2011 global temperature thread

[ScienceRocks]

Thanks the fuck a lot for destroying my fucking thread. Yeah tell that to most scientist and governments on earth. All you have are insults. I dont need this shit right now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm done with this thread. My life and my family are going through a hard time and I'm not going to waste anymore time on fighting with anyone. I may look into that data you posted.

 

[polarbear]

I'm done with this thread. My life and my family are going through a hard time and I'm not going to waste anymore time on fighting with anyone. I may look into that data you posted.

O.K. Mathew I want to apologize for my "reactive armor" habit I acquired from too many Years in the service. I certainly wish no harm onto You or Your family and if I worsened the situation with the way I have been sparring with you here that was not my intent!
If there is anything I can do, write me a private message and I will do it...short of You asking me to go f...k myself of course.
Forget about this thread here for a while and look after Your family....nobody here will con"screw" that to a man made GW skeptic victory if You don`t answer the spectroscopic analysis data....because You certainly do have more important things to do than that!
I hope everything will turn out O.K.!!
and best wishes deep from the heart of Canada

 

[polarbear]

I sincerely regret Mathews situation and sympathize with that, because I do know how these problems can compound .
For everyone else here I would like to add that Dr.Heinz Hug could have gone way further in his assessment:

CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely.
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get

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

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

Because he could have pointed this out as well:

The spectral region where the Infrared Absorption with CO2 does take place, but so does water vapor...and much much stronger, is where the solar radiation relative energy drops off very sharply. "Climatologists" ignore not only that but they ignore all of Max Planck`s physics laws how the energy quantum per wave @ wavelength drops off:

I have been trying to communicate these facts over and over again in all the other threads here where man made GW is discussed.

I don`t blame people like Mathew when they get passionate about pollution, I get passionate about that too...very much so!...
But I also get a little "passionate" about the truth. So when I see how certain "scientists" bend laws of Chemistry and Physics I do get vocal:

When You do an X-Y graph You can choose any scale You want on either axis and the X-axis scale nobody would object to.
But when the desire to sensationalize and to exaggerate determines the choice of scale for one variable to be adjusted so that You get a match with the other variable that is no longer just exaggeration but outright fraudulent as is with this graph, where 2 scales were chosen to do just that.
Also this graph violates every law of physics dealing with absorption laws.
No matter which substance You choose the % energy absorption over ANY range of concentration slopes off, never ever upwards!
And I have every right to use the temperature curve of this graphic representation as "% Infrared absorbed", because exactly that is the assertion global warming "science" is making.
I don`t know if it is a funny fact or a sad fact, that window manufacturers know more about Infrared radiation and absorption than "Global warming scientists"

 

[polarbear]

I get just as passionate about pollution as anyone from the Sierra club, but I am even more passionate about the truth.
So when the Rancher in Montana who uses a pick up truck with a V8 is supposed to feel guilty about "drowning polar bears" or Eskimos who`s life style he supposedly ruined because "scientists" tell him the ice is too thin, they can`t go hunting and have to eat grease-burgers from the Iqaluit Burger King instead of raw seal meat according to CNN
I can`t just leave it like that.
That Montana Rancher can`t go into the arctic to see for himself, and has to go by what News Paper Reporters tell him who go with the carefully guided tours the way communist countries do it into the arctic and come back with "reports" like this:

News

“Life-changing” trip opens teen’s eyes to climate change
“The Inuit have such an affinity with the land. They are connected with nature in a way we are not. Climate change is affecting them right now.”
Two Inuit hunters were part of the Students on Ice educating team, the elder Jushua Illauq and the Arctic Games athlete Johnny Issaluk. From these men the students learned about Inuit hunting, food and games.

And in these carefully orchestrated tours organized by the Sierra club, and other various environmental activist groups they portray today`s self governing Inuvik , formerly the NWT, given to them by the Government of Canada to the Eskimos like this:

An Inuit posing for the press!
Well I think it is my duty, since I was one of the privileged few who were paid to be in the arctic to inform a Rancher in Montana or other motorized Americans anywhere else in the U.S. of A. that it is not their fault if Eskimo`s Lifestyle got ruined or if Polar Bears die because they ate toxic waste:
here are a few pics from Inuit dumps, they are not my pictures they have been in the Newspapers and on CBC Canada:

Iqaluit fire crews battle dump fire

Imagine how the E.P.A. would be down Your neck if you would do this in California in the middle of a protected wilderness area!
People that had business in the arctic and were not herded around in guided tours will tell You something completely different from what the media is feeding Americans who have to stay at home and go to work next day so they can afford to put food on the table and gas in the car say this:
Autonomous Source: Impressions of Iqaluit

The first thing you'll notice in Iqaluit is how filthy and run-down it is. Garbage rolls through the streets and the houses are in poor repair.

It`s the same thing with the very "scientists" who want to send You on a guilt trip because You burned a few gallons of gas going to and fro work:

Here is what the "global warming scientist" drives to work at C.F.S. Alert ~450 miles from the pole:

It gets a whole 8 mpg with the jet fuel we give them and where every gallon has to be flown in at a cost of 14 gallons to 1 delivered by our Hercules C-130`s



No, that`s not one of our guys that is him:

"proving" that Your SUV exhaust is in the arctic ice.

We go and drag our stuff from the airstrip like this, and often we have to clip a harness onto the rope behind so the furious winds don`t sweep us out onto the polar ice cap:

We heat all our buildings with the heat exchangers on our Diesel Generator exhausts and from the engine coolants:

They could not be bothered with that, here is the Diesel for their "Greenhouse Gas Lab":

One time during a severe storm they were too stoned to shut that door and lost all their power...we had to go over there during that storm and restore their power so they would not freeze to death...see no heat exchanger!


All our Garbage is sorted then compressed, then incinerated in a special furnace, with a scrubbed and filtered flue stack, after that what is left goes in sorted crates and is flown back all the way to Trenton Air force base were it is disposed:

They just throw their trash into a trash can...one of us then has to go over there and sort the empty glass bottles and beer cans from the paper and other waste before we can incinerate it!

The only time we made a fire like the nature loving Inuit do every day is when a Herc brought us new matrices and there was no way to put the old ones into our incinerator.

Inuvik has now satellite television and they can watch CNN, the "Discoverey Channel" and the "National Geographic".
Now the Government of Inuvik is contemplating suing the Government of Canada for the damages done by "greenhouse gasses".
So, now You guys further south of me are up to date!
Of course some here would call what I just did "ranting"
Yes Mathew I have problems at home too, we just had a death in the family, my wife is still devastated and it tears my heart out to see her like that.
I hope You can resolve Your problems and we`ll resume our sparring at a later date.
Take Your time...this is not nearly as important as family
I`m willing to bury the hatched and will try my best not to treat You like a drill Sarge meatgrinds a fresh recruit.
Greeting form Canada to You & Your family!

 

[skookerasbil]

Polar with a post of devestation for the k00ks......................

Hey Polar, perhaps you'd be interested to know that as of this am, New York set an all time record for snow in January.

Anyway.......compelling post bro............and this quote absolutely hysterical..........

I don`t know if it is a funny fact or a sad fact, that window manufacturers know more about Infrared radiation and absorption than "Global warming scientists"


This post just further strengthens assertions I have been making for over 10 years. That this whole global warming dynamic is comprised of thee driving forces: 1) Special interests ( opportunists, public and private, who profit from the scam) 2) Followers ( folks who invariably embrace the prevailing social dogma) 3) OCD Oddballs ( people who are obsessed with hard sciences as they relate to hysterical theories)

 

[IanC]

I sincerely regret Mathews situation and sympathize with that, because I do know how these problems can compound .
For everyone else here I would like to add that Dr.Heinz Hug could have gone way further in his assessment:

CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely.
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm [13]. For the 15 µm band our result was:
Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get

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

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

Because he could have pointed this out as well:

The spectral region where the Infrared Absorption with CO2 does take place, but so does water vapor...and much much stronger, is where the solar radiation relative energy drops off very sharply. "Climatologists" ignore not only that but they ignore all of Max Planck`s physics laws how the energy quantum per wave @ wavelength drops off:

I have been trying to communicate these facts over and over again in all the other threads here where man made GW is discussed.

I don`t blame people like Mathew when they get passionate about pollution, I get passionate about that too...very much so!...
But I also get a little "passionate" about the truth. So when I see how certain "scientists" bend laws of Chemistry and Physics I do get vocal:

When You do an X-Y graph You can choose any scale You want on either axis and the X-axis scale nobody would object to.
But when the desire to sensationalize and to exaggerate determines the choice of scale for one variable to be adjusted so that You get a match with the other variable that is no longer just exaggeration but outright fraudulent as is with this graph, where 2 scales were chosen to do just that.
Also this graph violates every law of physics dealing with absorption laws.
No matter which substance You choose the % energy absorption over ANY range of concentration slopes off, never ever upwards!
And I have every right to use the temperature curve of this graphic representation as "% Infrared absorbed", because exactly that is the assertion global warming "science" is making.
I don`t know if it is a funny fact or a sad fact, that window manufacturers know more about Infrared radiation and absorption than "Global warming scientists"

you made a coupla great points. those combo graphs are often very misleading, and that is why all good scientists should have come down hard on Mann's hockey stick graph. mixing types of data (proxies and instrumental), while cutting off the divergent last 25 years and hiding the end point under other lines was spectacularly dishonest.

I wish there was more info on the extinction effect of CO2. I believe there has been proper layer by layer calculations that show a ~1C increase for 2xCO2 but most of the effect is in the upper atmosphere where there is little water. It is one of those areas that is easily distorted depending on what you want it to show, like Old Rock's link that he has put up 1000 times.

 

[polarbear]

I wish there was more info on the extinction effect of CO2. I believe there has been proper layer by layer calculations that show a ~1C increase for 2xCO2 but most of the effect is in the upper atmosphere where there is little water. It is one of those areas that is easily distorted depending on what you want it to show, like Old Rock's link that he has put up 1000 times.

The problem is they do not plug in measured, but estimated data in these calculations and these estimates have been forwarded by people who don`t seem to be familiar with Lambert`s, Planck`s and Angstrom`s laws just to mention a few and furthermore ignore either willfully or by design a whole array of thermodynamic laws.
Dr.Heinz Hug made actual measurements, these are not estimates and they can be replicated. And that is how science is conducted. You publish exactly how You did it and then Your peers don`t just read it and agree (as in 97% of climatologists agree..blah blah) but your peers conduct the same experiment and if they come up with the same results only then do they agree.
Plugging the same numbers into the same computer model simply does not cut the mustard and like You and skookerasbil a lot of other people have noticed how this has been done from the word get go.
As for the point you raise:

for 2xCO2 but most of the effect is in the upper atmosphere where there is little water. It is one of those areas that is easily distorted depending on what you want it to show, like Old Rock's link that he has put up 1000 times.

I wish I still had access to an IR Spec, but I`m retired now and work presently only as an adjunct Professor. Unfortunately the faculty at that U does not have an IR Spectrophotometer that is sensitive enough to do this measurement which would show that doubling the CO2 does in no way double the %Absorption and if You run that measurement with double say 0.08 % CO2 in a cuvette with a 10 cm path length at our normal atmospheric pressure of 760 Torr that is one thing, but to be able to measure the amount of CO2 which would be left in a cuvette after You sucked it out with a vacuum pump that the pressure is as low as the atmospheric pressure is at the outer layer that`s I dare say an impossibility.
You see that`s why the "climatologists" prefer to tell You the CO2 levels as a "Molar Ratio"...because ...I shall use larger numbers just to make it clearer..:
If You have 4 G-Moles of Nitrogen and 1-G-mole of Oxygen in a gas sample at 760 Torr or a 4:1 Molar concentration ratio that ratio stays the same even if You suck enough gas out of this container that we have say an arbitrary 1 Torr pressure the Molar Concentration ratio still stays the same 4:1 ...and that`s why "climatologists" prefer to report CO2 levels that way:
Trends in Carbon Dioxide

December 2010: 389.69 ppm
Data are reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air multiplied by one million (ppm).

So instead of Torrs, or whichever way you want to measure Pressure and "Molar Ratio" lets use something everybody is very familiar with.
Say like what Your gross income is on Your pay check before taxes and what it is left for You and I to live on after taxes and instead of "Molar ratio" I break down my paycheck into Nickels and Dimes.
Say I get paid in 4 times as many nickels as dimes.
After the government sucked half of my wallet out, they can`t even fool a child by saying we still have the same "Molar Ratio" of Nickels and Dimes as before!

So don`t worry about how Old Rock is trying to con us with similar "logic"!
Because the further out You go into the atmosphere the lower the number of G-moles per cubic meter, no matter which gas You use...
and in the final analysis a beam of infrared cares nothing about silly "Molar Ratios" but only how much CO2 it actually does encounter.

 

[Old Rocks]

However you measure it, the CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.CH4 from around 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. The Arctic Ice continues to melt in spite of the fact that two of the forcings of the Miliankovic Cycles should have it growing. And, in spite of the snow on the East Coast, I bet that the January anolomy will be positive.

Since you are a govenment employee, biPolar, why are you complaining about the taxes? Most of my life I have worked for private enterprise, seems that I would have more grounds for bitching about taxes than you do.

 

[polarbear]

However you measure it, the CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.CH4 from around 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. The Arctic Ice continues to melt in spite of the fact that two of the forcings of the Miliankovic Cycles should have it growing. And, in spite of the snow on the East Coast, I bet that the January anolomy will be positive.

Since you are a govenment employee, biPolar, why are you complaining about the taxes? Most of my life I have worked for private enterprise, seems that I would have more grounds for bitching about taxes than you do.

You just don`t get it do You!...No matter if it`s explained that even a grade 6`er could understand it. And off You go about taxes and who pays and paid me.
I know full well if I explain Beer Lambert`s laws in pure technical terms everybody but You in this forum will understand. So for their benefit I`ll go into the exact details how "climatologists" fuck up because none of them has a clue about what HUGE difference there is between actual Infrared Absorption and how You actually have to measure it and how they report it.
THEY DON`T EVEN USE INFRARED TO MEASURE IT THEY USE GC`S!! i TOLD YOU ALREADY!
I EVEN SHOWED YOU WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR LAB...(the pics are in my Album)

In Infrared Spectroscopy there is NO Instrument that measures Infrared absorption versus "Molar ppm".They are all calibrated in ppm weight per weight, ppm weight per volume or ppm volume per volume...and then there is a HUGE difference between how many % (=Absorption) and ABSORBANCE!
Climatologist are not smart enough to understand, so with the latter their stupidity accounts for a HUGE ERROR here, but with the "Molar ppm" that was deliberate, so let`s start with that one! And I know that they do, because a Gaschromathograph has to be calibrated the same way!..in ppm w/w, ppm w/v or in ppm v/v!

So now again this is how the huge cheat works that they use in their stupid graphs and their stupid doomsday prediction in exact numbers:

Air Composition

The sea-level composition of air (in percent by volume at the temperature of 15°C and the pressure of 101325 Pa) is given below. =%V/V

@ 15 C there are .0314 ccm of CO2 in 100 CUBIC CENTIMETERS of air! at 1 atm, 101325 Pa

Gases - Specific Gravities

Specific gravity of air, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and some other common gases
Carbon dioxide - CO2 1.5189 using air as 1 mass/volume
air= 1.21kg/m3 at 20 deg C at sea level

.0314% of that is CO2= 0.37994 grams of Carbondioxide per cubic meter air at sea level.

Everybody but You knows this:

And if You go up 18 000 feet everybody will use an Oxygen mask!
...except You!, because as You say, there is no difference with how in this example Oxygen concentration is really measured and the idiotic "Molar concentration" the "climatologists" continue to con You!...that stayed the same as on see level!
You want to stake your life on what "climatologists" are telling You?
So here is the ACTUAL Carbondioxide concentration at 18 000 feet the way EVERYBODY ELSE but climatologists would report it:
at 18 000 feet you have 0.18997 grams Carbon dioxide per cubic meter
and so on if You can`t do the math You can just extrapolate it from the graph above.

But with the "molar concentration" You have 380 ppm CO2 at sea level and You still have 380 ppm @ 18 000 feet, bozo!

Not that You would ever get that into your cement head.
For the rest here I want to show them something about Spectroscopy, about which for some strange reason there are only Equations in the Internet, but no Graphs whatsoever.
Everything to do with "Absorption" + "Spectroscopy" + "CO2" in the Internet has been snowed under by "climatologist" bullshit!
So I`ll show the equations of Beer Lambert`s laws about Absorption first:
http://weather.nmsu.edu/teaching_material/soil698/student_reports/spectroscopy/report_files/image005.gif

The idealized calibration or standard curve is stated by Beer's law that the absorbance of an absorbing analyte is proportional to its concentration.

See thats why "climatologists" think double the CO2 will absorb double the Infrared.
And that is EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLUGGED INTO THEIR IDIOTIC COMPUTER MODEL for man made GW!
Well Yeah and the "Molar ppm" CHEATING!


BUT BY FAR THE HUGEST error is that they think "Absorbance" represents how much infrared ENERGY CO2 absorbs!

You know they would fail every Physics test at any University in any country because they have no idea what absorbance is!
Absorbance is a linear function and that is Beer Lamberts Law how to calculate that from the % Energy Absorption in a Sample through which You pass a beam of light!

Beer-Lambert Law

A = a(lambda) * b * c
where A is the measured absorbance, a(lambda) is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.
where I is the light intensity after it passes through the sample and Io is the initial light intensity. The relation between A and T is:
A = -log T = - log (I / Io).

I guess none of these "climate scientists" have the slightest clue how to calculate back from ABSORBANCE to how many % of the beam energy has been ABSORBED.

And all You have to do is resolve Beer Lambert from Absorbance = -log T = - log (I / Io).
back to % ABSORPTION!!!!

And nothing could be simpler!
Absorption = 2 - log(%T)
where %T = Transmission or the Energy in % from the Light beam that has not been aborbed!


So all You have to do is run this through a calculator:
for X the range of 10 to 100 and subtract that from 2.
For 10 and 100 hundred You don`t need a calculator because we all know that 100=10*10 or 10^2 so the result would be 2-2=0.
which means no light was absorbed.

You can have a function like this plotted online:
Online Equation Plotter
enter the function y=log(x) in the top window
then below these values
Xmin=1, Xmax=100
Ymin=1,Ymax=5

And then judge Yourself if double the CO2 will absorb double the heat energy!
Look up ~ the middle of thegraph...THAT`S where we are today!

For those who don`t like to be sent to unknown web pages I have stored this graph into my Album:

Now please let`s also not forget what Dr.Heinz Hug published when he did not just an estimation but an actual measurement:

CO2 doubling must be much less than assumed by climate scientists until now. A reduction factor of 80 is likely.

And what Heinz did not even mention:

And now You have also this information:
Absorption = 2 - log(%T)


So now You know that the "climatologists" have exaggerated the impact of CO2 as much as somebody who tells You this has as much impact :

as this:

 

[polarbear]

Some people make a virtue out of stupidity and I have been ripping into the wrong guy here when I took Mathew into my crosshairs.
At least Mathew has the brains to evaluate what has been said here and his only error is the information vacuum regarding Infrared Spectroscopy & Absorption in the Internet.
He did in no way come back with stupid remarks like "Big Fitz" who since changed his moron D.License avatar here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148692-97-climate-scientists-8.html

Big Fitz
I suspected that the instant he started talking. He proved it by posting pictures of satellite weather imagery claiming it's temperature data when it's obviously cloud cover.

When I did explain first how a Satellite can see passive infrared and the "picture of a cloud" was a thermal image, showing how much heat water vapor absorbs!
After that I explained the difference between "dry Molar Moisture corrected CO2 levels" as Mauna Lua reprts it and what kind of gisgusting cheat that is:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148692-97-climate-scientists-6.html
Then I explained the difference between %Absorption and absorbance and that double CO2 does not absorb double the heat energy, and this Moron started up:

OldRocks
Well, for sure you like to yap, Polar. And state that scientists are a bunch of dumb asses.

And topped it off shooting his own foot off:

OldRocks
By the way, you have made so many fucking dumb statements concerning CO2, perhaps you should review what real physicists state;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And thats what`s written on that web page that this Fred Flinstone "Scientist" from Old (Bed)Rock quoted and had not the foggiest idea what they are saying:

Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely

Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

That modern spin doctor sentence in there is not easy to spot unless You do know Spectroscopy:

the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure

They stated it the exact other way around as what Beer-Lambert`s Law says when You deal in actaully MEASURED %Absorption instead of a calculated value like Absorbance:

Where You WILL see, that if you INCREASE the amount of CO2 the ABSORPTION INDEED goes up by ONLY 0.4%

The only thing that does go up by 1% is the calculated ABSORBANCE value, which has nothing at all to do with % "Heat Energy" absorbed by CO2 at that particular wavelength!

I even explained it to this moron:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/148692-97-climate-scientists-7.html

And even after I showed him pictures from which a Kindergarten Kid would have grasped the entire concept this globalwarming moron

comes back here again with the same crap.
And all the while I have been ripping into Mathew.

 

[polarbear]

Instead of explaining 'OldRock" the difference between the LINEAR Absorbance which may under ideal circumstances for SOME substances double and why that has NOTHING to do with %Absorption he can ask around in his home town bedrock if someone has a calculator with a Log Function...maybe Fred Flinstone or Barney have one.
Then he can go to the %Energy ABSORPTION graph and apply Beer Lambert`s eqaution:
Absorbance=log (I / Io).

Or if he can actually figure out how to use this:
Online Equation Plotter

enter the function y=log(x) in the top window
then below these values
Xmin=1, Xmax=100
Ymin=1,Ymax=5

And that`s how you get the linear graph that "climate scientists" have been using in their retard computer model all these years!

 

[polarbear]

Since you are a govenment employee, biPolar, why are you complaining about the taxes? Most of my life I have worked for private enterprise, seems that I would have more grounds for bitching about taxes than you do.

Oh by the way, in case no one in the town of Bedrock has a calculator with a log function obviously You are sitting in front of something that looks like Fred Flintstone`s TV but instead of having to scrawl runes into rocks somehow the TV shows text when you hit that thing on the table with a rock instead of showing "The gay couple"

Try this, click on "run" and paste this in:
%SystemRoot%\system32\calc.exe
Then Your "defective TV" is a calculator with a log function.
and as for that "bi-polar"remark what kind of fantasy buss word world do you live in?
Show me something in the REAL world that is mono-polar!

I have worked for private enterprise,

Well I`ll make sure I`ll pass up the McDonald`s where You flip the Burgers.
You must be the guy that wears the football helmet!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Very interesting Polar bear. You make a damn good case. I will read more into these laws...Good stuff.

 

[polarbear]

Very interesting Polar bear. You make a damn good case. I will read more into these laws...Good stuff.

I knew You would understand...and I again I wish I could take back every insult I have thrown at You...but I don`t know how to unscramble eggs.

So instead I wanted to show You how You can use Your PC to do these assessments Yourself and this would enable You to double check what Dr.Heinz Hug and I have been saying.

The easiest way to do this without going into a whole trunk full of differential and Integral Math is if You get Your self an autoCAD Program...they are not cheap but if You want mine I`ll be happy to send it to You in a G-mail account and send it there as a zip file,...
because with it You can check Dr.Heinz Hug`s Integration and mine with just a few mouse clicks or by pasting in any nonlinear function:

Here is that Spectral absorption Graph just before I got very abusive with You

Here is Dr.Heinz Hugs Integration Analysis:

But You don`t have to double check it, You can of course if You want to, but when I checked I came up with EXACTLY the same numbers as he:

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

But You see he stopped there and I am trying to find out from him why!

Because that`s not the whole story!

Total solar relative energy proportion in the Infrared Spectral Region for ALL trace gasses, not just CO2 but also Methane etc...:... is only 0.42 X of what Dr.Heinz Hug published[/B]

And that is if You had 0.38 grams CO2 per cubic meter all the way into the outer atmosphere layer, but You know that ain`t so, but diminishes for all gasses like this in w/v ppm...which is all a ray of energy is interested in:

And when You put Your OWN computer model together

You get, even when using the grossly exaggerated LINEAR function where double the CO2 gives double the Absorption...which it can`t as You can see from the Beer Lambert equations...but never mind that this is the final result:

With today`s CO2 concentration this trace atmospheric gas can absorb 0.0425 % solar radiation energy AT BEST!!!

And that the 30 Year solar cycles vary in total solar radiated power hitting this planet =0.1% of 174 PETA WATTS comes out to 174 trillion watts more Energy the sun dumps on us every second we all agreed on before the fists were flying.

So this is what Dr.Heinz , many many others and I have been saying...
its like comparing this:

To something like that:

And I do hate pollution!
It is number 1 on my hate list that is 2 items long, I`m sorry about item #2, but I am an old fashioned guy

 

[polarbear]

@Mathew:
Well You would probably agree that this here is not about who has the last word and so on, but I just love it when I can make another person really curious, and then they get ever more hungry for more of the same.
You may wonder why I`m going into this, but I assure You it is not off the subject!
See, at first a lot of people ignored climatologists and thought they would go away like any other fad,...but now we know different.
They did realize that there are some very serious flaws in their computer model about the CO2 "greenhouse gas effect" and how that manifests itself in temperature increases, but way too late and it got way more serious than just saving face!
So out came the "positive feedback" effects.
I am not saying these are pure B.S...because gray snow/ice or no ice does indeed have HUGE effect!...however the CO2 has nothing to do with how the ice got gray or exposed darker colored bare land underneath.
So they went to claim that CO2 does not only absorb energy but prevents the energy it just absorbed from being radiated again...sort of the way crooked accountants do "double costing".
Everybody at NASA and the Military knew that this is pure B.S. because it just ain`t so, but to really get into that, You have to first get away from "climatology" and get into this subject of Physics...:
Google that:
co2 laser +shg
"SHG" = Secondary Harmonics Generation
and that`s where You first learn that CO2 cannot "double cost", because it does not even re-emit the energy it absorbed at the same wavelength where it absorbed it:
Second-harmonic generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second harmonic generation (SHG; also called frequency doubling) is a nonlinear optical process, in which photons interacting with a nonlinear material are effectively "combined" to form new photons with twice the energy, and therefore twice the frequency and half the wavelength of the initial photons. It is a special case of sum frequency generation.
Second harmonic generation was first demonstrated by P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinreich at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1961. The demonstration was made possible by the invention of the laser, which created the required high intensity monochromatic light. They focused a ruby laser with a wavelength of 694 nm into a quartz sample. They sent the output light through a spectrometer, recording the spectrum on photographic paper, which indicated the production of light at 347 nm. Famously, when published in the journal Physical Review Letters,[1] the copy editor mistook the dim spot (at 347 nm) on the photographic paper as a speck of dirt and removed it from the publication

Climatologists are Lucky that the general Public can`t find out a whole lot more than that in the Internet...and this is why You will not find a whole lot, because You are now in this science:
Efficient CO2 laser SHG in a GaSe crystal

Abdullaev, G. B.; Allakhverdiev, K. R.; Karasev, M. E.; Konov, V. I.; Kulevskii, L. A.
AA(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AB(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AC(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AD(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR), AE(AN SSSR, Institut Obshchei Fiziki, Moscow, USSR) Kvantovaia Elektronika (Moscow) (ISSN 0368-7147), vol. 16, April 1989, p. 757-763. In Russian.
CARBON DIOXIDE LASERS, GALLIUM SELENIDES, HARMONIC GENERATIONS, LASER OUTPUTS, PULSED LASERS, SINGLE CRYSTALS, GERMANIUM COMPOUNDS, LASER PUMPING, POWER EFFICIENCY, ZINC FLUORIDES

and this:

So for now the climatologists get away with what they are telling You about CO2!

 

[IanC]

when you study the traffic patterns in communities, it is often counter-intuative to see what happens in high capacity events. heat exchange between the earth and space is the same. the energy wants out and it will take any path available. IR can't get past the blockade of CO2 and wter vapour at low altitudes so it uses evaporation and condensation to get higher. once higher it has a chance to run the gauntlet of water and CO2 molecules. my question is about the type of radiation that comes off the molecules after they have absorbed IR. do they radiate mostly in the wavelengths that they absorb, or are they black body radiators, or a combo of both. once a photon finds a hole in the atmosphere it is gone. Climate Science +/or Physics have done a poor job of making this part of the energy cycle available for laypersons to understand

 

[IanC]

ClimateGate Goes Back to 1980

Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960’s to 1970’s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 warmer (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).

Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s

Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s

Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s

Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s

and the best line......

GARBAGE IN, GOSPEL OUT! hahahahahaha

 

[polarbear]

when you study the traffic patterns in communities, it is often counter-intuative to see what happens in high capacity events. heat exchange between the earth and space is the same. the energy wants out and it will take any path available. IR can't get past the blockade of CO2 and water vapor at low altitudes so it uses evaporation and condensation to get higher. once higher it has a chance to run the gauntlet of water and CO2 molecules. my question is about the type of radiation that comes off the molecules after they have absorbed IR. do they radiate mostly in the wavelengths that they absorb, or are they black body radiators, or a combo of both. once a photon finds a hole in the atmosphere it is gone. Climate Science +/or Physics have done a poor job of making this part of the energy cycle available for laypersons to understand

Your statement is overall correct and if we look at the whole Chicago O`Hare traffic pattern as You put it then we can`t track what happens to the mosquito on the airfield.
But when we track the mosquito we tend to forget that the amount of IR that CO2 does absorb approximates the amount of water a suspended wire can prevent from falling to the ground. And that is where the "black body" effect that You mention occurs.
Everybody knows You can`t make energy disappear or annihilate it, it can only be changed from one form to another.
And the entire 174 Peta-watt - the 0.0425 %, what the CO2 caught happens then.
Of course now there is a huge difference if that impacts on a dark surface or something as reflective as snow or ice. And there is an equally huge difference if there is water either in the from of just moisture or as a large body of water at the "impact" zone.
With the last 2 cases there is initially very little IR energy re-radiated, but a huge amount is expended as heat of evaporation. It`s not seldom that the amount of water that is evaporated is large enough to flood several states. No use to attempt calculations here, the upper and lower possibility limits would render these useless anyway. But all that weight is no lifted several thousand meters against the force of gravity...then adiabatic cooling happens at greater altitude, water condenses and in the process releases all the heat it took to evaporate it...and is doing that at a different wavelength as where it absorbed it!!....and also has a huge head start of several thousands of meters where this new infrared does not have to travel through dense atmosphere on it`s way out to space.
These towering cumulus reach easily to altitudes in excess of 40 000 feet and the air up there is so thin there would be no way to breathe..
since 7/10 of the earth`s surface is water, that is what happens to the bulk of the 174 Peta Watts.
The other 3/10 do almost the same thing with the exception of the portion that hits bone dry ground or large white areas like snow and ice which reflect most of it, rather than absorbing it...only a very small percentage is absorbed...I do have the numbers somewhere in my data collection, but rather not quote from memory at this moment.
Now, as for the other portion of the 3/10th which was dry and non reflective an extremely interesting thing is happening there.
You have to try this out yourself or else You will never believe me!
Take 2 identical glasses out of a set. Light up a wax candle and soot one glass till it`s black. See if You can scrounge up 2 thermometers...and now pour an equal amount of very hot water in each glass. Observe how much quicker the black one cools off!...radiates IR..
And that is of course IR radiation at an entirely different wavelength as it would have received it from the sun...even includes some energy which it got ABOVE the Infrared!
I just noticed that Mathew did get very curious about all that stuff and he just dug out some info regarding this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...es-and-results-in-a-positive.html#post3256820
I`ll quote him here:

Mathew:

The shortwave changes are larger than the
longwave changes and results in a positive decadal
net radiation changes in most latitude zone
between 60oS and 40oN. The net radiation
changes are negative for latitude zones between
40oN and 60oN. For the tropics at a whole, the
longwave radiation has increased by 1.6 Wm-2, the
shortwave radiation has decreased by 3.0 Wm-2,
and the net radiation has increased by 1.4 Wm-2
between late 80s’ and the mid 90’s. For the near

And he concluded ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:

Shortwave radiation from the Sun enters the surface-atmosphere system of the Earth and is ultimately returned to space as longwave radiation (because the Earth is cooler than the Sun). A basic necessity of this energy interchange is that incoming solar insolation and outgoing radiation be equal in quantity. One way of modeling this balance in energy exchange is described graphically with the use of the following two cascade diagrams.

I knew he would look into all that after his appetite got wetted after he has looked at that cool application of the SAME PRINCIPLE:[

Second harmonic generation of TEA CO2 lasers with high output power for lidar systems | Publications: SPIE

The pulse repetition rate satisfies condition of the 'frozen' atmosphere and the energy is sufficiently large for working on topographic targets that are 10 km off using both CO2 laser emission and its SH (the conversion efficiency is from 5 to tens of percent).

I used that same dirty trick as I used on Mathew on all my grandchildren as well.
They first thought Physics Math and Chemistry are yawn.... "Nerd stuff"...till I bought them a chemistry set, spruced it up a bit and we did some what I prefer to call "spectacular chemical reactions"....
You should have seen how they all started hitting these "nerdy" books after that!

Actually I can understand Old Rock, and I wish he`d have seen that I did not register here to enter a who is right and who is wrong debate, but rather what is true and what is not.
And when it comes to man made GW and the IR-trigger effect, "positive feedback" etc Yes You may argue that the nail and our SUV exhaust have similarities:

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

 

[polarbear]

I hope Y`all forgive me if I rant just a tad more, pretty soon I won`t have to, `cause I am sure Mathew will never quit digging now...and he`ll do it for me, sooner or later!

Physics or Chemistry will look at the same mosquito in a very different way than Biology.
The Biologist can tell You things about mosquitoes that no one in Physics or Chemistry knows.
That`s because in these sciences we wish we could unlock technology that can perform like a mosquito can do,.....make a machine like for ex. like a spider or an ant that can jump further than 10 times its size dimensions or lift 100 times their own weight and do all that without hydrolics, pumps, engines and batteries of fossil fuel.
Any Chemist would give both his You know what if he could figure out how the tertiary structure of poly-peptides could change so rapidly, that with a tiny e-impulse from the brain to the nerves a snake can strike lightning fast at it`s pray!

And that explains also the difference how we regard Infrared radiation and how all other well meaning people perceive it.
It`s more than just "heat"!!!!...it is in every way like any other electromagnetic wave!
Its just that somewhere there is a disconnect for some reason with people that have absolutely no problem when they look at a mechanical Oscillation, but then forget about everything they do know abaut that when that happens at the molecular level.
It is the same thing...essentially
A weight on a spring will oscillate following the same laws as molecules and atoms...!
T=2*pi* sqr-root(Mass/ the spring constant D)
And that`s how CO2 does it too...except the weights are then the mass of the Oxygen Atoms and the weights of the Carbon Atom and the "springs" are the Carbon-Oxygen stretching, torsion and scissoring forces.
That`s how CO2 absorbs energy much like a tuning fork starts vibrating in front of a loud speaker that played the right tone!
Only difference is that when this "molecular" tuning fork vibrates it will energize other "springs" and "weights"...and these are the neighboring molecules they will of course get a few kicks form the vibrating atoms of the CO2 Molecule...and then these heavier "weights" and "Springs" will oscillate of course at a lower T(ime) per 1 complete sine wave...so a whole lot of the "tone" the loud speaker imparted as quasi infrared ennergy to the quasi CO2 tuning fork will have been changed to a MUCH lower frequency that another quasi CO2 tuning fork nearby has no way to absorb!
But like I said...pretty soon Mathew will dig all that out and I don`t have to sit here and try to work this keyboard with my over-sized paws...but can just sit here, put my feet up, have a cup of coffee, smoke a cigar and read what he will sooner or later post here!
Just don`t forget about Your family in the meantime Mathew...I hope it will all turn out O.K.
My best wishes to You deep from within Canada