Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 10:34 AM, Bill Ward wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:02:38 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 12:42 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:34 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

You too should keep your attributions straight.

What attribution might that be?

It was not I who mentioned the Duesberg site, and by extension, AIDS. I
did comment in the probable reason for its having been mentioned.

Why do you think I attributed that to you?

Because you addressed your post to me. Here it is:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:23:56 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/20/2011 5:25 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:23:54 -0800, fungus wrote:

On Dec 20, 8:54 pm, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:21 -0800, fungus wrote:

How does "reducing CO2 emissions" sound?
Expensive and unnecessary.


Have you seen this web site, I think you might find it interesting:

http://www.duesberg.com/
It's interesting that you try to change the subject. I assume it's
because you have no response that's relevant to my answer. If you have
any actual evidence that CO2 measurably affects surface temperatures,
please show it and explain the mechanism involved.
No, Bill, he didn't change the subject. He's pointing out that, just as
some people claim no climatic role for C)2, there are those who claim
that AIDS doesn't exist, or isn't caused by a virus or .... There are
also people, some of them with credentials as scientists, who claim that
the flat earth is the center of the universe, that the universe came
into existence about 5,000 years ago, and that Einstein was wrong.
And you believe that's somehow relevant to some mechanism allowing CO2 to

measurably heat the surface of the Earth? Do you have any evidence you
can show and explain? Or are you also just trying to change the subject
to something you can relate to?

At this late stage in the climate scam, your behavior seems almost
quaint. Who do you think you're fooling?


Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻÂŻ

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/21/2011 11:31 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
increase the temperature.

Not so. Higher heat capacity (a.k.a specific heat) affects the amount of
heat that the atmosphere holds without affecting its temperature.

CO2 raises surface temperature because it is relatively transparent at
the short IR of the sun's radiation and relatively opaque to the long IR
that a merely warm earth reradiates. It is the nature of CO2's
absorption/transmission spectrum that makes it a greenhouse gas.

2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 21, 8:31 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 21 Des, 17:05, columbiaaccidentinvestigation









columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 7:06 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

 And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
  Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
  and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
  disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
  while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
  eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
  screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
  like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
  capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
  'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
  relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
  effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
starter reply.  In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
run away from your own words.

The eugenics example is relevant because

na, and i know in your opinion your opinions are correct, but circular
logic only works with people like you.

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
   CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
   at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
   increase the temperature.

Human actions are changing the thermodynamic properties of the
atmosphere.

   Selective breeding works.

2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

your use of of eugenics is an example of misunderstanding.

Secondly, yes using eugenics in connection with climate science is
simply a meant to crank up the rhetoric, by using a red herring
emotional plea to the reader.  There are many other examples of how to
communicate the concept of ethics in science, but they are not as
likely to cause an emotional reaction in the reader.  It was a poor
choice for an example, and it shows a rather myopic view of history,
and science.

Again, less than a century ago, very few people questioned
eugenics, much the same way few people question the present
climate 'research'. And the same way eugenics was at the
core of politics in the '30s, the climate 'research' is at
the core of politics today.

I can hardly think of a better example. If you can suggest
a better one, please do.

Third, you are railing against those who claim to be experts becuase
they are using thier position to provide information for the general
public, and yet you appeal to your own authority.

Where did I do that? Where did I use *my* authority
as the deciding factor? If anything, I have referred
to the book by Svensmark, whwere the fallacy of
the climate 'research' is described in detail.

 Scientists
communicate upon congressional request so the general public is better
equiped to make value judgements about public policy.

There are few instances in history where science
and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
of them.

you have got to be kidding me, thats just a lame excuse to justify
your smear.
http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
"The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure the national defense…" With an annual budget of about $6.9
billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20
percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
America’s colleges and universities. In many fields such as
mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the
major source of federal backing"

 And yes we are
getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
concerns about human impact.  Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
the test/experiment.

There is afundamental difference between medicine and
climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
nations or the world at stake.

You mean you will use the example when it suits you, and drop it when
you need to. You cant have it both ways, but it seems you think you
have a special place based on a false sense of authority.

Sure, the medical test
subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
be limited to that individual.

But your reference to eugenics was not limited to the individual, why
would you place such a limit now?

Get the climate debate
wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.

Fear of change, is at the root of your reply above, nothing more than
rhetoric.

 Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
authority in this matter would understand the differences between
those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.

See above funding for the NSF, which started in 1950.

So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
with a lack of objectivity.

I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
experience as argument for not mixing politics and
science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
I will wear such labels with pride.

Rune

thats cool, but i wouldnt claim those ignorant views if i were you, as
they are not rational or logical.

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 21, 8:51 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:31:27 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor









all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On 21 Des, 17:05, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 7:06 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 21 Des, 15:46, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:16 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 21 Des, 14:55, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

The point being?

Rune

there are many more example one could use (ethics in science), but
using bad logic and irrational emotional pleas to the reader does not
validate your opinion.  Yes public opinions are swayed by those who
they view as experts, but do you really think you need to use such an
extreme example.

What do you object to? That I consider climate 'research'
a pseudo science? Or that I use eugenics as an example?

 And no, appealing to your own authority does not
validate your opinon, either as you would be contradicting your own
point.  The discussion of eugenics recently came up in the first part
of the human genome project, as some wanted to ensure the information
would not be used as a reason for discrimination.  So you are equating
those who want to reduce green house gas emissions, to those who have
racial intolerance of others, thats just absurd.

First of all, the priniciples of eugenics are in use
every day, and have been so for several thousand years.
Farmers have bred their livestock with respect to
'personality' (don't know the English word for Norwegian
'lynne') for as long as they have had livestock:
The 'bad' individuals were those who were slaughetered
for food; the 'good' ones were used for further breeding.

The same goes for aesthetics, ref the breeding of pets,
like cats and dogs.

So the principles of eugenics work. There are two
problems with eugenics, though, and each of them
is severe in their own right:

- Somebody forces that science onto other human beings.
  Who are to decide which properties are 'desireable'
  and which are not? Who are to say that *this* trait
  disqualifies you from, say, a job or insurance service,
  while *that* trait is OK? This is the form in which
  eugenics is still relevant today, with genetic
  screening etc.

- The pseudo-scientific association of physical traits
  like skin color or skull shape, mental or intellectual
  capacities. This is where eugenics and climate
  'research' match up, in that there are no cause-effect
  relation between trait (skin color or CO2 level) and
  effect (intelligence or temperature).

Rune- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, the genetic breeding you mentioned would not make contextual
sense in the manner you used the word "eugenics", so that was non -
starter reply.  In fact it would make one suspect you ran started to
run away from your own words.

The eugenics example is relevant because

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
  CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere
  at large, so increasing the amount of CO2 will
  increase the temperature.

The first part of that sentence directly contradicts the second part.
Pick a story and stick to it.  Here, I'll help you:

The constant-pressure specific heat of air is about 1.01 kj/kg-K.  The
constant-pressure specific heat of CO2 is about 0.84 kj/kg-K.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159....
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159....

  Selective breeding works.
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Not nearly as much as does mouthing off when you have no earthly idea
what you're talking about.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

his idiocy is funny, and pathetic at the same time.

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 21 Des, 18:58, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There are few instances in history where science
and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
of them.

you have got to be kidding me, thats just a lame excuse to justify
your smear.http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
"The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure the national defense…" With an annual budget of about $6.9
billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20
percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
America’s colleges and universities. In many fields such as
mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the
major source of federal backing"

I have no inisght into what NSF specifically is doing,
but those kinds of institutions are used to govern
'desired' directions of research. The EU have used
research funding programs with politically goverened
goals for several decades already. That's the name
of the game.

 And yes we are
getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
concerns about human impact.  Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
the test/experiment.

There is afundamental difference between medicine and
climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
nations or the world at stake.

You mean you will use the example when it suits you, and drop it when
you need to.  You cant have it both ways, but it seems you think you
have a special place based on a false sense of authority.

Again, what do you base such claims on?

Sure, the medical test
subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
be limited to that individual.

But your reference to eugenics was not limited to the individual, why
would you place such a limit now?

That's the point: *your* comprision with medicine is
invalid, because medicine deals with individuals.
Eugenics and climate 'research' have far wider
consequences: Nations and populations.

Get the climate debate
wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.

Fear of change, is at the root of your reply above, nothing more than
rhetoric.

Ah, Thanks for the psychology lesson.

 Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
authority in this matter would understand the differences between
those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.

See above funding for the NSF, which started in 1950.

And so what? How large percentage of their funds have
been piped to non-IPCC researchers? The fraction should
be somewhere in the order 50/50 (in practice maybe 40/60
either way). I suspect the numbers are on the order of
100/0 in favour of IPCC-followers.

So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
with a lack of objectivity.

I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
experience as argument for not mixing politics and
science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
I will wear such labels with pride.

Rune

thats cool, but i wouldnt claim those ignorant views if i were you, as
they are not rational or logical.

We might take that part of the discussion once you
post under your full name.

Rune

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <JGoIq.1264$lp2.433@newsfe03.iad>,
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
gasses".

Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Greenhouses trap
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air. Nothing
stops convection in the climate system. Heat is not "trapped", it is
simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
"GHGs".

I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap
heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half
the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the surface.
The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying mechanism.
Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared that we receive
by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far infrared that
warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Jerry

So, according to AGW theory, radiant heat goes from cold (upper
atmosphere at -65F) to warm (surface air)? Fer shuah!

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6@4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb)
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
<2a4eb24d-98b2-4e61-95aa-abc327a0c5af@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

No -- it about the frequently-quoted "scientific consensus," which AGW
proponents like to throw about in an attempt to intimidate skeptics.

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 21, 10:21 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 21 Des, 18:58, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are few instances in history where science
and politics is directly linked. Eugenics is one
of them.

you have got to be kidding me, thats just a lame excuse to justify
your smear.http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
"The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure the national defense…" With an annual budget of about $6.9
billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20
percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by
America’s colleges and universities. In many fields such as
mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the
major source of federal backing"

I have no inisght into what NSF specifically is doing,
but those kinds of institutions are used to govern
'desired' directions of research. The EU have used
research funding programs with politically goverened
goals for several decades already. That's the name
of the game.

So that would mean when you said " There are few instances in
history", that would be limited by your ignorance, and your fake
appeal to your own authority failed.

 And yes we are
getting a better understanding of the earths climate is being affected
by human actions appealing to your own authority does not dismiss the
concerns about human impact.  Now in mentioning eugenics, you neglect
the fact that a human subject review board is an ethical boudary put
in place by the medical sciences to ensure the validity and ethics of
the test/experiment.

There is afundamental difference between medicine and
climate research: In medicine, it is the individual
test subject at stake; in climate 'research' there are
nations or the world at stake.

You mean you will use the example when it suits you, and drop it when
you need to.  You cant have it both ways, but it seems you think you
have a special place based on a false sense of authority.

Again, what do you base such claims on?

your words, why do you need to run from them by playing stupid?

Sure, the medical test
subject might run a risk, but any bad cosequences will
be limited to that individual.

But your reference to eugenics was not limited to the individual, why
would you place such a limit now?

That's the point: *your* comprision with medicine is
invalid, because medicine deals with individuals.
Eugenics and climate 'research' have far wider
consequences: Nations and populations.

Please take the time to read, as i stated the human genome project,
are you claiming that use of the human genome data is limited to
affecting one person only? That would be foolish on your part, as you
seem to think your argument is so weak you need to dodge what was
already written by "qualifiers". Once again, my example was not
limited to the individual nor was yours, so all things being equal why
would you keep your discussion limited to your myopic interpretation
of history as your ignorance is obvious, and your lack of objectivity
has been revealed.

Get the climate debate
wrong, and the whole world will pay the consequences.

Fear of change, is at the root of your reply above, nothing more than
rhetoric.

Ah, Thanks for the psychology lesson.

observation.

 Now im sure a person like you who claims to have
authority in this matter would understand the differences between
those who want to reduce green hous gas emissions, and those who want
to show racial or genetic inotolerance of others.

I am not at all sure about that. If and when politics
and science mix, science seldom or never gets out on top.

See above funding for the NSF, which started in 1950.

And so what? How large percentage of their funds have
been piped to non-IPCC researchers? The fraction should
be somewhere in the order 50/50 (in practice maybe 40/60
either way). I suspect the numbers are on the order of
100/0 in favour of IPCC-followers.

another smear assertion with no point.

So you take your pick a non-starter reply, using poor example of how
you dont understand history, or your hypocrisy, it really does not
matter which one, as they all show how you disqualify your opinions
with a lack of objectivity.

I review the evidence. I use well-known historical
experience as argument for not mixing politics and
science. If that's 'hypocricy' or 'lack of objectivity'.
I will wear such labels with pride.

Rune

thats cool, but i wouldnt claim those ignorant views if i were you, as
they are not rational or logical.

We might take that part of the discussion once you
post under your full name.

Rune

that part of the discussion has been completed, and the conclusion is
you are wrong.

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:36 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
<orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6@4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb)
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

It refutes the claim above that, " . . . CO2 has no influence on
global warming." Did Mommy forget to read you the quoted material?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/21/11 9:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:

Greenhouses trap
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.

Oops, you got that wrong, Bill.

CO2 + hν <==> CO2*
CO2* + N2 ==> N2* + CO2
N2* + H2O ==> H2O* + N2
H20* ==> H2O + hν

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/21/2011 2:56 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article
2a4eb24d-98b2-4e61-95aa-abc327a0c5af@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:03 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:" Im a
scientist."

wow, so why mention the red herring of eugenics? Oh yeah because its a
cheap tactic meant to arouse emotion rather than stimulate a
conversation about ethics.

No -- it about the frequently-quoted "scientific consensus," which AGW
proponents like to throw about in an attempt to intimidate skeptics.

Scientific Consensus... is an oxymoron.


Science is NOT a socialist, collectivist group think.




--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.

 

[Radey Shouman]

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:

On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the atmosphere
can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it) "greenhouse
gasses".

Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Greenhouses trap
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air. Nothing
stops convection in the climate system. Heat is not "trapped", it is
simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away by
"GHGs".

I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap
heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half
the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the
surface. The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying
mechanism. Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared
that we receive by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far
infrared that warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Not many greenhouses use glass any more. The effect of the
walls on radiative heat transfer is completely secondary to their
effect on convection. For a short discussion see:

http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html

Real greenhouses are also frequently heated in winter and cooled in
summer, at considerable expense.

--

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:44:53 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 11:31 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

1) The underlying scientific principles are valid.
CO2 has a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere at large, so
increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the temperature.

Not so. Higher heat capacity (a.k.a specific heat) affects the amount of
heat that the atmosphere holds without affecting its temperature.

CO2 raises surface temperature because it is relatively transparent at
the short IR of the sun's radiation and relatively opaque to the long IR
that a merely warm earth reradiates. It is the nature of CO2's
absorption/transmission spectrum that makes it a greenhouse gas.

The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem. The
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by
conduction and convection. The surface radiation affected by GHGs is
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat. Adding more
CO2 has little effect, as it simply reduces the distance before the LWIR
is absorbed.

Water vapor is clearly the controlling factor in setting the surface
temperature. Read the Miskolczi links I posted earlier to see why.
VanAndel's intro is a good place to start.

2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

 

[columbiaaccidentinvestiga]

On Dec 21, 11:56 am, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/809f15083d010d39

like i said, there are many examples one could use, but the choice of
eugenics is a red herring topic meant to crank up the rhetoric. Its
only frequently used because it a cheap convienent way to cause an
emotional reaction by those who have a myopic view of history.

 

[Claudius Denk]

On Dec 12, 5:00 am, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

 I think it's foolish to assume that because
the system isn't well understood that people must be responsible for
the changes

I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure the
composition of the air and how much oil/coal
people are burning.

The rest is basic arithmetic.

Show us the math, you phoney.

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:46:14 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
<kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate change" are
overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history has there not been
climate change. There was climate change long before humans appeared.

There were extinctions long before humans appeared too, but most of us
would still object to being part of one. "It's happened before, so it
must be OK/can't be our responsibility" is the Argument From
Retardation.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Bill Ward]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:28:12 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/21/2011 10:21 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:58:17 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

It is known with some certainty that particular gasses in the
atmosphere can trap heat in the same way that glass traps heat in a
greenhouse. Those particular gasses are called (by analogy: so be it)
"greenhouse gasses".

Unfortunately, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Greenhouses trap
heat by physically preventing convective exchange of heated air.
Nothing stops convection in the climate system. Heat is not "trapped",
it is simply convected up to an altitude where it can be radiated away
by "GHGs".

I agree that the effect of GhGs is more subtle. They don't really trap
heat, they absorb it and are warmed by it, then radiate it away. Half
the radiation escapes into space. The other half returns the surface.

Actually, the "other half" doesn't. It can't, because the surface is
warmer than the radiating altitude. It never left the surface, because
the surface is at the same temperature as the air (and GHGs) immediately
above.

The atmosphere is in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE). As in all
radiatively active gases, there are photons constantly exchanged between
nearby molecules, whose energy spectrum depends on the temperature of the
gas. That means any downwelling LWIR at the surface came from just above
the surface, and the outward bound LWIR originated at a range of
altitudes where the optical depth to space approaches one and the photons
begin to escape to space. You don't need to worry about the LWIR below
that altitude, because air acts as any other gas in LTE. The surface
energy is carried upward by conduction and convection of warmed gas, not
radiation.

The altitude range is such that half of the outgoing radiation is from WV
below 6km. The effective radiating temperature is 255K, as set by
orbital parameters and the Sun's output. WV radiates broadband, while CO2
affects only a narrow band at ~15u, at higher altitude and lower
temperature.

The surface is warmer because of the adiabatic lapse rate down from the
~255K at 6km, not "back radiation".

The similarity to actual greenhouses lies in the underlying mechanism.
Both glass and GhGs are transparent to the near infrared that we receive
by direct insolation, but relatively opaque to the far infrared that
warmed objects reradiate. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Actually, I do. I also know that's way oversimplified to the point of
being misleading. Read the Miskolczi papers for a detailed explanation.

"As simple as possible, *but no simpler*."

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:49:51 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net>
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:46:14 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate change" are
overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history has there not been
climate change. There was climate change long before humans appeared.

There were extinctions long before humans appeared too, but most of us
would still object to being part of one. "It's happened before, so it
must be OK/can't be our responsibility" is the Argument From
Retardation.

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than
in the past. It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

2) Misunderstanding those principles produces problems.

Indeed it does.

Ditto.

Anyway, what all these granolas jumping up and down over "climate change" are
overlooking is that at no point in the Earth's history has there not been
climate change. There was climate change long before humans appeared.