CO2 absorbtion of solar energy at 2000 nm

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

John M.

2009-09-30 07:16:00 UTC

No, you don't see where I am coming from. You are lacking real basic
information in science, yet seem to think you can structure a
plausible theory like Einstein
============================================
Yes, he sees where you are coming from, and so do I.
In your dreams you imagine Einstein's theory is plausible.
You don't know the meaning of the word "plausible".
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Ref:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Oooh... a snip artist. Let's just put back what you took out, so we
can see how you structured the response to make your numbskull kookie
"You are lacking real basic information in science, yet seem to think
you can structure a plausible theory like Einstein or Feynman. If you
fail to structure a hypothesis that is not in accord with historical
discoveries and well established, main stream text book science, then
you are going to get
nowhere."
Nice link, though. And the theory within those pages already verified
empirically, just as science requires, and permitting us to dismiss
fruit cakes like you who don't know their arse'ole from breakfast-time.
=======================================
Ok, let's see you get somewhere. Prove Einstein's crap is plausible when
all
has done is produced paradox.
You are lacking real basic information in science, fuckwit.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ —
Galileo
Galilei
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

The answer is simple.
============================
What is it then, shithead ?
You based your question on just half of a
sentence I wrote.
===========================================
No, I based my question on your idiotic claim that Einstein's crackpot
theory is plausible and stated you don't the meaning of the word,
dumbfuck.
Remaining non-reply to the question asked snipped as non sequitur.
You've gotten nowhere, bigot. Fuck off.

While it seems plausible to allow people like yourself access to the
Internet, I'm hopeful the superintendent of this Hogwart's institution
you are, apparently, currently incarcerated in, sees fit to keep the
doors locked. A raging lunatic like you could be a real danger to the
public if allowed out on the streets.

John M.

2009-10-01 08:51:19 UTC

Permalink

Look at this
graphic:Loading Image...

You can see that hotter bodies, like the sun, produce
more
energy at
the 2000 nm wavelength (CO2 absorbtion band) than
cooler
bodies, like
the earth.
This graphic shows the energy at this wavelength at
TOA
and at the
surface of the
earth:Loading Image...

you can see how CO2 effectively 'blocks' this energy
band.
Since the earth produces far less energy than the sun,
far
less of
that energy wil be blocked than that produced by the
sun.
The effect of CO2 then os to reduce the amount of
energy
reaching the
earths surface during the day. This energy is then
released by the
CO2 during the night.
The net result is that CO2 mediates the highs and lows
but
does not
increase temperatures overall.
The entire science of GW, that visible light on
striking
the earths
surface changes frequency and is blocked by CO2,
entirely
fails to
take into account the simple fact that the sun
produces
far more of
this energy than the earth ever could and thus blocks
in
facr greater
quantities the energy emmitted by the sun.
GW science is fundamentally flawed at a very obvious
level.

Apparently you miss a lot of climate science, and you
replaced it by
your own unreviewed theories.

Here is the theory of GW as stated
byhttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
"As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light
from
the Sun
easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and
heat
it up,
but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the
air
absorbs
invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the
surface.
The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to
the
surface,
helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later
be
called,
by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." "
However, that same gas will also trap heat coming from the
sun
and
reradiarte it back into space. The sun produces far more
energy at
2000nm than the earth. The net result is that LESS energy
at
this
wave length reaches the surface of the earth during the
day.
If you have any problem with the theory, science or my
logic
please
lets discuss it.

Rather pointless if you cannot understand what Fourier was
saying.
The atmosphere gases are ALL largely transparent to solar
radiation
across a large part of the 6M K Bb spectrum. There is some
absorption,
of course, like UVb by stratospheric ozone, but a lot of
what
there is
will be at the higher pressures found low in the atmosphere.
That is
how the energy gets in the earth-atmosphere system in such
large
amounts. The mis-named GGs are opaque at wavebands around
the
peak of
the 300 K Bb spectrum (complicated by the behaviour of the
earth
as a
grey rather than black body), and so scatter a lot of the
energy
trying to escape back to space. The scattering is just like
the
way
the pins in a bagatelle slow the descent of the balls put in
play.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But the warming is caused (according toy you (if you are an
AGW
advocate)) by energy absorbed and re-radiated by CO2.
Yet the same CO2 will also absorb and re-radiate, back into
space,
energy emmitted by the sun. The sun produces far more of this
energy
than the earth. So the net effect of CO2 is to reduce the
total
amount
of energy at this frequency at the earths surface.

Do please try and understand the basics of the science. I cannot
possibly explain to you anything in, say, Level2, if you haven't
understood Level1.
There's plenty of material "out there". You should first try to
get
a
handle on both classical and quantum explanations of e-m
radiation.
There's a lot of jargon and many difficult ideas, but don't
worry
as
it's all pretty straightforward. Physics and Chemistry graduates
get
to understand enough to pass their finals after only 3 years of
intensive study.

If you cant explain something, then I can omly assume you dont
understand it.

Explain what. Your total erroneous construction of the earth-
atmosphere system. How can anyone explain such a thing.
It's like trying to explain why an otherwise seemingly sane young
man
would learn to fly a jet plane, just so he could crash one into a
tall
building.

I was hoping for a more enlightening discussion.

Then first do what I suggested and get up to speed on the science.-
Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

OK, I see whare you are comiong from. Dont bother to repond to any of
my posts in the future.

Let me guess. You're also a holocaust denier and a "young earth"
creationist who thinks the Harry Potter books are biography.
Bwahahaha......

John M.

2009-10-01 14:53:46 UTC

Permalink

Post by John M.

Post by John M.
<snip of redundant text>

Oooh... a snip artist. Let's just put back what you took out, so we
can see how you structured the response to make your numbskull kookie
"You are lacking real basic information in science, yet seem to think
you can structure a plausible theory like Einstein or Feynman. If you
fail to structure a hypothesis that is not in accord with historical
discoveries and well established, main stream text book science, then
you are going to get
nowhere."
Nice link, though. And the theory within those pages already verified
empirically, just as science requires, and permitting us to dismiss
fruit cakes like you who don't know their arse'ole from
breakfast-time.
=======================================
Ok, let's see you get somewhere. Prove Einstein's crap is plausible when
all
has done is produced paradox.
You are lacking real basic information in science, fuckwit.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ —
Galileo
Galilei
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Let me guess. You're also a holocaust denier and a "young earth"
creationist who thinks the Harry Potter books are biography.
Bwahahaha......
While it seems plausible to allow people like yourself access to the
Internet, I'm hopeful the superintendent of this
Hogwart's.physics_o(sic) institution you are currently incarcerated in,
sees fit to keep the doors locked. A raging lunatic like you could be a real
danger to the public if allowed out on the streets.
=================================
Typical. A clueless fuckhead who guesses.

Seems guessing correctly is the hall mark of clueless fuckheads.
Otherwise, why snip the post that tells the world where you're coming
from. I'm very happy to confidently re-insert the information about
your circumstances, unfortunate though these may be, secure in the
knowledge that the superintendent at the H* etc. institution won't let
you sue me for defamation.

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

As far as light is concerned, transit time is always zero. Problem
solved, question answered.

John M.

2009-10-01 17:43:26 UTC

Permalink

Post by John M.

Post by John M.
<snip of redundant text>

Seems guessing correctly is the hall-mark of clueless fuckheads.
Otherwise, why snip the post that tells the world where you're coming
from. I'm very happy to confidently re-insert the information about
your circumstances, unfortunate though these may be, secure in the
knowledge that the superintendent at the H* etc. institution won't let
you sue me for defamation.
===================================
More stupid assumption...
===================================

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

As far as light is concerned, transit time is always zero. Problem
solved, question answered.
======================================
And that is you idea of "plausible", even though the speed of light
has been measured?

Measured by spatially bound matter (humans). As far as it can be
known, light doesn't measure itself. If it could it would have to slow
down to do so. Clearly an impossibility as Einstein posited, and which
has since been verified by empirical observation.

(Rhetorical question.) You really are quite insane. Fuck off.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

Your abject surrender is noted, although I think you could have
probably grovelled a bit less, and thus make yourself appear less like
a total twat and the lunatic plonker you actually are.

Actually, you're a bleedin' disgrace to the cadre of global lunatics.
Pass my regards to the superintendent when he next visits your cell
and ask him to up your meds a bit.

hanson

2009-10-01 20:13:08 UTC

Permalink

Post by John M.

Post by John M.
<snip of redundant text>

Oooh... a snip artist. Let's just put back what you took out, so we
can see how you structured the response to make your numbskull kookie
"You are lacking real basic information in science, yet seem to think
you can structure a plausible theory like Einstein or Feynman. If you
fail to structure a hypothesis that is not in accord with historical
discoveries and well established, main stream text book science, then
you are going to get
nowhere."
Nice link, though. And the theory within those pages already verified
empirically, just as science requires, and permitting us to dismiss
fruit cakes like you who don't know their arse'ole from
breakfast-time.
=======================================
Ok, let's see you get somewhere. Prove Einstein's crap is plausible when
all
has done is produced paradox.
You are lacking real basic information in science, fuckwit.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ —
Galileo
Galilei
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Seems
===================================
More stupid assumption...
===================================

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

hanson wrote:
It is not clear, without minutious scrutiny, to know in the
above who said what, because neither one of the 2 fanatics
sign or initial the start or end of their tripe, and one of the 2
fools injects a line full of "=======" to obfuscate his shit...
However the cussing may be from Androcles, who IMHO
happens to be right in his assessment about the other fool
above... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahaha... ahahahanson

John M.

2009-10-01 20:54:08 UTC

Permalink

Post by hanson

Post by John M.

Post by John M.
<snip of redundant text>

Seems
===================================
More stupid assumption...
===================================

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

It is not clear, without minutious scrutiny, to know in the
above who said what, because neither one of the 2 fanatics
sign or initial the start or end of their tripe, and one of the 2
fools injects a line full of "=======" to obfuscate his shit...
However the cussing may be from Androcles, who IMHO
happens to be right in his assessment about the other fool
above... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahaha... ahahahanson

hanson

2009-10-02 01:46:12 UTC

Permalink

------- [Androcles 10 : John Morgan 0, zilch, nada ] ---------
Self-labeled "moron organ" aka "John M."

snipped crap, to save embarrassment for the little green idiot John M.

Post by John M.

=======================================
You are lacking real basic information in science, fuckwit.
‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any
paradox.’ — Galileo Galilei
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

The answer is simple.
============================
What is it then, shithead ?
You based your question on just half of a
sentence I wrote.
===========================================
No, I based my question on your idiotic claim that
Einstein's crackpot theory is plausible and stated
you don't the meaning of the word, dumbfuck.
Remaining non-reply to the question asked snipped as
non sequitur. You've gotten nowhere, bigot. Fuck off.

Let me guess. You're also a holocaust denier and a "young earth"
creationist who thinks the Harry Potter books are biography.
Bwahahaha......
While it seems plausible to allow people like yourself access
to the Internet, I'm hopeful the superintendent of this Hogwart's
.physics_o(sic) institution you are currently incarcerated in,
sees fit to keep the doors locked. A raging lunatic like
you could be a real danger to the public if allowed out
on the streets.
=================================
Typical. A clueless fuckhead who guesses.

Seems
===================================
More stupid assumption...
===================================

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

As far as light is concerned, transit time is always zero.
Problem solved, question answered.
======================================
And that is you idea of "plausible", even though the
speed of light has been measured? (Rhetorical
question.) You really are quite insane. Fuck off.
*plonk*

It is not clear, without minutious scrutiny, to know in the
above who said what, because neither one of the 2 fanatics
sign or initial the start or end of their tripe, and one of the 2
fools injects a line full of "=======" to obfuscate his shit...
However the cussing may be from Androcles, who IMHO
happens to be right in his assessment about the fool
"John M." Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahahahanson

"moron organ" wrote:
Ooooh...lookee here. That number one fool, court jester ahaha
himself, apparently thinks like Android that Relativity is bollocks.
Any other twits out there who agree with them Einstein got it wrong?
Is it co-incidence that Einstein was Jewish? Hey you two clowns -
light speed is a fundamental constant, live with it...
Thanks for the denialism, guys... momor... mormormorgan
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... Why did you crank yourself so grievously, John?
Hey John, you surely tagged yourself accurately and properly
with you being a "moron organ"... ahahaha.. . But then everybody
knows that little Green idiots like yourself are "moron organs"...
Thanks for the laughs, mooch!... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson

John M.

2009-10-02 10:37:06 UTC

Permalink

------- [Androcles 10 : John Morgan 0, zilch, nada ] ---------

snipped crap, to save embarrassment for the little green idiot John M.

Post by John M.

The answer is simple.
============================
What is it then, shithead ?
You based your question on just half of a
sentence I wrote.
===========================================
No, I based my question on your idiotic claim that
Einstein's crackpot theory is plausible and stated
you don't the meaning of the word, dumbfuck.
Remaining non-reply to the question asked snipped as
non sequitur. You've gotten nowhere, bigot. Fuck off.

Let me guess. You're also a holocaust denier and a "young earth"
creationist who thinks the Harry Potter books are biography.
Bwahahaha......
While it seems plausible to allow people like yourself access
to the Internet, I'm hopeful the superintendent of this Hogwart's
.physics_o(sic) institution you are currently incarcerated in,
sees fit to keep the doors locked. A raging lunatic like
you could be a real danger to the public if allowed out
on the streets.
=================================
Typical. A clueless fuckhead who guesses.

Seems
===================================
More stupid assumption...
===================================

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

As far as light is concerned, transit time is always zero.
Problem solved, question answered.
======================================
And that is you idea of "plausible", even though the
speed of light has been measured? (Rhetorical
question.) You really are quite insane. Fuck off.
*plonk*

It is not clear, without minutious scrutiny, to know in the
above who said what, because neither one of the 2 fanatics
sign or initial the start or end of their tripe, and one of the 2
fools injects a line full of "=======" to obfuscate his shit...
However the cussing may be from Androcles, who IMHO
happens to be right in his assessment about the fool
"John M." Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahahahanson

Ooooh...lookee here. That number one fool, court jester ahaha
himself, apparently thinks like Android that Relativity is bollocks.
Any other twits out there who agree with them Einstein got it wrong?
Is it co-incidence that Einstein was Jewish? Hey you two clowns -
light speed is a fundamental constant, live with it...
Thanks for the denialism, guys... momor... mormormorgan
.... ahahahaha... Why did you crank yourself so grievously, John?
Hey John, you surely tagged yourself accurately and properly
with you being a "moron organ"... ahahaha.. . But then everybody
knows that little Green idiots like yourself are "moron organs"...
Thanks for the laughs, mooch!... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson

Then tell us clearly why you think Einstein got it wrong. I take it
you deny both special and general relativity theory. Thanks for the
stupid. It burns you know....
MOMOMO...momomorgan.

John M.

2009-10-02 18:50:15 UTC

Permalink

------- [Androcles 10 : John Morgan 0, zilch, nada ] ---------

Post by John M.

snipped crap, to save embarrassment for the little green idiot John M.

Post by John M.

The answer is simple.
============================
What is it then, shithead ?
You based your question on just half of a
sentence I wrote.
===========================================
No, I based my question on your idiotic claim that
Einstein's crackpot theory is plausible and stated
you don't the meaning of the word, dumbfuck.
Remaining non-reply to the question asked snipped as
non sequitur. You've gotten nowhere, bigot. Fuck off.

Let me guess. You're also a holocaust denier and a "young earth"
creationist who thinks the Harry Potter books are biography.
Bwahahaha......
While it seems plausible to allow people like yourself access
to the Internet, I'm hopeful the superintendent of this Hogwart's
.physics_o(sic) institution you are currently incarcerated in,
sees fit to keep the doors locked. A raging lunatic like
you could be a real danger to the public if allowed out
on the streets.
=================================
Typical. A clueless fuckhead who guesses.

Seems
===================================
More stupid assumption...
===================================

Post by John M.
Answer the question, ignorant cunt.
What's so fuckin' plausible about
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

As far as light is concerned, transit time is always zero.
Problem solved, question answered.
======================================
And that is you idea of "plausible", even though the
speed of light has been measured? (Rhetorical
question.) You really are quite insane. Fuck off.
*plonk*

It is not clear, without minutious scrutiny, to know in the
above who said what, because neither one of the 2 fanatics
sign or initial the start or end of their tripe, and one of the 2
fools injects a line full of "=======" to obfuscate his shit...
However the cussing may be from Androcles, who IMHO
happens to be right in his assessment about the fool
"John M." Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahahahanson

Then tell us clearly why you think Einstein got it wrong. I take it
you deny both special and general relativity theory. Thanks for
the stupid. It burns you know.... MOMOMO...momomorgan.
ahahaha.... What is that "us" shit? You, your little Green idiots & your
Einstein Dingleberries?... Take your rubber rulers, paint them green
and you have a TOE that is suitable for all "moron organ Morgans"...
especially if you put a carbon cap on it and warm it globally....
Thanks for the laughs, mooch!... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
<http://tinyurl.com/6rqe22> = Green Bible & GW funding.
<http://tinyurl.com/l6fhr4> = Green Bible & filthy carbon taxes.
<http://tinyurl.com/njxm7c> = Green Bible & AGW fraud.
<http://tinyurl.com/mvjwml> = Green Bible & enviro parasites.
<http://tinyurl.com/kklwuc> = The Oil Boys' game
<http://tinyurl.com/lf3w93> = No Peak Oil
===== There is nothing filthier than an environmentalist ========

I think the majority of scientists would say there is nothing stupider
than a relativity denier. Thanks for all your ahaha stupid...
MOMOMO...momomorgan
P.S. How are you on evolution theory? A "young earther", no doubt.

Continue reading on narkive:

Search results for 'CO2 absorbtion of solar energy at 2000 nm' (Questions and Answers)

replies

what is photosynthesis?

started 2007-09-18 02:11:43 UTC

botany