LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by cooky
You are funny, cooky!
This is a typical immature ploy often repeated and overused by the liberals.
"When you can’t attack the message, you instead attack the messenger!"
Sorry, but this dog won't hunt!
Guru
You are funny, cooky!
This is a typical immature ploy often repeated and overused by the liberals.
"When you can’t attack the message, you instead attack the messenger!"
Sorry, but this dog won't hunt!
James Cessna
"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."
Guru
These discussions were very good. A good background in science is necessary for one to understand the complex subject of climate change.
Any book on physics tells us that heat radiation consists of electromagnetic waves in a wavelength range between 0.8 µm and 100 µm (infrared radiation). In addition to visible light with its shorter wavelengths (0.45-0.75 µm), the range between 0.8 µm[7] and 3 µm is still part of solar radiation.
The radiation emitted by the warm earth is in the range between 5 µm and 60 µm. In line with all other electromagnetic waves, heat radiation travels with the speed of light (300 000 km per second). Thermal photography of the earth's surface makes use of the specific radiation from earth, which allows us to identify and interpret differences (due to land structure or land use) in the surface temperature. The range of wavelengths available for such remote observation lies between 7 µm and 13 µm and constitutes a permanently open radiation window, unobstructed by CO2 gas as claimed by the "greenhouse"-theorists.
As has been stated correctly by the German parliamentary commission "Precaution for Protection of the Earth's Atmosphere", trace gases in the earth's atmosphere absorb infrared emissions emitted from the earth's surface intensively in most wavelength ranges, but only minimally in some, as for example in the range from 7 to 13 µm.
It is within this range, however, where we find the greatest portion of radiation emitted by the earth. This range is, therefore, called "open radiation window," because it is here that the least amount of absorption by water vapor and CO2 takes place. This window allows 70 to 90 % of the radiation from the earth to escape into space. The statement by the commission is thus correct. However, quite unexpectedly, the report continues further on by saying:
"The greenhouse effect due to CO2 is caused essentially by its absorption band at 15 µm."
It is precisely at this point that opinions diverge, for when one has recourse to "Wien's law of displacement", a wavelength of maximal emission lmax of 15 µm yields a temperature of minus 73°C of the emitter. With this "counter-radiation" it is, however, impossible to heat the earth's surface with its average "global temperature" of plus 15°C. It should be noted that all major "climate experts" collaborated in the report of this commission.
As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". Doctor Thüne says in his paper:[8] By the way, if carbon dioxide, as a "greenhouse" gas absorbed as much as 5-10% of the earth's thermal radiation, a cloudless night sky would remain very warm and would not cool to the degree that we know it always does!
"The CO2 molecules in particular, with their absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm, which are as characteristic and as unchangeable as a human fingerprint, have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the "open radiation window" between 7 and 13 µm. This would be valid even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide".
Source: http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Nettesheim131-135.html
Last edited by James Cessna; Mar 05 2012 at 07:19 PM.
James Cessna
"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."
Guru
These dsicussiona are very good.
The next question is does the combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources contribute substantially to the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?
Quoting from the report below, "In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3).
The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. "Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels".
Conclusion: These facts means that carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel combustion is very small when compared to the exchange between the sea and atmosphere, and between vegetation and atmosphere. Furthermore, because of its small (trace) concentrations in our atmosphere, CO2 cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the global warming we have experienced from causes that are purely natural in their origin.
Moreover, the amount of thermal energy contained within the narrow CO2 absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm is only about 1-2% of the total energy that is shown by blackbody radiation curves derived using Wien’s Displacment Law. The total energy emitted by a black body at 288 K is indicated by the total area under the curve.
Our everyday common sense tells us this conclusion is most likely true. A simple experiment will show this statement is true. "As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". The fact the earth cools at night proves CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb much of the radiated surface heat and thus cannot keep the air temperature warm. If it did absorb more heat (thermal energy) from the earth's surface than just a very small amount, a strong cooling of the earth's surface and atmosphere would never occur at night after sunset!
The fact that cooling does indeed occur under cloudless nighttime conditions tells us the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs very little thermal energy and therefore contributes only slightly to the sensible effects of global warming.
And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed corporatists to convince them that in accepting the unproven view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence, righteousness and virtue. Instead, they are changing our national energy policy for the benefit of corporations and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and perhaps misguided policies promulgated by the Obama administration.
Last edited by James Cessna; Mar 07 2012 at 05:41 AM.
James Cessna
"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."
Guru
Yeah, right. And who just got a post pulled for exactly that, James? I just love irony.
Guru
These discussions were also very good! They answer your question.
As has been stated correctly by the German parliamentary commission "Precaution for Protection of the Earth's Atmosphere", trace gases in the earth's atmosphere absorb infrared emissions emitted from the earth's surface intensively in most wavelength ranges, but only minimally in some, as for example in the range from 7 to 13 µm.
It is within this range, however, where we find the greatest portion of radiation emitted by the earth. This range is, therefore, called "open radiation window," because it is here that the least amount of absorption by water vapor and CO2 takes place. This window allows 70 to 90 % of the radiation from the earth to escape into space. The statement by the commission is thus correct. However, quite unexpectedly, the report continues further on by saying:
"The greenhouse effect due to CO2 is caused essentially by its absorption band at 15 µm."
It is precisely at this point that opinions diverge, for when one has recourse to "Wien's law of displacement", a wavelength of maximal emission lmax of 15 µm yields a temperature of minus 73°C of the emitter. With this "counter-radiation" it is, however, impossible to heat the earth's surface with its average "global temperature" of plus 15°C. It should be noted that all major "climate experts" collaborated in the report of this commission.
As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". Doctor Thüne says in his paper:[8] By the way, if carbon dioxide, as a "greenhouse" gas absorbed as much as 5-10% of the earth's thermal radiation, a cloudless night sky would remain very warm and would not cool to the degree that we know it always does!
"The CO2 molecules in particular, with their absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm, which are as characteristic and as unchangeable as a human fingerprint, have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the "open radiation window" between 7 and 13 µm. This would be valid even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide".
Source: http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Nettesheim131-135.html
Last edited by James Cessna; Mar 07 2012 at 06:41 AM.
James Cessna
"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."
Guru
CO2 is necessary, however, too much is bad...
What is the point of this thread?
Peace.
E
(V)_(*,,,*)_(V)
Guru
Plants take in carbon dioxide...
... and emit oxygen...
... so dey need us...
... an' we need them.
Kinda funny how, instead of a 'sequester', the Wall Street bankers got bailed out.
Too many people are wondering that...
If god is omnipotent and omnipresent, shouldn't we just let him deal with the gays? He seems more equiped to deal with his own business.
Guru
You are indeed correct, waltky.
Here is more good information on this crucial subject.
The next question is does the combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviation fuel, as energy sources contribute substantially to the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?
Quoting from the report below, "In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3).
The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. "Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels".
Conclusion: These facts means that carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel combustion is very small when compared to the exchange between the sea and atmosphere, and between vegetation and atmosphere. Furthermore, because of its small (trace) concentrations in our atmosphere, CO2 cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the global warming we have experienced from causes that are purely natural in their origin.
Moreover, the amount of thermal energy contained within the narrow CO2 absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm is only about 1-2% of the total energy that is shown by blackbody radiation curves derived using Wien’s Displacment Law. The total energy emitted by a black body at 288 K is indicated by the total area under the curve.
Our everyday common sense tells us this conclusion is most likely true. A simple experiment will show this statement is true. "As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". The fact the earth cools at night proves CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb much of the radiated surface heat and thus cannot keep the air temperature warm. If it did absorb more heat (thermal energy) from the earth's surface than just a very small amount, a strong cooling of the earth's surface and atmosphere would never occur at night after sunset!
The fact that cooling does indeed occur under cloudless nighttime conditions tells us the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs very little thermal energy and therefore contributes only slightly to the sensible effects of global warming.
And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed corporatists to convince them that in accepting the unproven view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence, righteousness and virtue. Instead, they are changing our national energy policy for the benefit of corporations and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and perhaps misguided policies promulgated by the Obama administration.
James Cessna
"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."
Guru
Ha-Ha!
You have missed the point of these discussions.
How much is too much and how much is bad?
By the way, if and when you answer these questions, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
James Cessna
"If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks