Looks like the world didn't get the AGW memo...

[Diogenes]

Just in case anyone wants to say there's no money involved.

http://www.euractiv.com/development-pol ... ews-531212

Of COURSE there's money involved. Power too. That is ALL that is driving this nonsense. Liberal Socialist kooks want power to control everyone. Especially their money, and their lives too if they can get it!


Global Warming Shakedown racket depicted below.

[Schneibster]

As far as CO2 in the upper atmosphere, I am right your wrong.

Which upper atmosphere? And how come Wikipedia agrees with me?

You were claiming there was CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Sorry but that's wrong period.

The observed CO2 increase is expected to gradually result in a cooler, more contracted upper atmosphere and a consequent reduction in the atmospheric drag experienced by satellites. The team published its findings in Nature Geoscience on November 11, 2012 - See more at:http://science.dodlive.mil/2012/11/16/p ... 2lC48.dpuf
and there are many sources out there that agree.

[s]But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed the CO2 in the upper atmosphere (which doesn't exist) would reduce the friction on the satellites somehow or other. [/s]

I was wrong here, at least about the paper; but you've misunderstood again.

Here's the root of your misunderstanding: Which do you think will make more difference in the upper atmosphere:
1. Heat from the surface being cut off, or
2. Increased radiation from CO2 within it?
Major hint: you can't radiate what you don't have. And radiating a larger percentage of a smaller total can easily mean radiating less.

And also, you weren't talking about the upper atmosphere shrinking or anything like it. You stuffed a link up my nose and I spit it in your face. Sorry about that. You're pretending a minority effect is the major reason. The paper you linked never said that.

And finally, here's the chart from your link:


Note the figures in the 260s on the vertical axis. Do you remember what the current concentration is at sea level?
Hint: it's on a graph I've already posted on this thread, or else the Climate II thread.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... mar_saber/
I suppose I could go on about the other items I submitted but I feel if its not worth your effort to check my veracity then its not worth mine to correct you.

But I did- and you were talking some word salad about CO2 in the upper atmosphere reducing its friction. What reduces its friction is a) lower solar activity, and b) less heat from the lower atmosphere. The effect of the CO2 in the upper atmosphere which is much rarer than in the lower atmosphere, because it gets ionized quickly, and because it's heavy, no matter what it radiates, is far less than either of those, by many orders of magnitude. This is obvious from the fact that you can't radiate what you don't have.

Classic bait and switch. Nice try though.

[Schneibster]

CO2 reacts differently in the upper atmosphere than the lower atmosphere .

[s]It sure does- it doesn't exist in the upper atmosphere. [/s]

I was wrong, but only technically: in fact, CO2 behaves the same way, but the atmosphere around it is different and reacts to it differently. So you're wrong too. And in your case you're wrong completely.

You were baiting me. Whatever you get is your problem. I'll make sure not to apologize to you. Or trust you.

[Schneibster]

The observed CO2 increase is expected to gradually result in a cooler, more contracted upper atmosphere and a consequent reduction in the atmospheric drag experienced by satellites.

Yes, the same CO2 that absorbs IR radiated from the ground in turn radiates heat from air in the upper atmosphere, serving as a radiative cooler.

LOL

Whawhawhawhat??!!?

Do the little CO2 moleculies shuttle up to the ionosphere to shoot their little photonies at teh Sun? Is jebus telling them to do it?

And do you know what the chances of an excited CO2 molecule re-radiating its photon are in the lower atmosphere? Very low- it almost always bounces off another molecule of some kind and loses enough of its energy it can no longer make a whole photon, and some very, very famous physicists proved that if it can't radiate a whole photon at its resonant frequency it will instead convert it to kinetic energy; i.e. if it can't radiate it gets hot. "Max" somebody or other, I think they gave him a Nobel Prize in Physics, nobody important or anything.

You seem to imagine the little moleculies like some sort of bucket brigade passing the photonies along. Sillyness.

OK, so now I see what you're talking about; you apparently don't know enough physics to understand this is a minority effect. The reason is simple:

You can't radiate what you don't have.

[choff]

Looks like $359 Billion reasons per annum to hide the decline, as per my last post.

[Schneibster]

And none of this has anything to do with climate change. It's in the upper atmosphere. From the point of view of the Earth's surface climate it might as well be on another planet.

And just a reminder: even still, the most important effect on the thermosphere and exosphere is the Sun. And that's because of global warming. And they're transparent to solar radiation (mostly).

And finally, we're all aware there's no thermosphere and exosphere shrinking unless there's global warming. Otherwise nothing is reducing the thermal radiation from the Earth. Right? Are we done here?

[palladin9479]

Yeah the only reason AGW picked up political steam is that people figured they could make a ton of money off it. I used to be pretty neutral about it until I heard an alarmist attempt to explain it. My first thought was "that violates the laws of thermodynamics", my second was "do any of these people have a basic grasp of physics?". What we have now is a theory and it's supporters desperately trying to find / create evidence to support it. They are taking the "the end justifies the means" approach to data harvesting and literally creating supporting evidence out of thin air in an attempt to save they're careers and push their beliefs. They are the popular hipster version of the old alien conspiracy theorists.

[Schneibster]

Yeah the only reason AGW picked up political steam is that people figured they could make a ton of money off it.

What is the point of this?

This is nothing but slander.

You know, right now, defamers of character just like you are being sued. Right now today, by Michael Mann.

Your buddies are gonna lose in court, in public, and either have to apologize or go to jail for contempt until they do. Mann doesn't care about the money; he just wants to pin some of you down by your short and curlies and make you admit the truth in public, probably on TV. Just to watch you squirm, and of course to protect his reputation which you have savagely attacked with your lies. In a thousand years you'll be reviled as the ecclesiastical court that convicted Galileo is.

And I'll repeat his words: Eppur si muove. Still there's global warming.

See, it's not enough to be persecuted. You also have to be right. And he is, and you're not. That's about to be proven in court.

I hope it burns.

You know how I know he's gonna win? Because he already beat you in five investigations including by the DoJ and his own university. You will regret "climategate" deeply and for a long time. I think you'll be lucky if the ones responsible don't eventually get caught and put in prison for felony hacking. They're still looking you know.

[paperburn1]

Yep I guess NASA is wrong and the same people you quoted previously are wrong, and this is wrong and that is wrong. Talk about deniability your the king. There is an increase of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.
All I did was point out that we could have global warming and the upper atmosphere could be shrinking in response to the extra CO2 present. That could explain why the satellites have not fallen from the sky.
You thinking I was a AGW jump at me spewing hate calling me ignorant and said basically NASA and other certified climate sciences were wrong because they did not agree with your view. If you would have watch the posted information you would have had a basis for rational debate to support your opinion. Instead you most likely glanced at it , decided They were wrong. and started to babel=type until you felt vented.
I use a telescope too, but I think mine may be a little bigger.
When you calm down reread my original post and you might find I was right.
But you would never admit it, you act like The great and mighty OZ

[Schneibster]

Yep I guess NASA is wrong and the same people you quoted previously are wrong,

I never said NASA was wrong.

[choff]

http://www.principia-scientific.org/sup ... oxide.html



12. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore any theoretical blanket built from CO2 fibers that supposedly is surrounding the Earth is practically made of NOTHING.

13. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore one has to offer some explanation as to what those 2500 ‘other or NOT-CO2’ molecules are doing while 1 molecule among them is receiving and ‘back radiating’ all that heat energy.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53345

CO2 and Reality
As already discovered by Ångström a century ago, the effect on the temperature of more CO2 in the atmosphere is next to nil. The entire IR-radiation emanating from the semi “black-body” (a scientific term) earth that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed by the CO2 in the air. Therefore, adding more CO2 does not change that at all. For a simple comparison, adding more water to a full glass of water does not make it hold any more.

Dr. Anderson’s recent contribution to the field of CO2 science is that of describing Ångström’s results with straightforward physical/mathematical descriptors and equations.

The reality also is that all the models used by the IPCC and their followers make untenable assumptions, contain internal inconsistencies and totally disregard the physical basis necessary. For example, Anderson observes that the entire IR radiation from earth’s surface is absorbed by the small amount of CO2 found within the first 100-200 m above ground. The energy so gained by the CO2 molecules is very rapidly passed on to the non-IR radiating nitrogen and oxygen molecules (together making up approximately 99% of the air) via molecular collisions.

CO2 molecules absorb some of the solar radiation before it can reach the surface, thereby contributing to cooling the surface. Anderson showed that any back radiation effect to warm the surface is very small, especially for CO2. Furthermore, CO2 molecules present in the tropopause, roughly between 10 and 20 km above ground, actually radiate most of their internal bond oscillation energy into outer space. They thus provide a small net cooling effect for the atmosphere.

If I can add my own two cents to that: Look at planet Mars. Its atmosphere contains 950,000 parts per million (ppm) CO2 versus 400 ppm on Earth. Yet, on the side of Mars facing the sun, the temperature is about 30 °C like on Earth, but on the opposite (night) side it is well below MINUS-100 °C (approximately MINUS-200 °F). The thick layer of CO2 on Mars does not at all provide a “warm blanket” on its night side – au contraire – all that CO2 in the Martian atmosphere produces a cooling effect through outward radiation of IR energy its molecules.

In reality the tropospheric CO2 provides a net cooling effect, not a greenhouse “blanket.”

[Schneibster]

Yep I guess NASA is wrong and the same people you quoted previously are wrong, and this is wrong and that is wrong. Talk about deniability your the king. There is an increase of CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

True enough; but it's not what's responsible for most of the upper atmospheric cooling.

All I did was point out that we could have global warming and the upper atmosphere could be shrinking in response to the extra CO2 present. That could explain why the satellites have not fallen from the sky.

Now you're just being silly.

You thinking I was a AGW jump at me spewing hate calling me ignorant

You deliberately masqueraded as one. You also never said anything about the upper atmosphere shrinking.

and said basically NASA and other certified climate sciences were wrong

I never said anything of the kind.

because they did not agree with your view.

You misrepresented what you were claiming by failing to talk about the upper atmosphere shrinking, and by failing to note (because you don't know- the article doesn't talk about it) that the CO2 radiating heat from upper atmosphere is the minority cause of upper atmosphere cooling and shrinking is global warming; that is, the heat's being kept on the Earth's surface and never making it back up to the upper atmosphere. Next time do a better job what you're talking about.

Your incompetent writing is not my fault.

If you would have watch the posted information you would have had a basis for rational debate to support your opinion. Instead you most likely glanced at it , decided They were wrong. and started to babel=type until you felt vented.

Actually you baited me, and this post is at best, so far, ingenuous. Stop playing games and you won't get slapped.

I use a telescope too, but I think mine may be a little bigger.

I have an NP-127is, a C-9.25, a Gemini-equipped G-11, a POD observatory on a concrete pad with an embedded post for my mount, and I'm still playing with astrophotography so I haven't yet replaced my megapixel astrocamera.

Unless you have an Astrophysics you don't have anything like my TeleVue, I guarantee it. And I customized the C-9.25 with mirror locks and a JMI two inch Crayford.

I also have a Borg system with both helical and crayford focusers, with both 70 and 100mm objectives, two bino-viewers (a TeleVue and a Denkmeier; the Denk is better, but only a bit) and a few eyepiece pairs for them, a Nagler 3-6, and a pair of Nikon 7-21s fitted with 1.25" adaptors. And of course, I have a Holy Hand Grenade. My oldest 'scope is the C-5 mounted tandem with the NP in the NP shot below.

Bandwidth warnings, I think these might be pretty high def:

The POD: http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp19 ... s/dome.jpg

The NP: http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp19 ... /The5s.jpg

The C-9.25 from the back cell: http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp19 ... L10120.jpg

When you calm down reread my original post and you might find I was right.
But you would never admit it, you act like The great and mighty OZ

Of course you weren't right; you left out the two most important parts, apparently to deceive me. Don't pretend to be a climate crank and I won't treat you like one.

Maybe if you stopped playing head games you'd know when someone came along you might not want to tick off.

[williatw]

If I can add my own two cents to that: Look at planet Mars. Its atmosphere contains 950,000 parts per million (ppm) CO2 versus 400 ppm on Earth.

Mar's atmosphere is pretty thin compared to Earth's, I believe about 1% of Earth's by weight I think, just from memory. However 1% of Earth's atmosphere would be 10,000ppm, much higher CO2 level than on Earth, relatively speaking since in the case of Mars it is almost all CO2. Of course Mars only gets half the incident sunlight Earth gets, and Earth's primary greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, which Mars has little of in its atmosphere.

[Schneibster]

12. We know that every single molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 molecules that are NOT CO2 and therefore any theoretical blanket built from CO2 fibers that supposedly is surrounding the Earth is practically made of NOTHING.

This is silliness. Don't post another one like this, I'll start marking these as spam.

[Schneibster]

If I can add my own two cents to that: Look at planet Mars. Its atmosphere contains 950,000 parts per million (ppm) CO2 versus 400 ppm on Earth.

Mar's atmosphere is pretty thin compared to Earth's, I believe about 1% of Earth's by weight I think, just from memory. However 1% of Earth's atmosphere would be 10,000ppm, much higher CO2 level than on Earth, relatively speaking since in the case of Mars it is almost all CO2.

Err, well actually it's a lot higher than that, more like 900,000 ppm, since it's over 90% CO2. However, as you point out, it is very very thin; at 1% (you're probably about right on that one) it can't be expected to have more than 1/100 the warming the Earth's thick atmosphere does no matter what it's made of. And also as you also point out,

Of course Mars only gets half the incident sunlight Earth gets, and Earth's primary greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, which Mars has little of in its atmosphere.

Both correct. 30°C of Earth's 33°C difference in surface temperature from the Moon is due to water vapor.

So altogether,

WMars = ((WEarth/100)/2)*(3/33) = WEarth/1100
Where
W is the warming

So about one eleven-hundredth of Earth's. Probably about zero temperature coefficient for addition of more CO2, too. We could probably measure the temperature difference, but it would take a very, very expensive thermometer not to even mention getting it to Mars.

Another silly post from choff.