Re: OT: Post Turtle

On Jun 19, 11:00 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:49:15 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:09:59 -0700, John Larkin

<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:28:00 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomer...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 17, 4:55 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Whether CO2 causes warming is
still not proven.

I am assuming because you are posting here that you took at least one
college-level physics class.  Let me guess:  Physics for Poets, 3
hours, no lab, and you got a fraternity gentleman's C-.

Of course I took physics. And chemistry. And materials science,
control theory, statics, dynamics, Signals and Systems, badminton, and
beginner's tumbling. None of which skills lead directly to success in
coding nonlinear models of wildly chaotic, unstable systems in which
most of the parameters and inputs are only crudely guessed at.

Modeling is a lot simpler when you know the result you want before you
write the code.

John

Richard Henry is renowned as an extremist leftist weenie.  Their
favorite attack method is as shown... "Physics for Poets"...

What a craphead!

Anybody who disagrees with Jim (who is a notorious right-wing nitwit)
gets labelled as an extremist leftist weenie.

Richard Henry's crack about "physics for poets" is not unjustified -
John Larkin has posted the claim that "pressure broadening" is insane,
whereas it is - in fact - a perfectly obvious feature of the infra-red
absorbtion spectra of specific gases. You put a given pressure of a
specific gas (such as carbon dioxide) in a long path infra-red
absorbtion cell, measure the spectrum, then add a whole lot more of a
gas that doesn't absorb in the infra-red (like oxygen or nitrogen) and
measure the spectrum again, and you find that the absorbtion lines are
broader.

The mechanism of the broadening - inter-molecular collisions that
coincide with the absorbtion of a photon - is well known and well
understood by anybody who has done any serious undergraduate physics,
which John Larkin evidently hasn't.

It's insane in the context of AGW. What are you saying, that added CO2
increases the atmospheric pressure, so increases IR absorption by
other gasses? Show us the numbers.

The interesting interaction is between CO2 and H2O. These two
molecules can react to form carbonic acid, which is stable at low
temperatures, if not at normal atmospheric temperatures and pressures,
with the result that a collision between a water molecule and a carbon
dioxide molecule lasts longer than a collision between either one and
nitrogen or oxygen, and produces correspondingly more pressure
broadening. There is also the point that both CO2 and H2O are polar
molecules, and interact more strongly than non-polar molecules like O2
and N2.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0426(2000)017%3C0299%3AWVCSOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/pressure-broadening-eli-has-been-happy.html

Since increasing CO2 levels warm the earth and the oceans, they
generate an increased level of gaseous H2O in the atmosphere, which
further increases the greenhouse effect of both gases by pressure
broadening. The numbers are not spectacular, but they are significant.

Elitist fucking village idiots... their "science" is the only science
to genuflect to.

Whereas Jim's and John's incompetent non-science is to be respected?

I do a lot more physics than you do.

But - fairly obviously - no spectroscopy, and you don't know enough
science to know when you are talking nonsense, as you are in this
particular case, and as you have done when pontificating about
biology.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Loading