Discussion:
NASA - Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) - positive feedback to warming
(too old to reply)
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-06 23:03:34 UTC
Permalink
positive feedback to warming, warming caused by increased co2, co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion (upper and lower atmosphere show increases in atmospheric concentrations of co2)


New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”"
Kym Horsell
2018-08-07 01:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Some observational evidence for this.


(year/5) range co2
~enso cycle ppmv
392 7.81
393 9.01001
394 9.82001
395 9.75
396 12.26
397 11.74
398 10.67
399 12.61
400 11.74
401 13.42
402 13.75
403 16.2

calculated Spearman corr = 0.930070
Critical Spearman = 0.701000 2-sided at 1%; reject H0:not_connected

I.e. 99% confidence as atm CO2 increases (year by year) the swings from
low to high approx each ENSO cycle is increasing as well.

There seems to have been a particularly big jump in the last ~5 years (16 ppmv
vs prev 14 ppmv and 8 ppmv in 1950s).
Catoni
2018-08-07 04:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
positive feedback to warming, warming caused by increased co2, co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion (upper and lower atmosphere show increases in atmospheric concentrations of co2)
New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up
"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”"
Okay.. so how much did the Boreal suffer three million years ago when it was still warm enough for forests to grow in the Arctic ? ?

Must have been horrible for the Boreal..
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-07 04:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
positive feedback to warming, warming caused by increased co2, co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion (upper and lower atmosphere show increases in atmospheric concentrations of co2)
New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up
"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”"
Okay.. so how much did the Boreal suffer three million years ago when it was still warm enough for forests to grow in the Arctic ? ?
Must have been horrible for the Boreal..
Does your question invalidate human impact in your mind?

So how many tropical storms per year increase across the globe are you talking about when the arctic was that warm?

Must have been horrible for global trade, you know speculation as to how markets of that time would have reacted under such increase risk of loss?
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-07 20:12:51 UTC
Permalink
...warming caused by increased co2, co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion (upper and lower atmosphere show increases in atmospheric concentrations of co2)
....

So why if you fill a room or gymnasium with co2 at any concentration there is no affect on temperature?

Double pained windows filled with argon are effective and worth the money for reducing heat exchange.

Double pained windows with co2 are not sold. The higher heat capacity transfers heat energy more readily, and thus insulate less effectively than normal air.

Your statement is not based on science, but on common repetition of duffusses uninterested in science or the truth who dominate THEORETICAL science and milk the CASH COW of AGW for all it's worth.

In the meantime, the Chinese are ignoring you completely. Their scientists capable of basic science and math know clearly how dumb you are, as they continue to grow their emmisions 10-12% of US steady rate each yr. Doubling US output every 8-10 yrs.

Looks like DOOMSDAY SCENARIO, if you ask me.

Your continued call for emissions reductions regime is only PROOF that you are insane.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-07 20:30:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 1:12:52 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:"Double pained windows filled with argon are effective and worth the money for "

The fraudulent arguments put forth by cowardly liars like has become less and less relevant. One could question your motivations and wonder if you personally fear loss of future projected earnings?
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-07 21:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Damn sure dont have nothing to do with my profit or gain, asshole.

So let's talk thermal inversion of the stratosphere. The top of the stratosphere is 5F. The bottom -60F.

The contemporary theory is that this is primarily due to absorption of ultraviolet photons of energy hv.

The energy absorbed at upper layers, and therefore not reaching the lower level. Then it is said 'some of the visible'. The infrared from the sun is ignored.

This is primarily because most of it is absorbed in the stratosphere. Before satellites, there was not empirical science for the solar radiation. The sun at 4700K radiates about 50% in visible, 41% in infrared, and 9% in ultraviolet.

This means around 500Wm-2 in infrared.

The rinky dink theoreticians of climate, had only surface readings before the 60s. This is why it is still fundamental for them that the sun radiates in 'short' waves, and the earth radiates in 'long' waves. Which is stupid. But also used to defray the idea that added co2 would block incoming solar radiation if it blocked outgoing radiation.

That the stratosphere blocks nearly a third of solar radiation makes earth habitable.
The temperature outside the ISS is 121C or 250F.
Temperatures on the lit side of the moon are average 109C which is 225F, for the average temperature of the hemisphere receiving solar radiation.

This theortical science is not mine.

Simple and correct analysis of solar radiation and absorption of infrared energy by the O2 and N2, puts a major dent in your fantasy of GHGs, any effect of your GHGs on outgoing radiation.

Pull your head out of your ass. There may be specialists to helo you with your removal of your head up the ass..

We're in the space age man. You can leave your arcane and 19th century, Einstein hating, bullshit it the rubish heap where it belongs and where you found it.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-07 21:09:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:" Damn sure dont have nothing to do with my profit or gain, asshole."

Honesty is not your best quality, so try again how much in projected earnings would you lose if use of fossil fuels stopped today?
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-07 21:55:13 UTC
Permalink
63,284,071.5 Joules per second, traveling through plane of 1 sq meter per second at the velocity of light.

Excuse me, but radiating temperature of the sun is considered to be 5780K. This is the energy density of the solar constant at the surface of the sun. After traveling to the earth, according to the inverse square law for distance, it is 1368Wm-2.

Which equates to 121C, the temperature a substance will achieve in this radiation.


5780 (fourth powér) x 5.67E-8 Joules

Wiens Law is 1.03E11 cycles per second x K
Or .2898cm/5780 which puts frequency or related wavelength at 5000 Angstroms or 0.5 microns for frequency of highest intensity or energy.

Maybe you should owe me some compensation. For attempting to teach you proper physics like I was taught.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-07 22:12:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 2:55:15 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:" Maybe you should owe me some compensation. For attempting to teach you proper physics like I was taught."

The atmosphere impedes the outgoing flow of energy from the earth, low level intelligence people like you often think your personal gain is above all else so once again if use of fossil fuels were to stop today, how much would you stand to lose in future projected earnings?
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 01:31:51 UTC
Permalink
""Impedes outgoing radiation """
Your semantics are not specific enough. Meaningless except to believers.

Well what about the 'cold sink of space'?

It is crucial in your theory that on cloudless nights, the cold sink of space just soaks up energy from the surface, where it disappears in contradiction to the conservation of energy.

And yet there is infrared astronomy. Space born infrared telescopes are incomparably better than ground based. Without atmospheric absorption by O2 AND N2 molecules.

How does this infred energy travel across space without getting swallowed up in a cold sink of space? According to you, the cold sink initiates and the lapse into the sink of non existence, where the 'cold' negates the energy of the warmth, determines Delta T.

Does infrared astronomy have to filter out the 'downwind wave', to get a clear picture with earth bound infrared astronomy?

I guess it just all depends on what Delta T is at the time, the composite of the sum of the wave packets, and how we can fix it with a carbon tax.
Kym Horsell
2018-08-08 01:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
The atmosphere impedes the outgoing flow of energy from the earth, low level intelligence people like you often think your personal gain is above all else so once again if use of fossil fuels were to stop today, how much would you stand to lose in future projected earnings?
Careful -- quigley has threatened to teach you as well as he was taught.
IOW every substance is a black body; a vacuum reflects radiation back
to the source; 2 atom molecules have the same vibtration modes as 3- and
4-atom molecules; etc.

With training like that you apparently become unteachable.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 02:26:22 UTC
Permalink
"""Careful -- quigley has threatened to teach you as well as he was taught.
IOW every substance is a black body; a vacuum reflects radiation back
to the source; 2 atom molecules have the same vibtration modes as 3- and
4-atom molecules; etc.

With training like that you apparently become unteachable. """
.........

The top of the stratosphere is 5F
The bottom is -60F

If numbers scare you, I apologize.
If global warming and the people that hate you nonsensical jerks scare you, we apologize.

You should seek professional psychological help for your problems and phobia and your worry about our well being in the midst of climate change.

The only thing you got going for you now anyway, is the freedom of expression. Or your God given right to WHINE.
Kym Horsell
2018-08-08 02:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
"""Careful -- quigley has threatened to teach you as well as he was taught.
IOW every substance is a black body; a vacuum reflects radiation back
to the source; 2 atom molecules have the same vibtration modes as 3- and
4-atom molecules; etc.
With training like that you apparently become unteachable. """
.........
Oh, no! Quigley has figgered out how to use google.

A feat so difficult it is apparently intended to impress.

Must be all the geometry.

SNELLS LAW!
Post by k***@gmail.com
The top of the stratosphere is 5F
The bottom is -60F
If numbers scare you, I apologize.
If global warming and the people that hate you nonsensical jerks scare you, we apologize.
You should seek professional psychological help for your problems and phobia and your worry about our well being in the midst of climate change.
The only thing you got going for you now anyway, is the freedom of expression. Or your God given right to WHINE.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 03:37:46 UTC
Permalink
So you are default on the thermal inversion of the stratosphere.

With no accounting for the infrareds of the solar radiation in contemporary theory, and the lack of accounting for the frequencies absorbed and blocked from reaching the surface, you must acknowledge now that is is the O2 and N2 that absorb the infrared, causing the thermal inversion and the absorption of nearly one third of solar radiation which makes temperatures on earth habitable.

Thanks, by your inabilty to counter this basic and empirical science, your confirmation and acquisence of your theory failure.

Hate to leave you twisting in the wind, but ....
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-08 03:57:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 8:37:47 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:" the lack of accounting for the frequencies absorbed and blocked from reaching the surface"

The below plot shows total incoming from the sun peaking above 1000w/m2, thermal emission from the earth, and downward thermal emission from the atmosphere

So if the rock is warmed, and the rock is surrounded by a low density insulator, impedance to outgoing thermal emission will occur, the insulator has thermal emission of its own, which in has a downward component.

Co2 impedes the outgoing thermal energy, increasing co2 concentrations increases downward thermal emissions.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b6a67dbed9ba.pdf
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 18:45:09 UTC
Permalink
The blue, or downwelling IR, is the radiation field within the gas molecules. If this reading were taken at top of troposphere, it would be much different. The upwelling from the heated surface is a little higher than this, as many of the photons retain teir directional impetus away from the surface.

It hovers around 400Wm-2. This translates to 290K, or about 62F. Which can be considered near ordinary nighttime temperatures or temperatures at higher elevations.

This radiation field within the gas molecules, is there only because of thd O2 and N2 and their absorption and emission of the full spectrum of the continuous spectrum of the infrared.

The atmosphere is 99% O2 and N2. On average 1% water vapor, and then trace gases, such as co2. The co2 and water vapor are not solely responsible for this radiation field.

Dew point or actual concentration of water vapor exists in variations at location or specific times. Higher water vapor does not cause higher temperatures as GHG theory says. But for some reason, depresses temperature. Deserts are hot BECAUSE of the dry air. In local meteorology, water vapor can be shown to depress daytime highs, not increase.

The important point of this graph is the solar intensity. Near 1000Wm-2. 100 miles up, this reading is 1368Wm-2.

The energy missing here, is responsible for thd thermal inversion of the stratosphere. There is some contribution from absorbed ultraviolet as is contemporary theory, but the bulk of the solar infrared is absorbed and reaches the lower levels in decreasing quantities.

This can be proved by the values of energy of the temperatures and direct analysis at top of troposphere or bottom of the stratosphere.

Before satellites, the quacks of climatology only had surface readings for solar radiation. Therefore the fundamental myth is still basic that the sun radiates in 'short waves' and the earth radiates in 'long waves'.

Simply false. As temperature increases, the overal distribution increases at every frequency. It is only for the sun's distance that it's infrared emissions are only around 550Wm-2. 41% of the solar energy is in the infrared.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 19:38:11 UTC
Permalink
All gases under pressure emit the same chromatic, continuous spectrum. This applies strictly to all gases, including all atmospheric gases equally. This means they are absorbing and emiting in overall quantities equally and types of gases DO NOT AFFECT temperature.

This spectrum at thermal equilibrium, obeys Planck's Radiation Law, for distribution of energy according to frequency and temperatures.

Mean energy for the distribution is h/ loghv/kT-1, in which kT is the 'average' kinetic energy of 1 molecule of a gas, ANY GAS, at a particular temperature, as derived from R, the gas constant.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 19:44:05 UTC
Permalink
This is why solar radiation is of basically two components.
A chromatic spectrum of all frequncies from compressed gases, and then the 'line spectra' from the rarified, (low pressure),gases a higher altitudes that are still very hot.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-08 21:00:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:45:10 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:"The blue, or downwelling IR, is the radiation field within the gas molecules....This radiation field within the gas molecules, is there only because of thd O2 and N2 and their absorption and emission of the full spectrum of the continuous spectrum of the infrared."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.global-warming/1taRRL8Q26Q/pwuG0iHmCQAJ


So on another night at the same location, the nighttime downward emission varies much differently kind of like the remnants of thunderstorms passed over the observation site.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b6b57cd398fe.pdf

So to be clear your fraudulent assertion and poor logic rest on the fact you stated the downward thermal emission as observed in the bottom of the atmosphere does not include co2 and water vapor, and is solely from n2 and o2 in the upper atmosphere where water vapor is not available.

So why the variation in downward thermal emission at night?

Please note if a cloud passes over head in the desert, radiative cooling changes, and so does downward thermal emission from the atmosphere, yet your so called explanation would seem to dodge this simple observation.

You work very hard to be this stupid, yes you have some fear of losing projected earnings if we stopped using fossil fuels today.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-09 21:35:05 UTC
Permalink
The stratosphere absorbs most of the infrared in the solar energy.

The inversion cannot be caused soley by absorption of ultraviolet. The infreds are being absorbed by O2 and N2 which entirely deposes the theory of GHGs.

Greenie theory is based upon arcane and invalid theortical science in contradiction to Einstein. And not supported and in contradiction to any and all empirical science.

Where are the 400Wm-2 missing in the downward radiation if not the primary cause of the thermal inversion?

That is the question. The answer to this question is imperative. The failure to answer this before US law is a high crime
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-09 22:40:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 2:35:06 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:

So you cannot explain why the difference in downward thermal emission between the two NIGHT observations.

Of course you have been exposed yet again as a fraud, a snake oil salesman driven by greed and fear of losing projected future earnings into dirty burning fossil fuel

The arctic is showing feedback positive feedback, to the warming, more warming from co2, more co2, then more warming

Greedy dirty low intelligence losers like you are nothing new just a greedy manipulator of the facts trying to spin your lies

New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 00:55:55 UTC
Permalink
...So to be clear your fraudulent assertion and poor logic rest on the fact you stated the downward thermal emission as observed in the bottom of the atmosphere does not include co2 and water vapor, and is solely from n2 and o2 in the upper atmosphere where water vapor is not available.....

The O2 and N2 atmosphere contains a radiation field. The graph you refer as 'downward' flux', is the omnidirectional radiation field within the O2 AND N2 molecules, which has a downward component. The energy density of this field is , 5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2,sec-1,degK-4.

The first sq cm is the area of a sphere of surface area 1 sq cm.

Density x total sq sm is Stefan's Law. Or total radiated energy as a fourth power to Temperature.

The energy aborbed at the top of the stratosphere, does not reach the lower atmosphere. That is why there is the thermal inversion. You mistake what I said.

The solar radiation that does reach the surface is absorbed or reflected.
If absorbed it is it is reemitted in frequencies commensurate with temperature in the infrared, and absorbed and transfered by radiation and conduction, until it is able to be radiated to space by the O2 and N2. Much is absorbed directly by lower atmosphere especially with much of an angle to surface.

None of it 'lapses' or just disappears. 'Energy is never lost or gained, but is converted between forms'. The very first principle of physics and thermodynamics, of which you have no fundamental reckoning or acknowledgment in your untenable and bogus theoretical meanderings in pure semantics.

The energy in the upper stratosphere has very little to do with overall surface temperatures.

The concept of GHG theory, that the 'transparent' O2 and N2 would let all the heat out and the earth would be about 0degF without GHGs is terminally STUPID.

The average temperature of the entire lit hemisphere of the moon is 109C WITHOUT THE ATMOSPHERE. The atmosphere blocks much more than 1/3 of solar radiation from reaching the surface if you consider the greater amount absorbed when sun is at a angle and not at zenith.

The earth would be burnt and cooked like the moon witthout the absorption of a very considerable amount of solar energy from the O2 and N2.

And water vapor and trace gases add absolutely nothing to temperature by retaining energy according to their concentrations.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-10 01:52:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:55:57 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:"The O2 and N2 atmosphere contains a radiation field. The graph you refer as 'downward' flux', is the omnidirectional radiation field within the O2 AND N2 molecules, which has a downward component."

So you are saying that the intensity increases in the night time downward component at the bottom of the atmosphere are caused only by changes in n2 and 02 WHICH IS UTTER BS.

A better more simple explanation is that the increase in intensity was correlated to a cloud passing over head (remnants from monsoonal thunderstorms)




Co2 impedes the outgoing flow of energy as the earth cools at night, changes how energy is impeded in the lower atmosphere increase the temps near the surface

Please note the changes in the downwelling infrared and upwelling infrared at night when there are clouds in the sky. You offer no explanation as to the differences, your greed and fear of losing projected earnings are the reason you continue to lie.

night with clouds
** https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b6b57cd398fe.pdf **

night with no clouds
** https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b6a67dbed9ba.pdf **

Positive feedback from warming, co2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, co2 warms the lower atmosphere, more warming, means faster and faster carbon cycles, which means more co2, and therefore more warming


** New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up **
** https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up **
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 02:55:06 UTC
Permalink
...All gases under pressure emit the same chromatic, continuous spectrum. This applies strictly to all gases, including all atmospheric gases equally. This means they are absorbing and emiting in overall quantities equally and types of gases DO NOT AFFECT temperature.
...

If one takes N2 or O2 or co2, keeping them pressurized and raising the temperature, to 700K, they will emit the same continuous spectrum of all frequncies through the infrared.
At this temperature, the distribution peak is 4um, or microns.
Still well within the infrared.

The gases are indistinguishable in radiation field and temperature at equilibrium. Higher heat capacity of co2 only means slghtly longer time to reach final temperature at equilibrium and does not affect final temperature at equilibrium.

You got your head so far up your ass only on the peanut butter jar experiment from the Lord Tyndell and junior high schoolers, as your only experience with physical science. Notice you have no formal scientific writups on this bogus little exibit that soley depends upon the induction or manefestation from absorption of visible, of very high infrareds that have nothing to do with earth radiation.

If co2 is such an insulator, why not fill your walls windows and even your house with this magnificent insulator that impedes outgoing energy so well at changes in .01% in your nightmare of catastrophic human caused and controlled global warmo,that humans must entirely eliminate the use of carbon?

Under the direction of the parrots and quacks all smug in their training of their chirping and squawking, at the publicly funded pet store of academia.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-10 03:08:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:" Higher heat capacity of co2 only means slghtly longer time to reach final temperature at equilibrium and does not affect final temperature at equilibrium."

the co2 delays the outgoing flow, increased concentrations means longer delay, causing the system to warm


NASA - Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) - positive feedback to warming
*** New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up ***

***"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" **
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 11:22:45 UTC
Permalink
...The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that...

Bunch of crap. The ocean releases 200 billion tons of co2 per yr into the atmosphere. It also absorbs 200 billion per yr.
Plant life depends upon co2 replenishment from decay and diffusion of co2 from the massive quantities of carbon at the bottom of the ocean where there is little oxygen for it to oxidize into co2.

The main consumer of co2 is the phytoplankton in the ocean. All plant life increases growth with greater co2, as the record of human emissions to atmospheric co2 shows.
Growth is only limited to availability of nitrogen and oxygen.
It is not easy to break the N2 molecule and make the nitrogen available for plants.

In the whole scheme of things, the changes described here will have no effect on a damn thing.

Any climatological statement of '40' yrs is bogus. The 30s were as warm or warmer than now. Except for the statistics given to us by the IPCC, no other regional statistics show the dreadful warming of the IPCC except Europe and western Australia.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-10 15:28:02 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:"The ocean releases 200 billion tons.... publicly funded pet store of academia.."


If anybody spent money on your education they need a refund, greedy punks like you take what you can from publicly funded research then bite the hand that gave you the information for you would not have been able to spew your constant trash if it were not for academia.

** New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" **
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 19:32:06 UTC
Permalink
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html

Some empirical data for you to ignore.

The initial statement of greenie theory, ...'the temperaure of the earth would be about 0F except for greenhouse gases that bring the temperature up to 58F, which makes life possible'...

Hahahahahau
This is so far out of the ballpark for valid theory, that even an intelligent chimpanzee cringes when he hears it.

Good thing this is the space age. And we don't have to look to the father of greenie thermodynamics, Lord Tyndell, from 1860 for our science.

Or be subjected to the arcane superstitions of the psychologically impared greenie weenies.

Yout phobia of carbon dioxide is a psychological DISEASE.
Seek professional help and buy an air conditioner.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-10 21:02:11 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 12:32:07 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:"Some empirical data for you to ignore."

Feedback has been observed as cited below. until you go back and clear up your bs for the nighttime observations your damn right i will ignore your punk ass, and even after you address it i will still talk past you.

Funny thing is you will continue to run like a coward from your own words.

** NASA - Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) - positive feedback to warming **

* ** New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" ** *
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-12 03:04:46 UTC
Permalink
The O2 and N2 absorb incoming solar infrared in the upper stratosphere. Just like the ultraviolet, which are absorbed and therfore decreasingly reach lower levels.

This is what causes the thermal inversion.

Certainly this energy is not radiated to the surface. It is subtracted from solar energy reaching the surface and affects surface temperature very little.

With the sun at zenith, the temperature on the moon is 123C, which is 250F. Without the absorption of a very considerable amount of solar radiation, temperatures on earth would be similar.

Because O2 and N2 absorb all frequncies of the infrared, heat energy loss is controlled at night with no solar influx. Has nothing to do with co2 and co2 does not affect this at all.

In an objective analysis, only that the N2 and O2 absorb and radiate the continous spectrum of the infrared is the only explanation for the empirical facts. This energy is composed in packets, or quantum, or photons as described by Einstein of specific energy of hv.

The concept of 'waves' and such are not reality, and left over from poor and invalid theory from before Planck and Einstein. Which Einstein thoroughly deposed, except for with the quacks and charlatans of theretical science.

Without this absorption, or if the O2 and N2 were 'transparent', as is required fundamentally by greenie theory, the earth would be far to hot for present life. And water could not exist in liquid form in lit hemisphere.

In these most receent graphs of yours notice the peak intensity is only when sun is at zenith. This is caused by haze, or high thin clouds or the smoke from the fires. At greater incident angle, more solar energy is blocked. But these conditions also,'lense', the incoming light, and push the reading at zenith above the 950Wm-2.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLSCtO7gbDhUjAwTWM4WHkyRDA/view?usp=drivesdk

Notice peak of solar radiation is not only at zenith. The solar radiation causes warming and updrafts in the 99% O2 and N2 atmosphere. Notice the increase in 'downward' flux which follows when the solar radiation is reaching the ground. These updrafts cause formation of clouds. This blocks solar radiation which makes the downward flux to follow in reduction.

If the reading for downward flux were taken at top of the troposphere, it would barely be there. It is solely the radiation field trapped within the O2 and N2 molecules at the temperatures near the surface and the downward component of the omnidirectional field.

Co2 concentrations have no effect whatsoever on the 'downward' flux.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 20:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Dont go confusing heat capacity with the property of GHG. As thee fraudists of AGW will surely seek to do.

O2 and N2 have heat capacity. Diatoms have heat capacity 1 value of R, less than co2.

In theory, O2 and N2 have no property of GHG, and in fact are so transparent, that changes in methane of several parts per hundred million, or even several parts per BILLION, can affect heat energy retention of outgoing infrared radiation, in the midst of the atmosphere which is 99% O2 and N2.

R is 8.3146 Joules, per mole, per degK
Co2 is 4 / 10,000 in atmosphere.

The effect on the composite heat capacity, of changes in this trace gas, can only be 8.3146 / 10,000
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 08:19:23 UTC
Permalink
...If one takes N2 or O2 or co2, keeping them pressurized and raising the temperature, to 700K, they will emit the same continuous spectrum of all frequncies through the infrared.
At this temperature, the distribution peak is 4um, or microns.
Still well within the infrared.
....

At 700K, RT is, 5820.22 Joules. This is the TOTAL kinetic energy for the linear velocities of the molecules of 1 mole of gas above absolute zero.

The radiation field is, 13,613.67 Joules per sq meter per second.

Heat capapcity, which includes RT, for the diatoms O2 and N2 is 29 Joules per mole per degC. So at 700K, the heat capacity is 20,300 Joules for 1 mole. This then is the total energy of the mole of gas above absolute zero, including RT and the rest of the heat capacity which is absorbed and relinquished from inside the molecules and is latent to energy field and temperature.

At the rate of 13,613 Joules per sec per sq meter,
The energy of RT is radiated in 0.43 sec at 700K.

Total energy of the heat capacity is radiated in 1.49 secs.

Greenie theory says the molecules of O2 and N2 are transparent or non-reactive to infrared radiation. Therefore all of their energy is only in their molecular aggitation.

IMPOSSIBLE AND STUPID
THE DEFINITION OF GRENHOUSE GASES FAILS

Climatologists only work their thermodynamics for low temperatures like earth temperatures around 300K or so. Which consists of merely adding and subtracting values of Wm-2 and temperatures in the foolhardy outlay designed to show effects of GHGs and to establish false facts that human activity can effect climate.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 12:16:15 UTC
Permalink
A sphere of 28.2 cm radius has surface area of 1 sq meter.
The volume, ..4/3pir^3 or,
93,937 cubic cm, which is 93.937 liters.
At stp, or 0 Celsius, and air pressure at sea level, 1 mole of air occupies 22.4 liters of volume
So a sphere with radiating surface of 1 sq meter, would hold 4.2 moles of air at stp.

...to figure quantity of energy in gases, and rate and quantity of energy radiated at given temperature.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-12 06:25:40 UTC
Permalink
..."""Please note the changes in the downwelling infrared and upwelling infrared at night when there are clouds in the sky. You offer no explanation as to the differences, your greed and fear of losing projected earnings are the reason you continue to lie. .."""

Could be many reasons for the bumps in the nighttime readings, including evening showers of monsoon season, in which nighttime showers are common in thd lower rockies. Condensation of water in showers, releaases heat energy.

In all these, when downward flux begins to go down, it is while the clouds are blocking thd solar radiation.

Your concept that the clouds retain outgoing radiation and stop radiational cooling is entirely bogus and the empirical evidence of this is right here.

Personally, I cant think of wishing for clouds in winter to warm me up, or wishing they would go away so I could cool off in the direct sunlight in the summer.

Your whole theory relies on bogus, made up, and shit so stupid rational people cant figure out how to argue with it.

Where the hell is the 'cold sink of space', sucking up the radiational cooling without the clouds?

Quack, chirp, squawk, whatever the parrots have to do to enjoy their communion of their psychological neurosis and PHOBIA, dementia and superstition and their irrational aggresion to our lifeblood carbon fuels.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-12 22:12:25 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 11:25:41 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:"nighttime readings... it is while the clouds are blocking thd solar radiation"


how many times are you going to confuse night and day?

The study below confirms why we need to reduce use of fossil fuels and move to wind, solar, tides, waves, and hydro for generating power
***
New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" ***
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-10 12:22:40 UTC
Permalink
"""The arctic is showing feedback positive feedback, to the warming, more warming from co2, more co2, then more warming """

Sounds like more DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.

Sure glad tax money being spent like this to determine the hopelessness of life, since every thing will be lost with irreversible warming unless we all commit suicide by elimination of carbon use, WHICH AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, DILDOS
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-12 23:12:32 UTC
Permalink
"""...Please note if a cloud passes over head in the desert, radiative cooling changes, and so does downward thermal emission from the atmosphere, ..."""

Your concept of 'radiational cooling' is entirely bogus. Trenberth keeps a tight control on atmospheric radiation to insure the fraud continues. No where is there valuable quantification.

Clear nighttime skys, with no wind usually means high pressure system. This means descending dry air, which prevents clouds. The presence of clouds means layers or stratification of air by temperature and moisture.

Clouds therefore restrict convection. The clear and descending dry air of high pressure, allows convection between upper atmosphere and surface. Cloud cover at night can reduce temperature loss by restriction of convection. It IS NOT THE CLOUDS RESTRICTING OUTGOING RADIATION INTO THE 'COLD SINK' OF SPACE.

The concept of radiational cooling is ENTIRELY bogus.

In winter, after a recent snow or rain with the ground saturated in water, with high pressure system, with nighttime temperature above freezing, (optimal temperature about 38F),
If one parks their car on the grass,(not necessary though),
Dew will form on top of the car. This dew will evaporate until it absorbs enough energy to bring the surface to freezing. Ice will form above freezing temperature of the air.

This ice can be very dense and hard. Clear tracks of the convection from the ground of the ice on the vehicle are evident. This evaporational cooling and formation of ice can be duplicated in thd laboratory.

In the windless condition, the water saturated air at the surface meets the very dry descending air near the top of the car. This causes condensation and evaporation and cooling which causes freezing of the water.

Greenie theory, (that these supposed educated adults reiterate and recant), is that without the clouds, the car is exposed to the 'Black Sky', and the 'cold sink' of space in which energy just disappears or lapses into nothing.

Somehow the energy in the dew, knows if there are clouds. If so it just stays put. No ice forms. But no clouds, and it just lapses away the 6000 Joules per mole that must be removed from water at the freezing point to form ice.

Totally stupid and ridiculous that the clouds return the radiation to the dew to keep it from freezing also.

The concept of radiational cooling is entirely bogus. Ice formed above freezing is due to evaporational cooling. Its not both either.

It is integral to greenie theory that clouds retain a considerable amount of outgoing energy to bring 'average' temperature to what it is. They cant get enough chunks of Wm-2 from just the water vapor and co2. In their fraud, they must adjust how much 'retention' is occuring with preexisting GHGs, to supposed effect of anthropogenic GHGs.

The final answer must be that anthropogenic co2 affects temperature. So the math and physical science can be construed and squirreled around as long as it supports this preconceived conclusion, which means, you guessed it....

Carbon Regime and carbon tax.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-12 23:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
"""...Please note if a cloud passes over head in the desert, radiative cooling changes, and so does downward thermal emission from the atmosphere, ..."""
Your
Try again night and day, you can do it, one has sunshine blocked by clouds the other no sunshine as noted in the observations.

This time quite trying to act like a slimy coward, just address the night observations.

Yes we need to reduce co2 emissions.


*****
New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" *****
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 18:27:31 UTC
Permalink
The stratosphere has thermal inversion of 5F to -60F.

The solar radiation or constant is 1368Wm-2.

On the moon with sun at zenith, temperature is 123C which is 250F. The he ab e ra
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 19:08:44 UTC
Permalink
"""Yes we need to reduce co2 emissions. """

Even if the doomsday prophesies were accurate, there is no reduction regime short of genocide of 90% of world population that could reduce emissions. And the FACTS show that this would not have any effect upon the naturally occuring rise in atmospheric co2. 1.5ppm per yr, is 11.7 billion tons.

If we gave you complete executive power, by the science you cannot even mitigate EMISSIONS, much less atmospheric concentrations without robust genocide which would make the Nazis look like weenies.

Human output is around 50 billion tons per yr now, and expanding rapidily. Despite the cultured lie of the propaganda that emissions are stabilized which is needed to keep the faith and belief of mentally DEFUNCT believers that they are on a viable mission and HOLY WAR to save the planet.

LEARN YOUR OWN SCIENCE, ASSHOLE.

YOU ASSHOLES ARE LIKE RABID DOGS WHO MUST BE SHOT FOR SELF PROTECTION!!!!

....

The stratosphere has thermal inversion of 5F to -60F.

The solar constant is 1368Wm-2.

The temperature on the moon with the sun at zenith is 123C which is 250F.

The average temperature of the lit side of the moon is 107C which is 225degF.

Without sunlight, or the O2 and N2 atmosphere to slow heat loss, temperatures in the unlit hemisphere drop to 100K or so, around -275F.

Only about 950Wm-2 of solar radiation makes it through the stratosphere. Much of the ultraviolet and almost all of the infrared below energy of wavelengths 1-2um is absorbed in the stratosphere.

If the atmosphere had no water vapor or co2, this absorption would occur.

The theory that greenhouse gases do the only absorbing, would mean the earth would have temperatures like the moon without them in the 'transparent', non-greenhouse gases.

These basic empirical facts show the theory of GHGs to be false. And was developed without adequate empirical data before satellites, in which the infrared energy in solar radiation is not contempleted, reckoned with or considered since it is mostly absorbed in the stratosphere.

The absorption of infrared by the stratosphere and the O2 and N2, means ALL postulate of anthropogenic effect on the thermodynamics of the earth are bogus and CRIMINAL FRAUD.

And an unwarranted aggression on the critical use of the LIFEBLOOD carbon fuels and our sanctity and survival.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 19:48:09 UTC
Permalink
""Try again night and day, you can do it, one has sunshine blocked by clouds the other no sunshine as noted in the observations. ""

Look dummy, if you would look closer, like other people are, you would notice that the bumps in the atmospheric radiation FOLLOWS the clear solar radiation. The clouds are formed from updrafts of the heating of the ground or atmosphere by the sun, and then start going down in ths presence of the clouds which reduces the updrafts. ALL of the daytimd bumps follow this. Why does the downwelling radiation increase, BEFORE the clouds appear.

Your assertion that nightime bumps are due to overpassing clouds must be supported beyond your presumptive claims.

They are probably caused by rainstorms or showers. Each mole of water that condeenses, releases 40,600 Joules of energy INTO the atmosphere. This energy is in the full spectrum of the infrared, and is immediately absorbed by the air molecules uniformly. Where it then continues to exist, according to proper physics and thermodynamics, until it can transfer and leave the earths system as radiant energy traveling at c and composed of individual photns of specific energy of hv, as defined by Einstein.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 20:10:01 UTC
Permalink
40,600 Joules, divided by R is about 5000.

For one mole of air, to absorb this energy into the energy of its molecular aggitation, which is what RT describes, would increase RT by 5000, or if the molecular aggitation were the only component of energy of non-GJGs, would increase temperature of the mole by 5000degC.

But of course with no adherence to the law of conservation of energy or basic math which relies upon this, it is impossible for you to understand this, and your fatal mental obsession with our use of carbon will continue with your twisted and ridiculous semantics and worthless words, which because you all repeat like a bunch of uncontrolled parrots in the same room, you feel like you can use the word 'science' for your unbased psychological disease of the 'fear of carbon dioxide'.

And your Gdamn HOLY WAR against society.

See you in hell. But not the one you wish to create by your attacks on our use of our LIFEBLOOD carbon fuels and the HARMLESS carbon dioxide.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 20:49:21 UTC
Permalink
https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.esrl.noaa.gov%2Fgmd%2Fwebdata%2Ftmp%2Fsurfrad_5b6b57cd398fe.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEGCxPJhLP7Ltd-w-9HwrEvx-6N2w

Where does the green line come from for upwelling flux? Is there a satellite hovering overhead or a balloon?

Please explain.

It looks to be more probably from Trenberth and hiz choice of a green crayon.

Like his ridiculous Planck curve, from which he subtracts hundreds of Wm-2 that the GHGs are supposedly absorbing, in the construct to retain 324Wm-2 from what would escape the atmosphere and raise by the annual avèages, the average of the Wm-2s, which adds up to the average temperature or Delta T, which is budgeted as the sum of all the incuring waves of energy, which must balance in coordinance with the lapse rate or disappearance of the waves and energy into the 'cold sink' of space, except for the defined 'imbalance' of incoming and outgoing radiation energy, formally called 'radiative forcing' which by all the scientists and settled science can only be caused by humans and therefore must warrent co2 as pollution and warrent the carbon tax and criminalization of co2 and evasion of this tax.

And we are paying for the damn crayons.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-14 21:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Here are 2 recent readings of upwelling radiation one of which is the high energy radiation of the visible and near-infrared on the order of 800Wm-2, which is only produced at sun temperatures, and is therefore reflected solar radiation.

Look at difference with clouds, without clouds.

The other is the low range of frequncies produced at earth temperatures. Look at the major difference or inhibition of the radiation by the clouds. It damn sure dont match Trenberth's green crayon line.

Notice that even at temperatures of Antarctic ocean, the radiation is still some in the red.

Some of this energy is a compponent of the 5F temperature of the gases in the upper stratosphere.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/first-light-images-from-ceres-fm6-earth-observing-instrument
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-15 17:38:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:"Your assertion that nightime bumps"

according to you the nighttime downward thermal emission should not vary at night, yet it bumped up along with upward emission. We can validate the presence clouds, but according to your personal assertion this would be limited to downward emission from the ** upper atmosphere at night from o2 and n2.** Of course this is complete BS but you backed yourself into the corner, the night observation was made at the ground, no sunlight, my explanation is a change from clear sky to cloudy increasing downward thermal.

why the variance at night? you FAILED


You still have provided no logical reason as to why we should not move away from fossil fuels

New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”"
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-15 18:34:44 UTC
Permalink
You are demeented.

"""to your personal assertion this would be limited to downward emission from the ** upper atmosphere at night from o2 and n2.** """

This makes no sense in context to what I have said, and I didnt say it.

The atmosphere has a radiation field within the gases. This very much slows heat energy from the surface escaping at night and has a downward component.

The upper reaches of the stratosphere absorb the infrared, Which means to absorb a photon of energy of hv, re-emit this energy as a photon of similar energy, or in multiple photons of random energy which add up to the energy absorbed, from 1 photon, or in high density field, emitting equivelant to its radiation environment.

The O2 and N2 are absorbing the infrared. Fucking stupid of you to say they are radiating to the surface from the upper stratosphere. In what frequencies through the rest of the O2 and N2 of the stratosphere?

This is the thermal inversion, asshole. These photons are abssorbed in passing through the gases, and fewer and fewer reach the lower stratosphere to warm it up.

This is the contemporary theory, asshole, only it is only applied to rhe ultraviolet as the cause of the thermal inversion. But this is not adequate or complete and does not explain the missing 400Wm-2 observed at the bottom of the stratosphere. Ultraviolet composes only 9% of solar energy, or about 120Wm-2.

The dipshits of climatology use their readings from before satellites, in which because of piss poor thermodynamics and lack of empirical readings of solar energy outside the atmosphere, they come up with the erroneous and fraudulent accounting that earths temperature would be much colder wirhout GHGs.

FUCKING STUPID.

Stupid total averages do one no good in evaluating moon temperatures. The delta T of your arcane wave theory does nothing to account for energy stored in heat capacity or entropy of substances.

With sun at zenith, temperature on the moon is 123C.
Average temperature on lit side 107C.
Temperature outside the International Space Station is 121C.
Satelites are built to expect the temperature of 122C.

The temperature on the moon quickly drops without sunlight. 100K is -270F. Normal temperature on moon without sunlight.

Your stupid theory that with only N2 and O2 atmosphere, the transparent gases would not retain hear energy without GHGs, would mean similar temperatures as the moon.

The absorption of infrared in the stratosphere, proves your GHG theory wrong. All the O2 and N2 are absorbing rhe full spectrum of the infrared. Stupid to say that co2 adds to this absorption and especially that human contribution of co2 affects this absorption or temperature in anyway.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-15 18:41:31 UTC
Permalink
And by the way, dumbass. You try to make the assertion that passing clouds cause the bumps in nighttime radiation field.

Very simple thing to do empirical evaluation of this. Your mealy mouthing and intonation that you are basing in empirical science is a farce.

There is a diffence between the formation of clouds from updrafts in daily heating.
And clouds in which precipitation occurs. The bumps are probably from showers and the release of energy which add energy to the energy field.

NOT FROM JUST PASSING CLOUDS, idiot.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-15 18:49:48 UTC
Permalink
What do you know, Accident.
You wake up one day and its the SPACE AGE.

Arcane superstitions, like anthropogenic global wwarming have been put to rest by applied science and gathered valuable empirical facts.

We dont need Lord Tyndell, or the quacks of climatology to apply their clairvoyance and prophesies and prognostications to guide us in our lives and use of carbon fuels.

Fucking pagan
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-15 20:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
You are demeented.
"""to your personal assertion this would be limited to downward emission from the ** upper atmosphere at night from o2 and n2.** """
This makes no sense in context to what I have said, and I didnt say it.
You were busted, you claimed n2 and o2 as being the source of downward, you tried to mix night and day so either you are playing a double switch game or you need to address your n2 o2 upper atmosphere night downward emission theory

Take your pick you a lying troll, or a lying troll



** **

New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”"
** **
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-08 03:30:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 7:26:24 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote" The top"

once again, hatred alone is not an excuse for your laziness, how much do you stand to lose in projected earnings if the use of fossil fuels stopped today?
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-08 02:13:40 UTC
Permalink
"""low level intelligence people like you often think your personal gain is above all else so once again if use of fossil fuels were to stop today, how much would you stand to lose in future projected earnings? """

No one has to pay me to hate the greenies and I certainly don't need monetery or personal gain to inspire my hatred or how much I detest the nonsensical physics and lack of mathematics which the worms of climate enthusiasm foster as science to excuse their intrinsic and fatal need to get their head up everyone else's ass.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-08 02:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
"""low level intelligence people like you often think your personal gain is above all else so once again if use of fossil fuels were to stop today, how much would you stand to lose in future projected earnings? """
No one has to pay me to hate the greenies and I certainly don't need monetery or personal gain to inspire my hatred or how much I detest the nonsensical physics and lack of mathematics which the worms of climate enthusiasm foster as science to excuse their intrinsic and fatal need to get their head up everyone else's ass.
Thats all fine, but not good enough for greed makes low intelligent people like you do stupid idiotic things beyond what a loser like you would do if you were motivated by hatred alone.

Greed is at the root of your idiocy, and yes you fear loss of those projected earnings. Now as to your hatred, go tell somebody who cares.
m***@yahoo.com
2018-08-15 20:35:19 UTC
Permalink
if use of fossil fuels were to stop today, how much would you stand to lose >>>in future projected earnings?
if all fossil fuel use were to stop today, mankind would experience death and starvation on a scale that is unimaginable.

m
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-15 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
if use of fossil fuels were to stop today, how much would you stand to lose >>>in future projected earnings?
if all fossil fuel use were to stop today, mankind would experience death and starvation on a scale that is unimaginable.
m
It has served a purpose, use it to develop solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro, rather than be so dependent upon the greed of lying trolls like you.

The study below show positive feedback.

* ** * New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" * ** *
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-15 21:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Tell that to Cbina and leave us alone. Reduction in emission rate only slightly increases time until same quantity and DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.

But the rabid greenie weenies just want our carbon. Who really cares about climate or the environment.

And they consider our normal life ignoring them to be 'selling out the climate' for profit.

And wish to punish us and beat us into the dirt for atempting to have a healthy and viable economy which DEPENDS upon the abundance and economically available carbon fuels.

The definition of co2 as pollution has got to go. Wormed through the backdoor in US law.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-15 21:24:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:17:36 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
"Tell that to Cbina and leave us alone. ....US law."

So you want to reference U.S. Law which is not chinese law, then you act like we should let china set the pace.... THATS stupid logic

You lied about the science, you are a troll motivated by personal greed, and you want china to set the pace.(keep it up you are looking worse all the time)

* ** * * NASA - Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) - positive feedback to warming * ** * *
* ** *New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up

"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”"* * ** * *
George 152
2018-08-15 22:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Tell that to Cbina and leave us alone. Reduction in emission rate only
slightly increases time until same quantity and DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.
But the rabid greenie weenies just want our carbon. Who really cares about
climate or the environment.
And they consider our normal life ignoring them to be 'selling out the climate' for profit.
And wish to punish us and beat us into the dirt for atempting to have a
healthy and viable economy which DEPENDS upon the abundance and
economically available carbon fuels.
The definition of co2 as pollution has got to go. Wormed through the backdoor in US law.
Notice the greens use air travel and all the mod cons to spread their
message.
It appears that anything is okay so long as they use or have use of it



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-15 22:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George 152
Post by k***@gmail.com
Tell that to Cbina and leave us alone. Reduction in emission rate only
slightly increases time until same quantity and DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.
But the rabid greenie weenies just want our carbon. Who really cares about
climate or the environment.
And they consider our normal life ignoring them to be 'selling out the
climate' for profit.
And wish to punish us and beat us into the dirt for atempting to have a
healthy and viable economy which DEPENDS upon the abundance and
economically available carbon fuels.
The definition of co2 as pollution has got to go. Wormed through the
backdoor in US law.
Notice the greens use air travel and all the mod cons to spread their
message.
It appears that anything is okay so long as they use or have use of it
Notice how you make fun of anything that is a possible future option for air travelers as that would be a free market solution competition, and yet you claim to be making a political stand against the greens to protect the economy.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-21 00:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by George 152
Post by k***@gmail.com
Tell that to Cbina and leave us alone. Reduction in emission rate only
slightly increases time until same quantity and DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.
But the rabid greenie weenies just want our carbon. Who really cares about
climate or the environment.
And they consider our normal life ignoring them to be 'selling out the
climate' for profit.
And wish to punish us and beat us into the dirt for atempting to have a
healthy and viable economy which DEPENDS upon the abundance and
economically available carbon fuels.
The definition of co2 as pollution has got to go. Wormed through the
backdoor in US law.
Notice the greens use air travel and all the mod cons to spread their
message.
It appears that anything is okay so long as they use or have use of it
Notice how your trolling is never effective?


* * *
New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up
***
"“The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide.”" *** * * *
Wally W.
2018-08-21 01:56:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:53:27 -0700 (PDT),
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George 152
Notice the greens use air travel and all the mod cons to spread their
message.
It appears that anything is okay so long as they use or have use of it
Notice how your trolling is never effective?
It wasn't trolling, it was a condemnation of hypocrisy.

But you bit either way.

Whirrrrrr ...
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-08-21 02:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:53:27 -0700 (PDT),
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by George 152
Notice the greens use air travel and all the mod cons to spread their
message.
It appears that anything is okay so long as they use or have use of it
Notice how your trolling is never effective?
It wasn't trolling, it was a condemnation of hypocrisy.
Being that he mocks anything that is a move to replace that form of transportation, it would seem like a loaded bs assertion put forth by punk asses like you just to counter the push for a move away from use of fossil fuels.
Post by Wally W.
But you bit either way.
Nope, no need to act like he has a point, and no need to let his bs stand.
Post by Wally W.
Whirrrrrr ...
Yes it was trolling, notice how you ran from the OP?

It does indicate positive feedback in the arctic, isnt that a tripping point for you denialists?


*** New Study: The Arctic Carbon Cycle is Speeding Up
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-the-arctic-carbon-cycle-is-speeding-up ***
* * ** *
"“ The balance between these two dynamics will determine whether Arctic ecosystems will ultimately remove or add atmospheric carbon dioxide in the future climate. Our study finds that the latter is more likely,” said lead author and former JPL postdoctoral researcher Sujong Jeong of Seoul National University. “We anticipate that residence time of Arctic carbon will lead to faster and more pronounced seasonal and long-term changes in global atmospheric carbon dioxide .”" * * ** *
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 06:12:19 UTC
Permalink
..With sun at zenith, temperature on the moon is 123C.
Average temperature on lit side 107C.
Temperature outside the International Space Station is 121C.
Satelites are built to expect the temperature of 122C.

The temperature on the moon quickly drops without sunlight. 100K is -270F. Normal temperature on moon without sunlight.

The top of the stratosphere is 5F.
The bottom is -60

The solar constant is 1368Wm-2. It is only about 950Wm-2 after passing through the stratosphere.
Around 400Wm-2, mostly of the infrared of the sun's radiation, is absorbed in the stratosphere and does not reach lower levels. This is what causes the inversion of temperature.

By the light that is reflected, it cannot be portions of visible light being absorbed that causes the inversion.

Your stupid theory that with only N2 and O2 atmosphere, the transparent gases would not retain heat energy without GHGs, would mean similar temperatures as the moon. The statement that GHGs raise temperature 58degF is entirely bogus and FRAUD.

The absorption of infrared in the stratosphere, proves your GHG theory wrong. All the O2 and N2 are absorbing rhe full spectrum of the infrared. Stupid to say that co2 adds to this absorption and especially that human contribution of co2 affects this absorption or temperature in anyway.

The concept of GHGs is false and fraudulent and can be absolutely PROVEN to be so by simple direct analysis and empirical fact. Inordinate absorption can be proved to not be valid.

There is no valid means to define 'greenhouse gases' legally or scientifically, or to define carbon dioxide as pollution.

The attempts to implement carbon dioxide reductions regime is fraudulent and criminal and an act of unwarranted and deadly aggression.
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 10:04:50 UTC
Permalink
5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2 sec-1 degK-4 is,
5.67E-8 Joules, m-2 sec-1 degK-4
Since a Watt is 1 Joule per sec,

The term, Wm-2 is derived.

1368Wm-2 divided by, 5.67E-8, fourth root, = 121C
121C, or 394K fourth power x 5.67E-8 = 1368Wm-2.

This gives quantity of energy in Joules travelling through the plane of 1 sq meter per second at the velocity of light, in discrete packets, or quanta, of energy of specific energy, hv, according to Einstein.

Where h is Planck's constant and v is frequency of the photon in cycles per second.

So 1368Wm-2, is the energy field density for the temperature of 121C, or 394K, or 250F.

This is established and valid thermodynamics. Contemporary consensus and the thermodynamics of climatology are bogus and fraud. And actually some paganistic return to 'wave theory' which was dispelled by Einstein.
Kym Horsell
2018-08-21 10:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
..With sun at zenith, temperature on the moon is 123C.
Average temperature on lit side 107C.
Temperature outside the International Space Station is 121C.
Satelites are built to expect the temperature of 122C.
The temperature on the moon quickly drops without sunlight. 100K is -270F. Normal temperature on moon without sunlight.
The top of the stratosphere is 5F.
The bottom is -60
Kinda already tells you a planetary atm is a lot different from a vacuum and
your exposition is irrelevant.

You must be one of the few "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" kooks left.

Congrtylashuns!
k***@gmail.com
2018-08-21 17:09:34 UTC
Permalink
So you throw some words out about planetary atm and vacuum. This seems to soothe your no-math little mind and you are energized to go after our carbon.

The theory that with only N2 and O2 atmosphere, temperatures would be lower since these are transparent to infrared radiation, (as determined by the father of greenie thermodynamics, Lord Tyndell in 1860), is pure bogus bullshit!

With the sun at zenith on the moon, temperature is 123C which is 250F.

Without the absorption and blocking of the 1368Wm-2 down to 950Wm-2, by the O2 and N2 of the stratosphere which reduces radiation energy from reaching the surface, or if there were only 'transparent' non-GHGs, temperatures would be similar as that of the moon.

Physical science outways ill-defined semantics and intelecctual bullying of the school boys and parrots of acedemia.

Hansen got his doctorate the on the thesis that GHGs didn't exist and that dust particles causes the high temperatures of Venus. The ORIGINAL QUACK.

Not only is co2 not a greenhous gas, but your thermodynamics to make the false theory of anthropogenic global warming work is a total joke and insult to any valid scientist or mathematician.

And it is based on the nonsense that energy is waves which is in contradiction to Einstein's basics in which he proved light to be composed of photons of specific energy, hv, by the photo-electric effect by showing the quantity of energy in 1 photon, manifested in the kinetic energy of 1 ejected electron according to it's mass and velocity and subsequent momentum.

For this he received his only Nobel Prize.

So refer some laboratory science for GHGs. Plenty of blank space here for you to miss this opportunity to support your 'science', myth, superstition, or paranoid phobia of an unreal danger, and shut me up.

You have none. Just utterly worthless semantics.

I can refer plenty of direct science to refute your semantics.

123C, 250F.
The average temperature on the lit hemisphere of the moon is 107C, 225F.

Temperature falls to -250F on the moon without the O2 and N2 atmosphere to absorb, retain and slow the loss of the lower frequencies of the infrared.

THERE IS NO GHG INTERACTION IN EARTH THERMODYNAMICS.

It is not a matter of what I, or anyone BELIEVES, asshole.

We'll see what valid scientific investigation shows and how valid courts rule about your communal INSANITY, which is a hostile aggresion to our sanctity and survival.
Loading...