claims were that the Earth’s surface temperature was highly sensitive to radiative energy flux and that insofar as greenhouse gasses modify the effective flux of long wavelength radiation at the Earth’s surface, even small variations in the amounts of greenhouse gasses(and a 280 ppm rise in CO2 to 380 ppm over 200 years is no small variation) in the atmosphere can cause significant climate changes.

I had the integrity not to propose more than I was able to prove. You, however, lack the honesty to represent my position fairly. You seem to have such a bizarre fear of the UN that you’re willing to sacrifice your own integrity, lie, misinform and misrepresent others out of shear cowardice.

Boo…the general assembly’s at your backdoor!!!


[/quote] US Coalition[/quote]

that'd be a laugh if it weren't a tragedy.

by the way...you're sitting alone at your terminal...i'm sure a professor, such as yourself, realizes that oders aren't transmitted over the web...ego if you smell something, it's coming from your end.

[trish]

Hey everybody, WMC thinks this curve is logarithmic. :arrow:
(just a taste of your own brand of misrepresentation...i'm not really saying you're that stupid...are you?)

[White_Male_Canada]

. Nowhere did I ever claim that exponential rise in CO2 concentrations was a consequence of first principles. My only theoretical claims were that the Earth’s surface temperature was highly sensitive to radiative energy flux and that insofar as greenhouse gasses modify the effective flux of long wavelength radiation at the Earth’s surface, even small variations in the amounts of greenhouse gasses(and a 280 ppm rise in CO2 to 380 ppm over 200 years is no small variation) in the atmosphere can cause significant climate changes.

Radiation absorption is logarithmic. Once a wavelength is fully absorbed it is saturated. CO2 at 600 ppmv with clouds would only produce a negligible effect of 0.20C or less because it is logarithmic.

[chefmike]

When did the US give up on Afghanistan? You better tell the troops over there.


:roll:

[guyone]

ChefMike you're terrible...

[trish]

WMC,

are you claiming


...CO2 is logarithmic

or are you claiming


Radiation absorption is logarithmic.

or both?

though logarithmic growth is slow, it still goes to infinity. Given that there's only a finite amount of CO2 that can be produced on Earth, it cannot be produced nor accumulated logarithmically for an indefinite period of time. A more conservative guess is that human beings will release CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as they can until fossil fuels run out; because of the rapidity of the release CO2 will accumulate at a rate commensurate with the rate at which we release it. Since the supply is finite i'm guessing the accumulation rate will be logistic; i.e exponential until supplies of fossil fuels become stressed, at which point the curve will rise asymptotically toward a ceiling. Not only is this speculation more conservative than your claim of logarithmic growth, it's consistent with the accumulation curve as we now know it.

Radiation absorption is a different matter...if i understand you, the logarithmic model doesn't kick in until there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to achieve "saturation"; i.e full absorption of all the available energy (in the appropriate CO2 absorption bands) that's being radiated back into the CO2 blanket by the Earth's surface. Honest question: what is the concentration of CO2 required for full absorption? How close is the to 380 ppm?

[muhmuh]

Honest question: what is the concentration of CO2 required for full absorption? How close is the to 380 ppm?

probably very far above it and more like what youd find on venus

[guyone]

Have you ever given a thought that the debated increase in CO2 seeping into our atmosphere could be due to carbonation? A lot of people drink soda...and that's a lot of CO2 drifting into our atmosphere at an alarming rate...is that Coke really worth it?

[White_Male_Canada]

though logarithmic growth is slow, it still goes to infinity. Given that there's only a finite amount of CO2 that can be produced on Earth, it cannot be produced nor accumulated logarithmically for an indefinite period of time. A more conservative guess is that human beings will release CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as they can until fossil fuels run out; because of the rapidity of the release CO2 will accumulate at a rate commensurate with the rate at which we release it.

Perhaps, but only if there were no -Feedbacks.


Since the supply is finite i'm guessing the accumulation rate will be logistic; i.e exponential until supplies of fossil fuels become stressed, at which point the curve will rise asymptotically toward a ceiling. Not only is this speculation more conservative than your claim of logarithmic growth, it's consistent with the accumulation curve as we now know it.

CO2 cannot be exponential merely because it fails to accumulate in the atmosphere due to - feedbacks and undetermined sinks.


Radiation absorption is a different matter...if i understand you, the logarithmic model doesn't kick in until there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere to achieve "saturation"; i.e full absorption of all the available energy (in the appropriate CO2 absorption bands) that's being radiated back into the CO2 blanket by the Earth's surface. Honest question: what is the concentration of CO2 required for full absorption? How close is the to 380 ppm?

It is the CO2 molecule that reaches a saturation point. It is not like a giant balloon that can keep stretching the more water you put into it.CO2 peaks at 14 micrometres. The energy released by a CO2 molecule is omnidirectional. So naturally some of it escapes the atmosphere. Absorbed radiation cannot resurect itself. It either becomes kinetic or potential energy. So there`s probably a chemical reaction , emission or quenching.

IR and energy from the sun is being absorbed and deflected by much more than CO2 alone. What the IPCC is doing is adding +feedbacks to their models in order to receive the results they wish for.

[White_Male_Canada]

Have you ever given a thought that the debated increase in CO2 seeping into our atmosphere could be due to carbonation? A lot of people drink soda...and that's a lot of CO2 drifting into our atmosphere at an alarming rate...is that Coke really worth it?

We`ll have to ban these too :

[guyone]

Oh my God! We'll all be on fire!

[trish]

So you're telling me, WMC, that because there are feedbacks and sinks, CO2 will not accumulate logistically, because the logistic curve begins with an exponential rise. Ok, i'll bite. But the supply of CO2 is never-the-less finite and so the accumulation curve will have to be asymptotically flat, right. logarithms are not asympotically flat...they climb to infinity. So do we agree that the concentration of CO2 is NOT logarithmic in time...or are you sticking to the proposition that it IS logarithmic? Just taking this step by step.

by the way, the CO2 in carbonated drinks and fire extinquishers is taken from the carbon cycle. bottlers don't generally burn fossil fuels for the purpose of extracting the CO2 for their drinks. Most alchoholic beverages are carbonated by organic processes. The CO2 injected into soft drinks is generated by the decomposition of weak carbolic acid, which in turn is produced when water dissolves the CO2 found in the atmosphere. funny joke though, made me laugh.

[trish]

Okay, let's continue.
You say,

It is the CO2 molecule that reaches a saturation point.

This is true. It makes sense to say a single molecule reaches saturation when the electron shell is in its (relatively) highest energy state and can’t absorb any more radiation. But whatever amount of energy (of the appropriate wavelengths) one CO2 molecule can absorb, another will also have that same capacity. Hence two molecules will absorb twice the energy that one will absorb. In the end you see, it’s the concentration of CO2 that determines how much of the back radiation the CO2 gas will absorb. When the concentration is high enough, all of the back radiation is absorbed. At this point your shade analogy kicks in. Concentrations of CO2 beyond this “threshold” will have no more warming effect. So the question remains: what is the threshold concentration? Is it anywhere near 380 ppm?

[White_Male_Canada]

Okay, let's continue.
You say,

It is the CO2 molecule that reaches a saturation point.

This is true. It makes sense to say a single molecule reaches saturation when the electron shell is in its (relatively) highest energy state and can’t absorb any more radiation. But whatever amount of energy (of the appropriate wavelengths) one CO2 molecule can absorb, another will also have that same capacity. Hence two molecules will absorb twice the energy that one will absorb. In the end you see, it’s the concentration of CO2 that determines how much of the back radiation the CO2 gas will absorb. When the concentration is high enough, all of the back radiation is absorbed. At this point your shade analogy kicks in. Concentrations of CO2 beyond this “threshold” will have no more warming effect. So the question remains: what is the threshold concentration? Is it anywhere near 380 ppm?

From what I`ve learned there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.,ergo logarithmic. Added to that are –feedbacks. Doubling CO2 will not double the amount of globlal warming so the IPCC models utilize +feedbacks to get the results they require.

[guyone]

You got to admit this...WMC is pretty smart!

[chefmike]

You got to admit this...WMC is pretty smart!

[guyone]

That's a repeat.

[corbomite]

better do everything they say or else the world will end

[trish]

WMC says,

Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.,ergo logarithmic.

So the theorem you were remembering actually says (if we’ve got it right now) that the Earth’s surface temperature is a logarithmic function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not at all the same as saying the CO2 concentrations are logarithmic in time. Notice, however, the principle (now that we understand it) cannot be cited to argue against temporary exponential rises in the CO2 concentrations. You agree, right? Because the theorem you were remembering says TEMPERATURE (not CO2 ) grows logarithmically with the AMOUNT OF CO2 in the atmosphere (not time). It’s now time to reconsider: the chart that has been our bone of contention, might very well show the exponential portion (from 1800-2000) of a logistic curve. The evidence suggests it, common sense suggests it, and there’s no theoretical obstacle as you once thought there was.

Now logarithmic functions are unbounded above. This means that as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere the temperature rises too. Pick any number, no matter how large, and logarithmic growth guarantees that if we double the amount of CO2 often enough the temperature will get above that number. Right? That’s the way logs work. Thus we see that the logarithmic rule as you’ve cited it above contradicts what we’ve previously agreed on concerning the existence of a saturation point for the concentration of CO2.

Something’s gotta go. My guess is that it’s the saturation rule that is technically wrong. However, it can be fudged in the sense that, the log function eventually grows so slowly that temperature only rises immeasurably if the CO2 concentrations are high enough.

Okay. So far, so good. My guess is you don’t have too many quibbles with the above.

Here’s where we part company. From what you learned, you say 380 ppm (.038%) is a high enough concentration of CO2 to capture nearly all the back radiation of the Earth’s surface and that more CO2 will not cause temperatures to rise appreciably. Perhaps, but then why is it so easy for satellites to discern the surface features of the Earth in infrared? If all that heat radiation were being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted in every direction, satellites would still of course see the radiation re-emitted by the homogeneously distributed CO2 gas. But those emissions would no longer carry any information about the Earth’ surface. Instead, plenty of infrared energy, directly emitted by the warm Earth finds its way into space and can readily be observed with little to no interference from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is energy that would be absorbed if more CO2 were present. Using your metaphor…the window shade is still too thin…in fact, we can see right through it!

[White_Male_Canada]

"Doubling CO2 will not double the amount of globlal warming so the IPCC models utilize +feedbacks to get the results they require." WMC


And what about methane and the other greenhouse gases? More piss poor science and selective presentation from White_Male_Can't do science.

What about it ? Would you ban all cows from the planet, or do what some kooks suggest, install mufflers on their asses?

You`re a raving lunatic who`s mind is closed. If you don`t know the UN`s IPCC is adding +Feddbacks to get the results they desire then you`re a gore-ite.

I`ll get to algore and expose that deceiver a little later.

[trish]

WMC

'just checking in to see if you responded to my last post. guess not...i'll check in later.

[trish]

on the side issue of cow farts. that methane, as is the CO2 in carbonized drinks, is part of the repiratory cycle; i.e. it not like the megatons of carbon that's been buried for eons and only now is being released. i wouldn't be installing those mufflers just yet. still one has to remember the feedback cycles are delicate. after photosynthesis appeared the atmosphere filled with oxygen with high enough concentrations to poison many anerobic life-forms. could cows do the same with methane? could their methane be the needle that breaks the camel's back? Perhaps...but if you want to save the camel, you don't worry about needles. You lighten its load.

[White_Male_Canada]

"Doubling CO2 will not double the amount of globlal warming so the IPCC models utilize +feedbacks to get the results they require." WMC


And what about methane and the other greenhouse gases? More piss poor science and selective presentation from White_Male_Can't do science.

What about it ? Would you ban all cows from the planet, or do what some kooks suggest, install mufflers on their asses?

You`re a raving lunatic who`s mind is closed. If you don`t know the UN`s IPCC is adding +Feddbacks to get the results they desire then you`re a gore-ite.

I`ll get to algore and expose that deceiver a little later.

Missed my point totally, either because you are ignorant of recent science, or as more likely trying to twist things again and avoid the question. Who mentioned cows, I certainly didn't? Another case of you imagining/inventing things again, eh "Prof.". Your line I quoted, and the links I provided, clearly pointed to what I was referring to: increasing global temperatures will cause + feedbacks which we have no control over, thats what the term + feedback means. Look it up! I know this is recent science, and that you've not done any real science for over 10 years, only spin it, but thats no excuse. The IPCC certainly know about + feedbacks, even if you don't, thats why they are now incorporating into their new calculations, and perhaps thats why their arguments are more believed in than yours are. Like I said, more piss poor out-of-date science from the false Prof..

P.S. I bet Al Gore is trembling in his shoes, NOT! They do say that it takes one to know one, so if Al Gore is a deceiver, then your more likely to know than me, eh "Prof."? Like I said, anyone who thinks that nature is simple and that we know it all is a fool, and that is exactly what you are!

You`re looking more and more the zealot with every post.

I notice you`ve abandoned the man-made CO2 will destroy the planet arguement and now shift to methane concentrations due to +Feedbacks that cannot empircally be proven.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC

'just checking in to see if you responded to my last post. guess not...i'll check in later.



the Earth’s surface temperature is a logarithmic function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not at all the same as saying the CO2 concentrations are logarithmic in time. Notice, however, the principle (now that we understand it) cannot be cited to argue against temporary exponential rises in the CO2 concentrations. You agree, right? Because the theorem you were remembering says TEMPERATURE (not CO2 ) grows logarithmically with the AMOUNT OF CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 change and global temperatures global. Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.


A temporary exponential rise in CO2? Perhaps, if mount pinatubo explodes..

We`re getting too deep into the physics of CO2 and I`m not a physice prof. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%. What that translates into C takes a large equation to figure out, I`ll get back to you unless you have the answer right now.



Now logarithmic functions are unbounded above. This means that as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere the temperature rises too.

Not necessarily. The Medieval warming period was hotter than today but CO2 concentrations were less. So the relationship is difficult to ascertain.





why is it so easy for satellites to discern the surface features of the Earth in infrared? If all that heat radiation were being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted in every direction, satellites would still of course see the radiation re-emitted by the homogeneously distributed CO2 gas. But those emissions would no longer carry any information about the Earth’ surface. Instead, plenty of infrared energy, directly emitted by the warm Earth finds its way into space and can readily be observed with little to no interference from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is energy that would be absorbed if more CO2 were present. Using your metaphor…the window shade is still too thin…in fact, we can see right through it!

That is because CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm, CO2 does not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy and CO2 only absorbs a narrow bandwidth(See Wavelength/Absorbtion graph above).
Also , what specific IR measurements are you referring to ?


In the end it CO2 can increase temperatures but only to a very minor extent. Exponential CO2 is somewhat of a fallacy. Doubling CO2 conjecture would only lead to minor increases in temps over a very long period of time simply because doubling CO2 cannot be done overnight and would equate to only about 0.5C. The UN`s IPCC knows this and must add + Feedbacks to achieve their desired results.

[trish]

You’re the one who is claiming temperature is logarithmic in the amount of CO2, you say it here:


Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.,ergo logarithmic.

I haven’t yet proposed a quantitative model between temperature and CO2 concentrations and certainly not a linear one. The models we’ve been discussing are the ones you’ve brought to the discussion. It’s true that the log model you mention above doesn’t take into account seasonal fluctuations and noise from other factors but many first approximations ignore minor details like that and can still be valuable. So now I need to know: are you sticking to your proposal that temperature is logarithmic in CO2 concentration or abandoning it?

Before we can make any further progress you need to make clear just what it is that logarithmic in what? It’s not deep physics. Just clear communication.

1. Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere logarithmic in time as you claim here


...CO2 is logarithmic?

2. Is Radiation absorption logarithmic in time as you claim here…

Radiation absorption is logarithmic.?

3. Is temperature logarithmic in the concentration of CO2 as you’ve most recently claim?

If you go with (1) there will be a moment in time when the CO2 concentration becomes an absurd two million parts per million…simply because logarithms rise without bound.

If you go with (2) tell me exactly what aspect of radiation absorption you’re measuring so we can all be sure what (2) really claims.

If you go with (3) you are committed to saying temperature always rises with the concentration of CO2 because logarithms are increasing functions.

[trish]

by the way, WMC...do you agree that infrared photography of the Earth's surface from space shows the CO2 blanket is transparent and therefore unsaturated?

[chefmike]

8) :P

[White_Male_Canada]

Radiation absorption is logarithmic. Once a wavelength is fully absorbed it is saturated. CO2 at 600 ppmv with clouds would only produce a negligible effect of 0.20C or less because it is logarithmic.


you’re the one who is claiming temperature is logarithmic in the amount of CO2, you say it here:

"Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.,ergo logarithmic."

You misunderstood. I`m referring to CO2 being logarithmic, not the relationship of temps to CO2.

Radiation absorption (CO2) is logarithmic. Once a wavelength is fully absorbed it is saturated. CO2 at 600 ppmv with clouds would only produce a negligible effect of 0.20C.



by the way, WMC...do you agree that infrared photography of the Earth's surface from space shows the CO2 blanket is transparent and therefore unsaturated?

Post a link to the satellite imagery you`re referring to. Nimbus has data on atmospheric CO2:

[muhmuh]

Radiation absorption is logarithmic. Once a wavelength is fully absorbed it is saturated.

and since when do logs saturate? seriously why do you even try to talk maths and physics if you clearly havent got an understanding of it?

[trish]

WMC
I`m referring to CO2 being logarithmic

i assume you're referring to CO2 CONCENTRATION in the atmosphere; but logarithmic in what? if you mean in time, then i can only repeat the objection that: concentrations that evolve logarithmically with time will eventually reach one million parts per million and paradoxially beyond. so i'm assuming you don't mean time. you seem to be saying explicitly it's not logarithmic in temperature. so what variable are CO2 concentrations logarithmic in?


Now you also say:



Radiation absorption is logarithmic.. Same question. In what variable is it logarithmic? surely not time because this would imply the non-attainability of saturation. I can only assume you mean radiation absorption is logarithmic in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This also implies there's no saturation point but it also implies the effectiveness of CO2 to absorb diminishes with rising concentrations and so there is a sort of quasi saturation.

I will remind you, however, we are nowhere near saturation as the CO2 blanket is transparent in the infrared from space.

by the way an difference of .2C in the annual mean surface temperature is by no means small. There's only a 5C difference between the current mean and the last ice age. .2/5 = 4%.

[White_Male_Canada]

by the way an difference of .2C in the annual mean surface temperature is by no means small.

Never stated the increase would be in one year.


I will remind you, however, we are nowhere near saturation as the CO2 blanket is transparent in the infrared from space.

It has been measured by the Nimbus satellite. See my previous post.


so what variable are CO2 concentrations logarithmic in?

Parts per million by volume. In the absence of mitigating –feedbacks, doubling CO2 from its value in the late 19th Century (about 290 ) to double this (i.e., 580) causes a 2% increase in radiative forcing, then to obtain another 2% increase in radiative forcing we must increase CO2 by an additional 580 ppmv rather than by another 290 ppmv.

[White_Male_Canada]

The IPCC is incorporating natural sources of + feedback which we now know are currently starting to kick-in thanks to man-made global warming, THATS WHY I FUCKING MENTIONED IT YOU DUMB TWAT!

The UN`s IPCC is nothing more than modeling guesstimations and forcings.

You`re view that it is " starting to kick in" is supposition.

[muhmuh]

by the way an difference of .2C in the annual mean surface temperature is by no means small.

Never stated the increase would be in one year.

*continously bangs head against wall*



I will remind you, however, we are nowhere near saturation as the CO2 blanket is transparent in the infrared from space.

It has been measured by the Nimbus satellite. See my previous post.

*bangs harder*
hopefully ill die i cant take it anymore

[White_Male_Canada]

do you agree that infrared photography of the Earth's surface from space shows the CO2 blanket is transparent and therefore unsaturated?

we are nowhere near saturation as the CO2 blanket is transparent in the infrared from space.

It has been measured by the Nimbus satellite. See my previous post.


*bangs harder*
hopefully ill die i cant take it anymore

It`s empty anyway, so no harm done.

Maybe you`re operating on a different level. How about you take the co2 absorbtion peak, calculate the emmission, factor in relaxtion time, assume an area of 1m^2, calculate number of photons emitted , incorporate a formula to ensure 100% absorption of these photons. Then take an atmosphere mass based on 1 m^2 area, calculate number of N2 molecules in the column. Calculate the number of co2 molecules in the 1 m^2 column based on 380ppmv.

[trish]

WMC,

i referred to the annual mean surface temperature of the Earth. i mentioned that change in that mean since the last ice age was 5C.


Never stated the increase would be in one year.

The annual mean surface temperature is the mean of all the temperatures taken over a year. A change in the annual mean temperature can be measured over decades, centuries or eons.

The nimbus data measured the temperature of the wave length bands of the Earth's back radiation. the valleys in the chart show the absorption bands of green house gasses, proving that yes...there is a significant concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Never-the-less the atmosphere is still transparent to infrared radiation. Come on, WMC...you can admit that...i know you can. We've all seen infrared satellite photographs of Earth's surface features. The shade is still transparent. We're nowhere near saturation.

[trish]

i see you finally found that log rule:

the percentage increase in radiative forcing (i should like to see a definition of that) is logarithmic in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

notice CO2 concentration is the independent variable in your log rule.

explain how this rule proves (as you've claimed it does) that concentrations of CO2 cannot over short periods of time (such as the period from 1800 to 2000) be exponential? that should be no mean trick, because concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is obviously going to vary with the rate of CO2 released by geological and biological sources...none of which figure into the log rule. The log rule tells you how much the climate is forced by given a certain CO2 concentration. It doesn't tell you anything at all about the temporal rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[White_Male_Canada]

i see you finally found that log rule:

the percentage increase in radiative forcing (i should like to see a definition of that) is logarithmic in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

notice CO2 concentration is the independent variable in your log rule.

explain how this rule proves (as you've claimed it does) that concentrations of CO2 cannot over short periods of time (such as the period from 1800 to 2000) be exponential? that should be no mean trick, because concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is obviously going to vary with the rate of CO2 released by geological and biological sources...none of which figure into the log rule. The log rule tells you how much the climate is forced by given a certain CO2 concentration. It doesn't tell you anything at all about the temporal rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ok. % of CO2 in the atmosphere has always varied. There is no linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 change and global temperatures. Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2,even less, due to CO2 absorbance(376 units per km for 380 ppm). Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%

Calculate the exponential increase of CO2 based on the rate of about 265 ppmv year 1800.

The fact is the UN`s IPCC add + feedbacks to achieve their desired results.

[trish]

WMC

going in circles? nonsense.

you finally learned what's logarithmic in what.

you learned what annual mean temperature is.

you're learning that CO2 concentrations can grow exponentially for intervals of time.

during those intervals of exponential climb in CO2 conc. the % increase in radiative forcing will grow LINEARLY with time. that's because exponentials are the inverses of logarithms.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC

going in circles
during those intervals of exponential climb in CO2 conc. the % increase in radiative forcing will grow LINEARLY with time. that's because exponentials are the inverses of logarithms.

The second chart is not exponential no matter how much you wish it.
For the last time, there is no constant exponential rising CO2-concentration but a varying CO2-content.

[trish]

we've talked about noise before, when i extended to you the courtesy that we were discussing general trends.

do the math on your own if you like, but explain how the third chart is nearly linear when the first is logarithmic.

[trish]

let's focus in on the data in your chart that was collected by methods not so susceptible to the interference of noise.

[White_Male_Canada]

we've talked about noise before, when i extended to you the courtesy that we were discussing general trends.

do the math on your own if you like, but explain how the third chart is nearly linear when the first is logarithmic.

You`re claim that co2 accumulates exponentially is false.

Please provide links to scientists who claim co2 concentrations are exponential.

I`ve learned nothing new here. We know the UN`s IPCC loads there computer models with +feedbacks to achieve their sky-is-falling results. We know co2 concentrations are not exponential. We know co2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. We know Each time co2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. We know there is no linear relationship between atmospheric co2 change and global temperatures. Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric co2 has been rising. Total co2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made co2 even less.

[trish]

look, i never gave a damn whether the period from 1800 to 2000 shows exponential growth in CO2 concentrations or not. I merely mentioned that a back of the envelop calculation shows an exponential fit. [you have to go back to our prior thread to check this]. You, however claim

THERE ARE THEORETICAL REASONS WHY IT CAN'T GROW EXPONENTIALLY.

i claim: THERE ARE NO THEORETICAL REASONS WHY CO2 CAN'T GROW EXPONENTIALLY OVER A FINITE INTERVAL OF TIME. i never found any theoretical objections in my perusal of the subject. seems to me

the ball's in YOUR court.

i know you've been trying:

first you said CO2 concentrations can never, for any interval of time, grow exponentially because they grow logarithmically (allowing of course for the exception of noise). That was too easy to refute.

next you said absorption radiation that grew exponially in time, then you said temperature was logarithmic in CO2 concentration, then you said absorption radiation was logarithmic in something and finally we've landed the understanding that its the percentage increase in radiative forcing that is logarithmic in CO2 concentrations. None of these later assertions contradict the possibility that CO2 concentrations can grow exponentially. I even showed how the last one is definitely consistent with expontial CO2 growth in time.

are you still claiming it's theoretically impossible for CO2 concentrations to grow exponentially in time for a finite interval of time?

are you still claiming, in spite of the obvious that the CO2 blanket is transparent from space.

are you still claiming that a warming Sun is responsible for global warming?

[White_Male_Canada]

are you still claiming it's theoretically impossible for CO2 concentrations to grow exponentially in time for a finite interval of time?

You attached yourself to a factual chart of co2 and claimed it as exponential. It is not exponential and I would like you provide links to reputable scientists who also claim that co2 concentrations have risen exponentially since 1800. You`re back of the envelope calculation stating it "fit" is simply insufficient and un-scientific.


are you still claiming, in spite of the obvious that the CO2 blanket is transparent from space.

Can you see it? I can`t. Can Airs and Aqua ? It can collect data and it can be assimilated to create a horizontal and vertical map.


are you still claiming that a warming Sun is responsible for global warming?

Are you claiming man-made co2 has a greater effect on climate than does solar irradiance!?

[trish]

Can you see it? No it's transparent. That's the point.


You attached yourself to a factual chart that's for me to say. (looking around) no not attached.

Hey I'm willing to admit the possibility that it's not exponential from 1800 to 2000. There. How about that. I gave you an argument that it IS, but i can fault the argument even though you don't even seem capable of understanding it. So why should i scour the web for experts when you won't even address the argument at hand.

YOU CLAIM IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR CO2 TO EVER CLIMB EXPONENTIALLY OVER AN INTERVAL OF TIME. BUT YOU CAN'T GIVE A REASON WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT. WHEN YOU GIVE A REASON...LATER YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND SAY THAT WASN'T THE REASON...THIS OTHER THING's THE REASON. I'M BEGINNING TO THINK YOU'RE LYING ABOUT THOSE LOGARITHMIC RULES BEING THE REASON BEHIND YOUR BELIEF. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE LYING TO ME...I THINK YOU'RE LYING TO YOURSELF.


here's what i believe:
it's possible that CO2 concentration might at sometime rise expontially in time.

why do i believe that? i can't think of any valid theoretical obstacle to such growth. CAN YOU?


Are you claiming man-made co2 has a greater effect on climate than does solar irradiance!?

of course not. solar irradiance is everything. green-house gasses amplify the warming effect of solar irradiance. i DO claim that the activities of the Sun do NOT seem to account for the current warming trend. The solar constant has been constant for over a hundred years since we first learned what it was and how to measure it. The solar irradiance measured by satellites just outside the atmosphere have not detected a significant change in energy flux since 1978 (beyond the noise of flares, the annual changes to Earth's elliptical orbit, and the eleven year cycle due to the Sun's period of rotation).

[White_Male_Canada]

Hey I'm willing to admit the possibility that it's not exponential from 1800 to 2000. There. How about that. I gave you an argument that it IS, but i can fault the argument even though you don't even seem capable of understanding it. So why should i scour the web for experts when you won't even address the argument at hand.

nothing to argue about. co2 concentrations have not accumulated exponentially. Theoretically, anything can happen for all it takes is imagination.


here's what i believe:
it's possible that CO2 concentration might at sometime rise expontially in time.


What would cause it?



of course not. solar irradiance is everything. green-house gasses amplify the warming effect of solar irradiance. i DO claim that the activities of the Sun do NOT seem to account for the current warming trend. The solar constant has been constant for over a hundred years since we first learned what it was and how to measure it. The solar irradiance measured by satellites just outside the atmosphere have not detected a significant change in energy flux since 1978 (beyond the noise of flares, the annual changes to Earth's elliptical orbit, and the eleven year cycle due to the Sun's period of rotation).

You omit the Svensmark Effect and sunspot cycles.

[trish]

WMC finally agrees:

it's possible that CO2 concentration might at sometime rise expontially in time.

We’re making progress. We can move on.

Yes, you’re right. I left out the Svensmark effect. It doesn’t belong in the list of factors that contribute noise in measurements of solar irradiance just beyond our atmosphere. When solar activity is high, Svensmark conjectures, the highly energetic particles thereby ejected ionize Earth’s atmosphere creating aerosols that become cloud condensation nuclei. The clouds reflect sunlight and global cooling ensues. During periods of relative solar inactivity, there is less ionization radiation, less condensation nuclei, fewer clouds and global warming ensues. The above chart published by the SOHO group at NASA shows solar activity to be relativity constant except for the sources of noise I already mentioned. The Svensmark effect (which has not yet been verified by independent measurements) would create an echo of that noise in measurements of the Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures and also in solar irradiance at any level within the atmosphere. It wouldn’t generate long term trends beyond the length of typical solar cycle.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC finally agrees:

"it's possible that CO2 concentration might at sometime rise expontially in time.'


We’re making progress. We can move on.

You glom onto a graph chart that displays historical/factual co2 concentrations and you claim it is exponential then finally admit it is not but hypothetically, it could happen. I agree that hypothetically almost anything can happen. That`s not progress.


Yes, you’re right. I left out the Svensmark effect. The above chart published by the SOHO group at NASA shows solar activity to be relativity constant except for the sources of noise I already mentioned. The Svensmark effect (which has not yet been verified by independent measurements)

If svensmarks work is immaterial then why waist over 10 million euros with a team of 55 scientists working on it for CERN with more research and larger facilities.



would create an echo of that noise in measurements of the Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures and also in solar irradiance at any level within the atmosphere. It wouldn’t generate long term trends beyond the length of typical solar cycle.

Cosmic rays and solar activity are different things coming from different sources. :smh Speaking of saturation rates being at nearly 100%, my correcting your misinterpretations saturation level has been met.

[trish]

I agree that hypothetically almost anything can happen. That`s not progress.

it damn well is. just re-read the thread and you'll see. what you want to say you're not making progress!? (by the way...you're misrepresenting again. i never said the accumulation wasn't exponential...i merely said it may not be and that i'm aware of all the technical weakness in my argument even if you aren't...please stop lying)


If svensmarks work is immaterial then why waist over 10 million euros with a team of 55 scientists working on it for CERN with more research and larger facilities

Svenmark has not found the cause of the past two hundred years worth of global warming for reasons i explained above. point to where i said his work is immaterial. i said his measurements have yet to be carried out by independent researchers.

gee, I wonder why CERN (which has a budget that is no doubt measured in billions of euros) would be interested being the first to verify or debunk an alledged phenomenon related to particle physics?

[trish]

The following are all distinct from each other:

1. The quantity Q is exponential in time;

2. The quantity Q is exponential over the time interval I;

3. There is evidence that Q is exponential over the time interval I;

4. The sample of measurements of Q taken over the time interval I can be fit by an exponential function with correlation C [By this one usually means the measurements of log(Q) taken over I can be fit by a linear function with correlation C];

5. The quantity Q is not exponential over I.

6. The measurements of Q taken over I cannot be fit by any exponential function with correlation better than C.

In the case where Q is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, I’ve neither asserted (1), because it’s definitely false. By giving a rough exponential fit to picture a poster kindly provided us (the one that sparked this discussion) I presented evidence in the form of (4) for the assertion (3) where I was taken to be the interval from 1800 to 2000. You however, claimed there was a theoretical objection to the possibility of (2) and I naturally found that interesting. Now that you’ve withdrawn that objection, I’m happy enough to move on to more interesting questions.

In regards to the Svensmark effect, if Sol is taken to be the primary source of the particles ionizing the atmosphere and allegedly forming cloud nuclei, then the effect can only explain warming and cooling periods of durations less than or equal to the solar cycles. One could only use the Svensmark effect to explain a two-hundred year period of global warming if the source of the energetic particle is outside the solar system. Svensmark enthusiasts say the source could be somewhere within our galaxy; and they urge us to believe galactic cosmic rays are the cause of Earth’s current warming trend rather than the release of CO2 in the atmosphere. They could be right. But they need to establish

A. Energetic particles striking the atmosphere really would create aerosols that really would function as nuclei for cloud formation (The CERN experiment).

B. There is a galactic source of energetic particles that really do create aerosols that really do function as nuclei for cloud formation (No proposed experiments yet).

C. The galactic source is of significant intensity to have an impact on Earth’s climate.

D. One must show that since 1800 the intensity of the galactic source has been decreasing (fewer particles, fewer clouds, more warming).

E. Presuming one can establish (D) it has to be shown the intensity drop quantitatively fits the observed warming.

I’m not ruling out any of these possibilities. But I do think that presently, of the two hypothesis, the one that claims global warming is due to the release of CO2 in the atmosphere is the most reasonable.

[trish]

8)

[White_Male_Canada]

8)

Here is what you`ve learned but refused to accept because it violates your faith in the new quasi-religion of earth worship whom algore is the apostle:

-CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that only 3.4% is man-made.

-Mankind IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today.

-CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

-There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.

-Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.

-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

-" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000


-The IPCC claimed climate change to be "very likely" 90% man-made. All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.

-National Research Council report on the IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.

-Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. "hockey stick" himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his "hockey stick" temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of "peer review" aka, fellow travellers.

-Climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.

-The 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that " Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 "
They released the IPCC's the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.

-Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.

-Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.


-Algore owns oil stock (oxy) and owned a zinc mine.

-Algore lied in his book and has a history of exaggerations, I "took the initiative in creating the Internet", there was " no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law" ( it was) , stated he " found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal" and of course, "within as little as 10 years (GW will) make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization."

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=15989

-Alogre`s his manions use 20 X the electricity of an average home. he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16193

So called man-made global warming is merely a trojan horse for the marxist left. Warming, through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the marxist utopian dream,through environmentalism, of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally(aka, carbon trading).

And in conclusion, GW fear mongers are akin to snake oil salesmen. And to borrow a few lines , someone else stated it concisely:


FIRST, RESIST URGENCY. If someone agitates for your attention right now, claims that some issue or other is the paramount crisis of our times, you may properly respond, "Cool your jets." Snake-oil salesmen and demagogues of every stripe seek first to create a clamor. Like a child's tantrum, the demagogue's message doesn't matter. If a movement can create enough of a fuss, it has made a start. If a persuader can make you rush, he can make you forget your senses. "Hurry, hurry, hurry!" calls the carnie barker.

Second, remember that apocalypses don't happen very often. I remember several that have been proclaimed -- Paul Ehrlich's population bomb, the coming ice age celebrated in news magazines in the 1970s, the Y2K disaster -- but none that have actually happened. The be-robed figure carrying a sign saying, "Repent! The End of the World Is at Hand!" appears in cartoons. That's where he belongs.

Third, be mindful of the mechanism of propagating panic, and the personages who do it. Beware of journalists, "activists," admen, PR flacks, and salesmen. "You can't bulls--t a bulls--tter," goes the old nostrum, but, in fact, the opposite is true. People in the persuasion business will swallow just about anything. So when the persuaders start whooping it up, back off.

Finally, keep your hand on your wallet. Proclaimers of catastrophe almost always call for expensive government studies, programs, even entire departments, to address their complaints. Government began way back in the Primatene mists when somebody threw a barrier across a road and demanded a bribe for passage. Governance, a necessary evil, starts with extortion. Resist any demand to make that extortion any worse than it has to be."

[trish]

-CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that only 3.4% is man-made.
Point to where I refused to accept that.


There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%If this nonsense were the case, then CO2 would make the atmosphere opaque to Earth observing satellites in those infrared bands. Instead, the infrared from the Earth's back radiation goes largely unabsorbed and is readily seen from space. You never refuted this point.


CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.This is sometimes true. It’s true for the ice ages and the intermittent warm periods because these fluctuations are driven by the secular motion of the Earth.


Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising.But over what time scales? Of course the temperatures rise and fall annually even though CO2 has been rising for two centuries. I find it amusing, however, that you’re using noise as noise by bringing up this tired old error over and over again. It’s a nice propaganda trick. Did you learn it from Rove?


Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

-" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000


I never made any remarks in support or not in support of policies for dealing with global climate change. Neither have you and I discussed it here. So why are these items in the list of things I was supposed to learn. Our discussion was of scientific issues, not policy.


All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval...that's just wrong.


Algore owns oil stock (oxy) and owned a zinc mine.I don’t care if Al Gore is a complete ass. What does it have to do with our discussion? If the motivation behind our discussion is to uncover the mechanisms behind climate change, the answer is nothing.


National Research Council report on the IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.The NRC, to this day, confirms the hockey stick chart.

It seems you lump me into the camp of global alarmists. You’re apparently soooo upset with this group you can see straight enough to spit. Have you heard me sounding alarms? Have I’ve cried “we gotta stop, we gotta stop.” I’m not motivated by political concerns as you most certainly are. Just because an organization you regard as dangerous says “there’s evidence that X is the cause of Y” doesn’t mean there is no evidence that X is causing Y. Perhaps you have reason to be suspicious of that organization’s motivations and hence suspicious of their conclusions. Be suspicious, yes. But realize that you can oppose the UN and come down on any side of the question: what is causing the current GCC?

[White_Male_Canada]

"There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%"




If this nonsense were the case, then CO2 would make the atmosphere opaque to Earth observing satellites in those infrared bands. Instead, the infrared from the Earth's back radiation goes largely unabsorbed and is readily seen from space. You never refuted this point.

If the the 15-micron band is saturated why wouldn`t it be virtually opaque to infrared radiation. Provide links to satellite measurements of co2 molecules in the 15 micron bandwidth.

"National Research Council report on the IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false."


The NRC, to this day, confirms the hockey stick chart.

Did I use the word false. Too strong perhaps, how about "substantial uncertanties", lowered confidence and even less confidence in Mann.

NRC:

The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative
assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our
confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice
Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original
conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the
warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature
reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods,
and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short
timescales.

The chairman of the committee, Professor Gerald North, in his oral remarks criticized the IPCC use of Mann`s data, stating that was not the way science should work.

"Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising."


But over what time scales? Of course the temperatures rise and fall annually even though CO2 has been rising for two centuries. I find it amusing, however, that you’re using noise as noise by bringing up this tired old error over and over again. It’s a nice propaganda trick. Did you learn it from Rove?

[trish]

If the the 15-micron band is saturated why wouldn`t it be virtually opaque to infrared radiation. exactly.

thanks for the chart...it makes my point.

[trish]

love this thread

[Quinn]

love this thread

It sure as hell is an interesting and informative read. I'll say that much for it.

-Quinn

[qeuqheeg222]

dick cheney had five vietnam deferments.bush was awol.someone should make the lawmakers in this country(not canada)send their own children into all conflicts that they want to send troops or poor hapless national guard troops into..put yer offspring(goin to yale on a family name scholarship)where youy think the oil is gonna be....

[trish]

are we to assume WMC has conceded that CO2 has not made the atmosphere opaque to the Earth's back radiation; that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will in fact still increase efficiency of the atmosphere to insulate against infrared leakage and warm the Earth further?

[White_Male_Canada]

are we to assume WMC has conceded that CO2 has not made the atmosphere opaque to the Earth's back radiation; that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will in fact still increase efficiency of the atmosphere to insulate against infrared leakage and warm the Earth further?

If the the 15-micron band is saturated why wouldn`t it be virtually opaque to infrared radiation.

Provide me with links to satellite measurements of co2 molecules in the 15 micron bandwidth.

To date my thread has done nothing but educate you and in return all I got were silly questions:

[trish]

are you still harping on the 15 micron band?


Provide me with links to satellite measurements of co2 molecules in the 15 micron bandwidth.


I’m sorry, I thought you were joking. It’s been known since the sixties that if one wanted to use CO2 absorption lines (measured by Earth satellites) to determine atmospheric temperature, then one would do well to utilize the 15 micrometer band. See for example Hankel, Bandeen and Conrath "The Infrared Horizon of the Planet Earth" American Meteorological Society March 1963; or their November 1963 paper in AMS, "Experimental Confirmation from the TIROS VII Meteorological Satellite of the Theoretically Calculated Radiance of the Earth Within the 15-Micron Band of Carbon Dioxide." This band is ideal for measuring atmospheric temperature because it is outside the atmospheric window. That’s why I thought you were joking. Why would I look for evidence against saturation outside the known window? There are two points to make here.
1) There is a window in the infrared band through which heat escapes from the Earth’s surface through the atmosphere into space. The window ranges roughly from 8 to 11 microns. (See for example Stull’s "Meteorology for Scientists and Engineers"). It’s called a window because it’s not opaque to satellite observers.
2) CO2 is especially efficient at absorbing radiation in that band. (See the 2nd chart below which is taken from Houghton’s "The Physics of Atmospheres").

A consequence of (1) and (2) is that CO2 is NOT saturated (in your sense of the word) in all of its absorption bands and especially not in the one’s most important to the greenhouse effect.

You want links...just google Atmospheric Window in the 8 to 11 Micron Range; you'll get links galore. All the ones from reputable universities, NASA and other research facilities supporting the existence of the infrared window from 8 to 11 microns and also verifying the fact that CO2 abosbs in this band.

Gee...if you weren't joking, then I wonder why you wanted me to waste my time on the 15 micron band. Did you really only reseach one absorption line and draw your conclusions based on that? Or did you already know there's an infrared window below 12 microns and to support it's non-existence you had to divert attention away from it. If the former case you're an idiot. If the latter case, you've already conceded point and shown youself to be intellectually dishonest.

Really, you should stop letting your paranoia of the UN dictate what you think...it's twisting your core values...assuming honesty and forthrightness once numbered among them.

[White_Male_Canada]

A consequence of (1) and (2) is that CO2 is NOT saturated (in your sense of the word) in all of its absorption bands and especially not in the one’s most important to the greenhouse effect.

8 to 11 microns and also verifying the fact that CO2 abosbs in this band.

Gee...if you weren't joking, then I wonder why you wanted me to waste my time on the 15 micron band. Did you really only reseach one absorption line and draw your conclusions based on that? Or did you already know there's an infrared window below 12 microns and to support it's non-existence you had to divert attention away from it. If the former case you're an idiot. If the latter case, you've already conceded point and shown youself to be intellectually dishonest.

co2 absorbs to extinction at its 15M peak in about ten meters. There are only two other smaller bands at which co2 can absorb IR and they are not as significant as the 15m band and they are not 8 to or 11m.
The only way to salvage your arguement is to claim that 2 minor absorbtion bands are more relevant than the 15m one. The only way to do that would be by then arguing unsaturation at higher levels.

[trish]

So now you concede there’s a window of infrared transparency and that CO2 does have absorption lines in that window. Good. Now also remember you claim that nearly all the back radiation of the Earth that can be absorbed by CO2 is being absorbed by CO2 and that additional CO2 will absorb no more because there is no more (that the Earth radiates into those bands) to be absorbed. But the Earth radiates more energy between 8 and 11 microns than at 15 microns. (This is in fact why CO2 absorbs to extinction at 15 microns, there’s not as much energy in that band to absorb). This is why the absorption lines between 8-11 microns are more relevant to warming than the 15 micron line. Of course my prior argument is still valid and still the simplest argument, namely the 15 micron line is outside the window and hence irrelevant to any argument concerning future warming. (By the way, the 8-11 micron levels are higher than the 15 micron level in terms of frequency and hence in terms of energy).

[White_Male_Canada]

So now you concede there’s a window of infrared transparency and that CO2 does have absorption lines in that window. Good. Now also remember you claim that nearly all the back radiation of the Earth that can be absorbed by CO2 is being absorbed by CO2 and that additional CO2 will absorb no more because there is no more (that the Earth radiates into those bands) to be absorbed. But the Earth radiates more energy between 8 and 11 microns than at 15 microns. (This is in fact why CO2 absorbs to extinction at 15 microns, there’s not as much energy in that band to absorb). This is why the absorption lines between 8-11 microns are more relevant to warming than the 15 micron line. Of course my prior argument is still valid and still the simplest argument, namely the 15 micron line is outside the window and hence irrelevant to any argument concerning future warming. (By the way, the 8-11 micron levels are higher than the 15 micron level in terms of frequency and hence in terms of energy).

You`re so confused I don`t know where to begin, so I won`t. I`ll simply touch on your glaring errors and be on my way.

1. I did not say,
nearly all the back radiation of the Earth that can be absorbed by CO2 is being absorbed by CO2 And if I did it was with the understanding you knew of what I refered to, co2`s 15M band.

2. You confuse VOCs,HFCs and PFCs, the window of transparency(8-11) with co2 absorption bands.

3.To now argue that the 2 minor co2 absorption bands,which are not 8 to/or 11, are more relevant than the 15m, you will have to claim unsaturation at higher levels.

Like I said,

[trish]

What can I say, you’re so confused and desperate to obfuscate that you now your mixing lies with diversions, accusations and bone-headedness.

Let’s begin with the lies: you never mentioned the 15 micron line…an irrelevant line to our discussion…until a few posts back…long after you already claim CO2 was absorbing as much as it can and no higher concentrations could absorb more...go back and look.

Let’s look at the diversion and accusation: I never mentioned VOCs, HFC, and PFCs. We’re talking CO2.

Let’s look at the bone-headedness: The 15 micron line is outside the window of infrared transparency. As long as it remains outside the window it’s relevant to the issue of further warming. That one line is already doing all it can to warm the Earth. This is in fact you’re original argument, but restricted to the 15 micron line. So of course the other two absorption lines which are within the window are now more relevant. If we dump higher concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere it will be those lines that will have the task of soaking up more energy. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what makes two higher energy lines minor, in this regard, relative to the lower energy 15 micron line way outside the window.

[White_Male_Canada]

Let’s begin with the lies: you never mentioned the 15 micron line…an irrelevant line to our discussion…until a few posts back…long after you already claim CO2 was absorbing as much as it can and no higher concentrations could absorb more...go back and look.

I assumed you knew too much. As it turns out, you knew nothing until I educated you as to how much man-made and why co2 is not the primary cause of climate change.



Let’s look at the diversion and accusation: I never mentioned VOCs, HFC, and PFCs. We’re talking CO2.

When you erratically veer off into the atmospheric window of 8 to 11M you imply HFC/PFCs. Not the 3 bandwidths of co2. Sheeshh :smh


So of course the other two absorption lines which are within the window are now more relevant. If we dump higher concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere it will be those lines that will have the task of soaking up more energy. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what makes two higher energy lines minor, in this regard, relative to the lower energy 15 micron line way outside the window.

The Earth`s emission spectrum peaks at 15 to 20M and co2 does not absorb in the 8 to 11M range. :smh

[trish]

I assumed you knew too much. As it turns out, you knew nothing until I educated you as to how much man-made and why co2 is not the primary cause of climate change.

This from the man who first thought CO2 concentrations were logarithmic in time, changed his mind to no it’s temperature that logarithmic in time, and then changed again to temperature was logarithmic in CO2 concentration while posting a chart that predicted percentage increase in radiative absorption grew logarithmically with CO2 concentration. Give me a break! Professor, you’re so lost it’s pathetic.


When you erratically veer off into the atmospheric window of 8 to 11M you imply HFC/PFCs. Not the 3 bandwidths of co2. Sheeshh

You’ve already admit there are two absorption bands of CO2 in the window of transparency from 8 to 11 microns. You initially stated the entire atmosphere was opaque from space in the CO2 lines. Demonstrating the existence of a transparent window containing two high energy absorption lines of CO2 is not veering from the subject…it pertains directly to our discourse. Moreover, one can only imply propositions, Professor and HFC/PFCs are not propositions and that fact that there are two absorption bands of CO2 in the 8-11 micron band is a fact that independent of any obfuscation you might dream up about HFC/PFCs. Sssseeeeshh!!


The Earth`s emission spectrum peaks at 15 to 20M and co2 does not absorb in the 8 to 11M range.

Nonsense Professor. The peak emission wavelength of the Earth depends on the Earth’s surface temperature. The formula can be found in any well know text on thermodynamics (e.g. D.V. Schroeder “Thermal Physics”).

Peak wavelength = 0.2014 hc/kT

Where h is Planck’s constant, c the speed of light, k Boltzman’s constant and T the Earth’s surface temperature in Kelvin. Notice it decreases with increasing T. Put in 273K (approximately 0C) and you find the peak wavelength is 10.6 microns. For higher temperatures (closer to the actual mean surface temperature of the Earth) the peak wavelength is lower; i.e. even further away from 15 microns.

Consequently, both of my arguments for the relevance of the two CO2 absorption lines in the atmospheric window remain sound.

[trish]

8)

[White_Male_Canada]

This from the man who first thought CO2 concentrations were logarithmic in time, changed his mind to no it’s temperature that logarithmic in time, and then changed again to temperature was logarithmic in CO2 concentration while posting a chart that predicted percentage increase in radiative absorption grew logarithmically with CO2 concentration. Give me a break! Professor, you’re so lost it’s pathetic.

Yeah, ok. If you can`t keep up quit posting your nonsense. You knew ziltch and now are simply confused.



You’ve already admit there are two absorption bands of CO2 in the window of transparency from 8 to 11 microns. You initially stated the entire atmosphere was opaque from space in the CO2 lines. Demonstrating the existence of a transparent window containing two high energy absorption lines of CO2 is not veering from the subject…it pertains directly to our discourse. Moreover, one can only imply propositions, Professor and HFC/PFCs are not propositions and that fact that there are two absorption bands of CO2 in the 8-11 micron band is a fact that independent of any obfuscation you might dream up about HFC/PFCs. Sssseeeeshh!!

Now you`re displaying your complete ignorance. Last time, there are no co2 absorption bands at 8 to/or 11M.

"The Earth`s emission spectrum peaks at 15 to 20M and co2 does not absorb in the 8 to 11M range."


Nonsense Professor. The peak emission wavelength of the Earth depends on the Earth’s surface temperature.

Depends ! ? I`ve been wasting my time. You`re dismissed:

TE = (0.25) 1 / 4 (RS / RSE) 1 / 2 TS 280 K


Consequently, both of my arguments for the relevance of the two CO2 absorption lines in the atmospheric window remain sound.

As sound as a cancer patient on his deathbed.

PS: This is my last post. Embarrassing you over and over holds no pleasure for me. Think of this as the 10 run rule.

[trish]

:)

[trish]

PS: This is my last post. Embarrassing you over and over holds no pleasure for me. Think of this as the 10 run rule.

gotten yourself into a quagmire and now you're gonna quit and run. okay. bye-bye.

[White_Male_Canada]

PS: This is my last post. Embarrassing you over and over holds no pleasure for me. Think of this as the 10 run rule.

gotten yourself into a quagmire and now you're gonna quit and run. okay. bye-bye.

Trish, run along girl.


Greenhouse Gases and Earth’s Climate
M. Gloor,
Max-Planck Institut fuer Biogeochemie, Jena

Theoretical planck curves
Earth ~300K,
peak emission ~15 μm

[trish]

staying the course, i see.

[White_Male_Canada]

staying the course, i see.

As are you in your complete confusion.

co2 is indeed almost transparent to shortwave radiation,that which was transmitted, and opaque to Earth's radiation! You now confuse atmospheric tranmission windows with absorption rates.

You will have to quicken your efforts at editing your glaring errors.

[White_Male_Canada]

:)


Last edited by trish on Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:45 pm; edited 4 times in total



If this isn`t clear enough for you nothing ever will be

[trish]

Last time, there are no co2 absorption bands at 8 to/or 11M.


Gee, too bad for Schaefer and Phillips who discovered CO2 absorption maxima at 9.4 microns and 10.4 microns as far back as the nineteen twenties. Which two of the over sixty thousand CO2 absorption lines are you talking about? Oh the other two fundamentals. Well, the lines that count are the one's that can still absorb. All I'm saying is that because of the CO2 absorption lines in atmospheric window, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the insulating effect...not exponentially, not linearly, but logarithmically in the concentration.

LMAO, OWNED! Trish, you've stated, restated and redefined your position about 4 times in this thread. It's like, you don't care about being right, you just want to win.

Wait. That describes your whole party! LMAO! Always changing positions.

[trish]

Of course I edit. I'm also way to quick to hit the Submit button. Look back at the history of our conversation. Most of my posts have been edited multiple times. I do follow the personal rule that once someone has responded to a post, I don't adjust it anymore. Being a professor you should know that editing is an important process. You could use some editing yourself.

[trish]

That describes your whole party! LMAO! Always changing positions.


or perhaps because I care about getting it right. Yeah, I'm no professor. The Professor insists there's only two more lines of CO2 and I check his source ... and sure enough they aren't in the 8-11 band. I conceded, immediately. But then I discovered the Professor's wrong. There are over 60 thousand absorption lines of CO2 that he and his souces were either ignorant of or hidding from their readers. More intellectual dishonesty. I discovered my mistake and reposted. I'm sorry if you read those posts but you didn't reply to them before I made the change.

Shakespeare said, "...thus we do by indirection find directions out."

A ship at sea often makes it's way by tacking against the wind.

Being a professor you should know that editing is an important process.

Of course. Then you can say you voted for the war before you voted against it. LMAO. Yep, I see your line of thinkin'.

[White_Male_Canada]

That describes your whole party! LMAO! Always changing positions.


or perhaps because I care about getting it right. Yeah, I'm no professor. The Professor insists there's only two more lines of CO2 and I check his source ... and sure enough they aren't in the 8-11 band. I conceded, immediately. But then I discovered the Professor's wrong. There are over 60 thousand absorption lines of CO2 that he and his souces were either ignorant of or hidding from their readers. More intellectual dishonesty. I discovered my mistake and reposted. I'm sorry if you read those posts but you didn't reply to them before I made the change.

Shakespeare said, "...thus we do by indirection find directions out."

A ship at sea often makes it's way by tacking against the wind.

Sure Trish, and all the absorbtion lines are as relevant and important as the 15M band. :smh

Of course they`re not girl. Here`s a hint, i`m going to clue you in to some ammo you can try use to claim manmade co2 is the main cause of climate change, it`s in " the wings" Trish. THE WINGS.

[trish]

If you’ve got an argument, please just make it and dispense with the hints.

If you’re claiming that some of the 15 micron line slips into the atmospheric window due to the various broadening phenomena, then the broadened line isn’t saturated as you claim it is.

If you’re implying the 15 micron line is broader than the Schaefer and Phillips lines mentioned above, I grant that. But, no matter how broad, if it doesn’t overlap with the atmospheric window, broader doesn’t make it more relevant to the question at hand: Will a higher concentration of CO2 increase its effectiveness in insulating the Earth’s thermal energy? The 15 micron band could become relevant again were the Earth to heat to the point where it started producing more energy than the 15 micron band could soak up. But I’m sure you aren’t admitting that scenario.

[qeuqheeg222]

wmc.what part of canada do live in?

[White_Male_Canada]

wmc.what part of canada do live in?

The cold part.

[White_Male_Canada]

If you’ve got an argument, please just make it and dispense with the hints.

.

Alright then. It`s always easier to see and hear as opposed to reading:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[qeuqheeg222]

if anyone doesnt believe c02 is bad for the atmosphere,maybe they should sit in their garage with the door shut and their car runnin.....yeah man made c02 wont be that bad then......