 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 7 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bill Ward... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:39:50 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
[quote]Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-
ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the
conservation of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics;
but that does not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
[/quote]
Nice summary. Thanks for the link. Note on pg 65 they say,"Convection
and turbulence would develop", yet that's not taken into account in their
model, or the IPCC's, for that matter.
I think it was Einstein that was credited with,"Things should be as
simple as possible, but no simpler".
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation. BTW
Don't let the cover page put you off.
[/quote]
I agree. It's worth reading.
[quote]It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:03 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
That's going to take a while to digest! But I doubt Denkipoo will even
try.
I saw it. But it's not me you should be concerned with.
[/quote]
Don't worry your pretty head on that score. Nobody is worrying a jot
about you and the other denialist "whackos"
[quote] Keep in
mind, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about impending climatic
disaster.
[/quote]
Indeed. You were making extraordinary claims like the one in the
title. To help get the egg off your face, I've taken care of that.
[quote] And, in case you've forgotten, in science the burden of
proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making extraordinary
claims.
[/quote]
Well no, it doesn't. The claims are quite acceptable so long as it's
realised this is what they are and always will be - unless proof to
the contrary can be found. Failure to refute increases the likelihood
the claim may be true, but it is never "proved".
[quote]Don't let the AGW whackos tell you otherwise.
[/quote]
As far as I know, those in climate science interested in such things
have never tried to do that.
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Thanks, Martin.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
Aha! So it's not like the AGW alarmists can claim that the theory
doesn't exists. Right?
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
So, Martin, now that you've determined that they underpinnings of the
theory are available online and were found by you with minimal effort
don't you wonder why the AGW alarmist have, it seems, been unable to
find it despite have twenty years and billions of dollars of resources!
[/quote]
You said you the equation didn't exist. I merely pointed out where they
are freely available online. The main computer models solve the same
equations and I would expect use some of the analytical results as
sanity checks for simulations of component parts. If you read a bit more
about the science you might dispel some of your weird beliefs.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Thanks Martin, here is a link a little older than your sources but I
find it find helpful…
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021465_1971021465.pdf
"NASA SP-164
THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Volume Ill
Radiation Transfer With Absorbing, Emitting, and Scattering Media
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Siegel and John R. Howell Lewis Research Center Cleveland,
Ohio"
[/quote]
Thanks for that one. The NASA report is a more complete treatment of all
the various intricacies and includes scattering and real world geometry.
The maths is a bit easier in a plane parallel atmosphere and still shows
all the right qualitative properties.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 12:50 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
Aha! So it's not like the AGW alarmists can claim that the theory
doesn't exists. Right?
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
So, Martin, now that you've determined that they underpinnings of the
theory are available online and were found by you with minimal effort
don't you wonder why the AGW alarmist have, it seems, been unable to
find it despite have twenty years and billions of dollars of resources!
You said you the equation didn't exist. I merely pointed out where they
are freely available online.
[/quote]
Another example of the intellectual dishonesty of AGW proponents. I
stated, "A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse Properties
is Non-existant." Note the difference you evasive jackass.
[quote]The main computer models solve the same
equations and I would expect use some of the analytical results as
sanity checks for simulations of component parts. If you read a bit more
about the science you might dispel some of your weird beliefs.
[/quote]
Next you'll be telling us that since science exists that, therefore,
AGW is valid science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 4:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 1:03 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups..com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
That's going to take a while to digest! But I doubt Denkipoo will even
try.
I saw it. But it's not me you should be concerned with.
Don't worry your pretty head on that score. Nobody is worrying a jot
about you and the other denialist "whackos"
Keep in
mind, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about impending climatic
disaster.
Indeed. You were making extraordinary claims like the one in the
title.
[/quote]
And you appear to have no dispute with this claim. Right? (Answer
the question you evasive jackass.)
[quote]To help get the egg off your face, I've taken care of that.
[/quote]
There's more to science than changing the subject line in a post.
[quote] And, in case you've forgotten, in science the burden of
proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making extraordinary
claims.
Well no, it doesn't.
[/quote]
No! (Thank you for your honesty.)
[quote]The claims are quite acceptable so long as it's
realised this is what they are and always will be - unless proof to
the contrary can be found. Failure to refute increases the likelihood
the claim may be true, but it is never "proved".
[/quote]
So do you believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts?
[quote]Don't let the AGW whackos tell you otherwise.
As far as I know, those in climate science interested in such things
have never tried to do that.
[/quote]
Exactly! Thank you for your honesty.
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Thanks, Martin.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:54 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks Martin, here is a link a little older than your sources but I
find it find helpful…
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021465_1971...
"NASA SP-164
THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Volume Ill
Radiation Transfer With Absorbing, Emitting, and Scattering Media
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Siegel and John R. Howell Lewis Research Center Cleveland,
Ohio"
[/quote]
Okay. Now continue. Show us how this results in a definition
greenhouse properties. And show us the experimental data, based on
this new definition, that shows us to what degree the different gasses
that compose the atmosphere (especially Nitrogen and Oxygen) do or do
not (and to what degree) fit this description. Keep in mind your
results must be quantitative and they must be based on experiments
that are explicit and reproducible.
Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:44 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 4:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:03 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
That's going to take a while to digest! But I doubt Denkipoo will even
try.
I saw it. But it's not me you should be concerned with.
Don't worry your pretty head on that score. Nobody is worrying a jot
about you and the other denialist "whackos"
Keep in
mind, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about impending climatic
disaster.
Indeed. You were making extraordinary claims like the one in the
title.
And you appear to have no dispute with this claim. Right? (Answer
the question you evasive jackass.)
[/quote]
Until Martin showed you to be wrong, I had no knowledge to enable me
to do so. When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do,
you evasive twit?
[quote]To help get the egg off your face, I've taken care of that.
There's more to science than changing the subject line in a post.
[/quote]
Why change it back then?
[quote] And, in case you've forgotten, in science the burden of
proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making extraordinary
claims.
Well no, it doesn't.
No! (Thank you for your honesty.)
The claims are quite acceptable so long as it's
realised this is what they are and always will be - unless proof to
the contrary can be found. Failure to refute increases the likelihood
the claim may be true, but it is never "proved".
So do you believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts?
[/quote]
In order to test these hypotheses they must be couched in testable
language. For example: there is no previously-undescribed, large,
bipedal mammal extant on the N.Am. continent. Once Bigfoot is found
this hypothesis is falsified, but until then there is no evidence to
the contrary. My OPINION is that no such animal exists, based on the
vast screeds of evidence from the time of Lewis, Clarke, Audobon up to
the present, with naturalists actively looking out for every new
species they could describe.
[quote]Don't let the AGW whackos tell you otherwise.
As far as I know, those in climate science interested in such things
have never tried to do that.
Exactly! Thank you for your honesty.
[/quote]
So if you accept that, who have you in mind for the term "AGW
whackos"?
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Thanks, Martin[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 7:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:54 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks Martin, here is a link a little older than your sources but I
find it find helpful…
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021465_1971...
"NASA SP-164
THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Volume Ill
Radiation Transfer With Absorbing, Emitting, and Scattering Media
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Siegel and John R. Howell Lewis Research Center Cleveland,
Ohio"
Okay. Now continue. Show us how this results in a definition
greenhouse properties. And show us the experimental data, based on
this new definition, that shows us to what degree the different gasses
that compose the atmosphere (especially Nitrogen and Oxygen) do or do
not (and to what degree) fit this description. Keep in mind your
results must be quantitative and they must be based on experiments
that are explicit and reproducible.
Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
First you must show the known properties of "green house gasses" or
gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities. You still have not done this, so dont be lazy,
come on now... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:13 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 9:44 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:03 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
That's going to take a while to digest! But I doubt Denkipoo will even
try.
I saw it. But it's not me you should be concerned with.
Don't worry your pretty head on that score. Nobody is worrying a jot
about you and the other denialist "whackos"
Keep in
mind, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about impending climatic
disaster.
Indeed. You were making extraordinary claims like the one in the
title.
And you appear to have no dispute with this claim. Right? (Answer
the question you evasive jackass.)
Until Martin showed you to be wrong,
[/quote]
What are you talking about?
[quote]I had no knowledge to enable me
to do so. When the facts change,
[/quote]
What "facts" do you speak of? ('Answer the question you evasive
jackass.)
[quote]I change my opinions. What do you do,
you evasive twit?
To help get the egg off your face, I've taken care of that.
There's more to science than changing the subject line in a post.
Why change it back then?
And, in case you've forgotten, in science the burden of
proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making extraordinary
claims.
Well no, it doesn't.
No! (Thank you for your honesty.)
The claims are quite acceptable so long as it's
realised this is what they are and always will be - unless proof to
the contrary can be found. Failure to refute increases the likelihood
the claim may be true, but it is never "proved".
So do you believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts?
In order to test these hypotheses they must be couched in testable
language.
[/quote]
Why don't you hold AGW theory to the same standard?
[quote]For example: there is no previously-undescribed, large,
bipedal mammal extant on the N.Am. continent. Once Bigfoot is found
this hypothesis is falsified, but until then there is no evidence to
the contrary. My OPINION is that no such animal exists, based on the
vast screeds of evidence from the time of Lewis, Clarke, Audobon up to
the present, with naturalists actively looking out for every new
species they could describe.
Don't let the AGW whackos tell you otherwise.
As far as I know, those in climate science interested in such things
have never tried to do that.
Exactly! Thank you for your honesty.
So if you accept that, who have you in mind for the term "AGW
whackos"?
[/quote]
If the shoe fits . . .
[quote]
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation..
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Thanks, Martin- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:39 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 7:57 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:54 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups..com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks Martin, here is a link a little older than your sources but I
find it find helpful…
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021465_1971....
"NASA SP-164
THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Volume Ill
Radiation Transfer With Absorbing, Emitting, and Scattering Media
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Siegel and John R. Howell Lewis Research Center Cleveland,
Ohio"
Okay. Now continue. Show us how this results in a definition
greenhouse properties. And show us the experimental data, based on
this new definition, that shows us to what degree the different gasses
that compose the atmosphere (especially Nitrogen and Oxygen) do or do
not (and to what degree) fit this description. Keep in mind your
results must be quantitative and they must be based on experiments
that are explicit and reproducible.
Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First you must show the known properties of "green house gasses" or
gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy
[/quote]
Aha! So you admit this has never been done. Right? (Answer the
question you evasive jackass.)
[quote](that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities. You still have not done this,
[/quote]
I never said I would.
[quote]so dont be lazy,
come on now...
[/quote]
I think you have to take responsibility for your delusions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
[/quote]
You should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, like
facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Last Post... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 12:01Â pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 8:50Â am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or  gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, Â molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
[/quote]
•• So far nothing of that is proved. No proof that
H2O, CO2, NO2 or any other gas can absorb
and re-emit anything.
•• As for 'shelf' life of CO2 in the atmosphere, it
is only a matter of days, because whenever it
rains (or snows), all of the CO2 in that
location is carried to the earth to enter the
photosynthetic process. The turnover is
phenomenal
––  ––
 
 In real science the burden of proof is always

 on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
 
 neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
 
 iota of valid data for global warming nor have

 they provided data that climate change is being
 
 effected by commerce and industry, and not by
 natural phenomena.
Earth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:45 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
You should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, like
facts.
[/quote]
see my previous reply when you stated the same thing, meanwhile show
the known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:31 pm
|
|