Discussion:
CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
(too old to reply)
Sergio
2018-04-05 17:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018

CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect

Published on February 26, 2018

Written by Dr Gary Novak


There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
warming:
1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.

2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.

3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
gases’, not through them.

Absorption Peaks

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
frequencies of CO2.

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
shoulders.

The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is
about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation
is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with
temperature.

more at;

https://principia-scientific.org/co2-absorption-spectrum-the-bogus-greenhouse-gas-effect/
Edward Prochak
2018-04-05 18:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
>
> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>
> Published on February 26, 2018
>
> Written by Dr Gary Novak
>
THIS Gary Novak?

http://www.newstrib.com/sports/where-are-they-now-la-salle-peru-s-gary-novak/article_b1f6ba00-2d0e-5d65-889d-b9f68de0ec24.html

????

Seems "Dr Gary Novak" has spilled nonsense for a few years now --
https://principia-scientific.org/momentum-kinetic-energy-and-the-misuse-of-physics-and-mathematics/

Ed
Sergio
2018-04-05 19:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/5/2018 1:59 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
>>
>> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>>
>> Published on February 26, 2018
>>
>> Written by Dr Gary Novak
>>
> THIS Gary Novak?
>
> http://www.newstrib.com/sports/where-are-they-now-la-salle-peru-s-gary-novak/article_b1f6ba00-2d0e-5d65-889d-b9f68de0ec24.html
>
> ????
>
> Seems "Dr Gary Novak" has spilled nonsense for a few years now --
> https://principia-scientific.org/momentum-kinetic-energy-and-the-misuse-of-physics-and-mathematics/
>
> Ed
>

interesting, there is nothing about that guy in the paper, no links,
nada, no resume, no university....

smells like fake news...
benj
2018-04-06 00:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/5/2018 3:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 1:59 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>>> Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
>>>
>>> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>>>
>>> Published on February 26, 2018
>>>
>>> Written by Dr Gary Novak
>>>
>> THIS Gary Novak?
>>
>> http://www.newstrib.com/sports/where-are-they-now-la-salle-peru-s-gary-novak/article_b1f6ba00-2d0e-5d65-889d-b9f68de0ec24.html
>>
>> ????
>>
>> Seems "Dr Gary Novak" has spilled nonsense for a few years now --
>> https://principia-scientific.org/momentum-kinetic-energy-and-the-misuse-of-physics-and-mathematics/
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> interesting, there is nothing about that guy in the paper, no links,
> nada, no resume, no university....
>
> smells like fake news...
>
I'm sure all these science questions raised by (letters refer to him as
"Dr. Novak") the author will all be easily answered and refuted by the
failed Oz cartoonist at SkepticalScience.com.

Trevor told me so.
Sergio
2018-04-06 01:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/5/2018 7:05 PM, benj wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 3:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/5/2018 1:59 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>>>> Principia Scientific International  Feb 26, 2018
>>>>
>>>> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>>>>
>>>> Published on February 26, 2018
>>>>
>>>> Written by Dr Gary Novak
>>>>
>>> THIS Gary Novak?
>>>
>>> http://www.newstrib.com/sports/where-are-they-now-la-salle-peru-s-gary-novak/article_b1f6ba00-2d0e-5d65-889d-b9f68de0ec24.html
>>>
>>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>> Seems "Dr Gary Novak" has spilled nonsense for a few years now --
>>> https://principia-scientific.org/momentum-kinetic-energy-and-the-misuse-of-physics-and-mathematics/
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> interesting, there is nothing about that guy  in the paper, no links,
>> nada, no resume, no university....
>>
>> smells like fake news...
>>
> I'm sure all these science questions raised by (letters refer to him as
> "Dr. Novak") the author will all be easily answered and refuted by the
> failed Oz cartoonist at SkepticalScience.com.
>
> Trevor told me so.
>
>

I thought our own Dr McGinn had water vapor covered ?
perhaps he can help out Dr Novak ?

[KOOKFIGHT!]
James McGinn
2018-04-06 02:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:49:57 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 7:05 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 4/5/2018 3:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2018 1:59 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> >>>> Principia Scientific International  Feb 26, 2018
> >>>>
> >>>> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
> >>>>
> >>>> Published on February 26, 2018
> >>>>
> >>>> Written by Dr Gary Novak
> >>>>
> >>> THIS Gary Novak?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.newstrib.com/sports/where-are-they-now-la-salle-peru-s-gary-novak/article_b1f6ba00-2d0e-5d65-889d-b9f68de0ec24.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ????
> >>>
> >>> Seems "Dr Gary Novak" has spilled nonsense for a few years now --
> >>> https://principia-scientific.org/momentum-kinetic-energy-and-the-misuse-of-physics-and-mathematics/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>>
> >>
> >> interesting, there is nothing about that guy  in the paper, no links,
> >> nada, no resume, no university....
> >>
> >> smells like fake news...
> >>
> > I'm sure all these science questions raised by (letters refer to him as
> > "Dr. Novak") the author will all be easily answered and refuted by the
> > failed Oz cartoonist at SkepticalScience.com.
> >
> > Trevor told me so.
> >
> >
>
> I thought our own Dr McGinn had water vapor covered ?
> perhaps he can help out Dr Novak ?
>
> [KOOKFIGHT!]

Dr. Novak is on your side, idiot.
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>>
>> I thought our own Dr McGinn had water vapor covered ?
>> perhaps he can help out Dr Novak ?
>>
>> [KOOKFIGHT!]
>
> Dr. Novak is on your side, idiot.
>

If one's methodology is nothing but personal insults
and one's models are based on calling names,
people can easily make for themselves a picture
what quality have all his hypothesis.

--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sergio <***@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
>
> Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
>
> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>
> Published on February 26, 2018
>
> Written by Dr Gary Novak
>
>
> There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> warming:

Why not to learn at least the basics of related physics to avoid
posting such ignorant claims ?

First, it is not primarily matter of climatology,
but of physics and physical chemistry.

Principles are applicable to any matter in atmosphere,
that significantly absorbs in the major thermal IR region
of Earth thermal region.

The final GH effect impact is, that Earth radiates
at affected wavelengths to space less,
because the radiating agent is not the warm surface,
but the cold gas.

Search the internet for the Earth emission spectrum
of IR thermal radiation to space.
Does it look like spectrum of in avg 15 deg C warm surface ?

No, it does not.
Earth is emitting at some wavelength regions less.
Why ?
Because the origin of this radiation
is not the warm surface, but cold gas.


> 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.

Such a statement is based on ignorance, not having a clue about
mechanisms of all the process.

Molecules do not have temperature. Temperature is statistical
factor as measure of the mean molecule kinetic energy per a
degree of freedom.

All molecules have typically 10 billions of collisions, by which
they keep themselves in equilibrium with other ones.

What energy the IR active molecules gain or loose by radiation, is
immediately distributed among all molecules.

>
> 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.

The official *physics* claims
the emitted thermal power per 1 sq metre by surface with absolute
temperature T
is approximately*) = sigma * T^4
where sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann constant cca 5.67e-8.

So surface with t=15 deg C is radiating cca 390 Watts/m^2. And the
same amount it is receiving, if it is in radiative equilibrium
with its neighbourhood.

To compare with white hot metal with 1500 deg C, it is emitting
cca 560 kW,/m^2, asi the power raises with

*) Decreased by weighted integral factor of absorptivity.
>
> 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> gases’, not through them.

The planet is cooled by all radiation that goes back to space.

But as cold GH gases emit to space less than warm surface,
the surface, to keep radiation equilibrium with space,
must be warmer to emit more
and balance the emission deficit of GH gases.
>
> Absorption Peaks
>
> Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> frequencies of CO2.

Tye 15 in one is most important one, as it is near the emission
maximum, as can be seen at Earth to space emission
spectrum.
>
> Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> shoulders.
>
Note that CO2 makes only 25% of the overall GH effect. About 75%
is done by water vapour. But in contrary to the water, it is in
long term variable.

If there had been no GHE, the global AVG annual temperature would
be about -15 deg C, not +15 deg C.
So CO2 makes about 7-8 deg C difference.

--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Edward Prochak
2018-04-05 19:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 3:30:29 PM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
> Sergio <***@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
> >
> > Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
> >
> > CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
> >
> > Published on February 26, 2018
> >
> > Written by Dr Gary Novak
> >
> >
> > There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> > warming:
>
> Why not to learn at least the basics of related physics to avoid
> posting such ignorant claims ?
>
> First, it is not primarily matter of climatology,
> but of physics and physical chemistry.
>
> Principles are applicable to any matter in atmosphere,
> that significantly absorbs in the major thermal IR region
> of Earth thermal region.
>
> The final GH effect impact is, that Earth radiates
> at affected wavelengths to space less,
> because the radiating agent is not the warm surface,
> but the cold gas.
>
> Search the internet for the Earth emission spectrum
> of IR thermal radiation to space.
> Does it look like spectrum of in avg 15 deg C warm surface ?
>
> No, it does not.
> Earth is emitting at some wavelength regions less.
> Why ?
> Because the origin of this radiation
> is not the warm surface, but cold gas.
>
>
> > 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> > molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> > be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.
>
> Such a statement is based on ignorance, not having a clue about
> mechanisms of all the process.
>
> Molecules do not have temperature. Temperature is statistical
> factor as measure of the mean molecule kinetic energy per a
> degree of freedom.
>
> All molecules have typically 10 billions of collisions, by which
> they keep themselves in equilibrium with other ones.
>
> What energy the IR active molecules gain or loose by radiation, is
> immediately distributed among all molecules.
>
> >
> > 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> > as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> > remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
>
> The official *physics* claims
> the emitted thermal power per 1 sq metre by surface with absolute
> temperature T
> is approximately*) = sigma * T^4
> where sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann constant cca 5.67e-8.
>
> So surface with t=15 deg C is radiating cca 390 Watts/m^2. And the
> same amount it is receiving, if it is in radiative equilibrium
> with its neighbourhood.
>
> To compare with white hot metal with 1500 deg C, it is emitting
> cca 560 kW,/m^2, asi the power raises with
>
> *) Decreased by weighted integral factor of absorptivity.
> >
> > 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> > gases’, not through them.
>
> The planet is cooled by all radiation that goes back to space.
>
> But as cold GH gases emit to space less than warm surface,
> the surface, to keep radiation equilibrium with space,
> must be warmer to emit more
> and balance the emission deficit of GH gases.
> >
> > Absorption Peaks
> >
> > Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> > wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> > most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> > available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> > frequencies of CO2.
>
> Tye 15 in one is most important one, as it is near the emission
> maximum, as can be seen at Earth to space emission
> spectrum.
> >
> > Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> > concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> > going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> > width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> > shoulders.
> >
> Note that CO2 makes only 25% of the overall GH effect. About 75%
> is done by water vapour. But in contrary to the water, it is in
> long term variable.
>
> If there had been no GHE, the global AVG annual temperature would
> be about -15 deg C, not +15 deg C.
> So CO2 makes about 7-8 deg C difference.
>
> --
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Thanks, Libor. Much more informed reply than I could give.
Ed
James McGinn
2018-04-05 23:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 12:58:42 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 3:30:29 PM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
> > Sergio <***@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
> > >
> > > Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
> > >
> > > CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
> > >
> > > Published on February 26, 2018
> > >
> > > Written by Dr Gary Novak
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> > > warming:
> >
> > Why not to learn at least the basics of related physics to avoid
> > posting such ignorant claims ?
> >
> > First, it is not primarily matter of climatology,
> > but of physics and physical chemistry.
> >
> > Principles are applicable to any matter in atmosphere,
> > that significantly absorbs in the major thermal IR region
> > of Earth thermal region.
> >
> > The final GH effect impact is, that Earth radiates
> > at affected wavelengths to space less,
> > because the radiating agent is not the warm surface,
> > but the cold gas.
> >
> > Search the internet for the Earth emission spectrum
> > of IR thermal radiation to space.
> > Does it look like spectrum of in avg 15 deg C warm surface ?
> >
> > No, it does not.
> > Earth is emitting at some wavelength regions less.
> > Why ?
> > Because the origin of this radiation
> > is not the warm surface, but cold gas.
> >
> >
> > > 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> > > molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> > > be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.
> >
> > Such a statement is based on ignorance, not having a clue about
> > mechanisms of all the process.
> >
> > Molecules do not have temperature. Temperature is statistical
> > factor as measure of the mean molecule kinetic energy per a
> > degree of freedom.
> >
> > All molecules have typically 10 billions of collisions, by which
> > they keep themselves in equilibrium with other ones.
> >
> > What energy the IR active molecules gain or loose by radiation, is
> > immediately distributed among all molecules.
> >
> > >
> > > 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> > > as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> > > remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
> >
> > The official *physics* claims
> > the emitted thermal power per 1 sq metre by surface with absolute
> > temperature T
> > is approximately*) = sigma * T^4
> > where sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann constant cca 5.67e-8.
> >
> > So surface with t=15 deg C is radiating cca 390 Watts/m^2. And the
> > same amount it is receiving, if it is in radiative equilibrium
> > with its neighbourhood.
> >
> > To compare with white hot metal with 1500 deg C, it is emitting
> > cca 560 kW,/m^2, asi the power raises with
> >
> > *) Decreased by weighted integral factor of absorptivity.
> > >
> > > 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> > > gases’, not through them.
> >
> > The planet is cooled by all radiation that goes back to space.
> >
> > But as cold GH gases emit to space less than warm surface,
> > the surface, to keep radiation equilibrium with space,
> > must be warmer to emit more
> > and balance the emission deficit of GH gases.
> > >
> > > Absorption Peaks
> > >
> > > Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> > > wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> > > most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> > > available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> > > frequencies of CO2.
> >
> > Tye 15 in one is most important one, as it is near the emission
> > maximum, as can be seen at Earth to space emission
> > spectrum.
> > >
> > > Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> > > concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> > > going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> > > width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> > > shoulders.
> > >
> > Note that CO2 makes only 25% of the overall GH effect. About 75%
> > is done by water vapour. But in contrary to the water, it is in
> > long term variable.
> >
> > If there had been no GHE, the global AVG annual temperature would
> > be about -15 deg C, not +15 deg C.
> > So CO2 makes about 7-8 deg C difference.
> >
> > --
> > Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> >
> >
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
>
> Thanks, Libor. Much more informed reply than I could give.
> Ed

Global warming believers are all vague nitwits who don't address any specific evidence. It's just a warm and fuzzy belief system based loosely on science.
James McGinn
2018-04-05 20:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 12:30:29 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> Sergio <***@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
> >
> > Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
> >
> > CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
> >
> > Published on February 26, 2018
> >
> > Written by Dr Gary Novak
> >
> >
> > There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> > warming:
>
> Why not to learn at least the basics of related physics to avoid
> posting such ignorant claims ?

I'm an atmospheric physicist. CO2 forcing is pseudoscience. The "greenhouse" effect is 100% propaganda. It is all a hoax, just like meteorology's convection model of storms.



>
> First, it is not primarily matter of climatology,
> but of physics and physical chemistry.

Put up or shut up. You got nothing.



>
> Principles are applicable to any matter in atmosphere,
> that significantly absorbs in the major thermal IR region
> of Earth thermal region.

You got nothing!!!



>
> The final GH effect impact is, that Earth radiates
> at affected wavelengths to space less,
> because the radiating agent is not the warm surface,
> but the cold gas.

Vague, worthless rhetoric. You got nothing!!!


>
> Search the internet for the Earth emission spectrum
> of IR thermal radiation to space.
> Does it look like spectrum of in avg 15 deg C warm surface ?

Search the internet yourself, you fucking idiot. I don't need to search. I'm an atmospheric physicists. You got nothing!!!
m



>
> No, it does not.
> Earth is emitting at some wavelength regions less.
> Why ?
> Because the origin of this radiation
> is not the warm surface, but cold gas.
>
>
> > 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> > molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> > be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.
>
> Such a statement is based on ignorance, not having a clue about
> mechanisms of all the process.

You got nothing. Vague nitwit.

>
> Molecules do not have temperature. Temperature is statistical
> factor as measure of the mean molecule kinetic energy per a
> degree of freedom.
>
> All molecules have typically 10 billions of collisions, by which
> they keep themselves in equilibrium with other ones.
>
> What energy the IR active molecules gain or loose by radiation, is
> immediately distributed among all molecules.
>
> >
> > 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> > as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> > remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
>
> The official *physics* claims
> the emitted thermal power per 1 sq metre by surface with absolute
> temperature T
> is approximately*) = sigma * T^4
> where sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann constant cca 5.67e-8.
>
> So surface with t=15 deg C is radiating cca 390 Watts/m^2. And the
> same amount it is receiving, if it is in radiative equilibrium
> with its neighbourhood.
>
> To compare with white hot metal with 1500 deg C, it is emitting
> cca 560 kW,/m^2, asi the power raises with
>
> *) Decreased by weighted integral factor of absorptivity.
> >
> > 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> > gases’, not through them.
>
> The planet is cooled by all radiation that goes back to space.
>
> But as cold GH gases emit to space less than warm surface,
> the surface, to keep radiation equilibrium with space,
> must be warmer to emit more
> and balance the emission deficit of GH gases.
> >
> > Absorption Peaks
> >
> > Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> > wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> > most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> > available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> > frequencies of CO2.
>
> Tye 15 in one is most important one, as it is near the emission
> maximum, as can be seen at Earth to space emission
> spectrum.
> >
> > Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> > concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> > going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> > width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> > shoulders.
> >
> Note that CO2 makes only 25% of the overall GH effect. About 75%
> is done by water vapour. But in contrary to the water, it is in
> long term variable.
>
> If there had been no GHE, the global AVG annual temperature would
> be about -15 deg C, not +15 deg C.
> So CO2 makes about 7-8 deg C difference.
>
> --
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Freekin retard.
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn <***@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 12:30:29 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Sergio <***@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
>> >

> I'm an atmospheric physicist.

No, you are not.
You are not even a physicist.
You are not even an educated amateur.



--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
James McGinn
2018-04-05 22:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:52:52 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> James McGinn <***@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 12:30:29 PM UTC-7, Libor Striz wrote:
> >> Sergio <***@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
> >> >
>
> > I'm an atmospheric physicist.
>
> No, you are not.
> You are not even a physicist.
> You are not even an educated amateur.
>
>
>
> --
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Retard.
Edward Prochak
2018-04-06 14:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 4:03:50 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Search the internet yourself, you fucking idiot.
> I don't need to search. I'm an atmospheric physicists.

In a few sentences, JM proves he is ignorant of science,
he is a braggart, and he has multi-personality disorder!

Jim, Get help NOW!
James McGinn
2018-04-06 19:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 4:03:50 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > Search the internet yourself, you fucking idiot.
> > I don't need to search. I'm an atmospheric physicists.
>
> In a few sentences, JM proves he is ignorant of science,
> he is a braggart, and he has multi-personality disorder!
>
> Jim, Get help NOW!

Vague nitwit without a coherent argument.
Edward Prochak
2018-04-06 22:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 3:07:51 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> > In a few sentences, JM proves he is ignorant of science,
> > he is a braggart, and he has multi-personality disorder!
> >
> > Jim, Get help NOW!
>
> Vague nitwit without a coherent argument.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Jim.
True you are incoherent, but definitely you are never
lacking for an argument.
Sergio
2018-04-06 22:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/6/2018 5:09 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 3:07:51 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 7:06:56 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>
>>> In a few sentences, JM proves he is ignorant of science,
>>> he is a braggart, and he has multi-personality disorder!
>>>
>>> Jim, Get help NOW!
>>
>> Vague nitwit without a coherent argument.
>
> Don't be so hard on yourself, Jim.
> True you are incoherent, but definitely you are never
> lacking for an argument.
>

McGinn does that a lot, "Psychological projection".

In many case with his statements, you can just switch out the personal
pronouns "you" "yours" with "me" or "I", from 2nd person to 1st person,
and where he says "I" you can put "you" etc and 1st to second person.
Then you get his view of himself.

in this case he has written an excellent description of himself as is,
he could have put "I'm" in the front, thusly,

"I'm a Vague nitwit without a coherent argument." -James McGinn
Edward Prochak
2018-04-05 19:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
>
> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>
> Published on February 26, 2018
>
> Written by Dr Gary Novak

here is his home page
http://nov79.com/index.html

I suspect the "Dr" may be a fake as his home page introduces himself as:
"Gary Novak
Independent Scientist
Liberal, Progressive"

Smells like another JM.
>
> There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> warming:
> 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.

Of course, because that is not the greenhouse effect.
Novak is just setting up a strawman.

>
> 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.

No references for this claim that I could find
in a quick skim of the article.

I suspect another strawman
>
> 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> gases’, not through them.
>
> Absorption Peaks
>
> Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> frequencies of CO2.
>
> Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> shoulders.
>
> The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is
> about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation
> is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with
> temperature.
>

he starts off on the wrong foot, treating earth as a black body radiator.
The problem is WAY more complex:
Direct reflection of sunlight high in the atmosphere by clouds
Direct reflection of sunlight low in the atmosphere by the surface
(different reflection rates over land, water and ice)
Absorption and reradiation in the atmosphere and from surface.
Absorption and reradiation in the atmosphere of light from the surface.

Sorry, but I don't have time to examine his other possible mistakes.

> more at;
>
> https://principia-scientific.org/co2-absorption-spectrum-the-bogus-greenhouse-gas-effect/
James McGinn
2018-04-05 20:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 12:56:42 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:

> Of course, because that is not the greenhouse effect.

LOL. Like you have a fucking clue.

Greenhoouse effect is just a propaganda term, you fucking vague nitwit.


> Novak is just setting up a strawman.
>
> >
> > 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> > as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> > remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
>
> No references for this claim that I could find
> in a quick skim of the article.
>
> I suspect another strawman
> >
> > 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> > gases’, not through them.
> >
> > Absorption Peaks
> >
> > Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> > wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> > most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> > available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> > frequencies of CO2.
> >
> > Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> > concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> > going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> > width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> > shoulders.
> >
> > The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is
> > about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation
> > is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with
> > temperature.
> >
>
> he starts off on the wrong foot, treating earth as a black body radiator.
> The problem is WAY more complex:
> Direct reflection of sunlight high in the atmosphere by clouds
> Direct reflection of sunlight low in the atmosphere by the surface
> (different reflection rates over land, water and ice)
> Absorption and reradiation in the atmosphere and from surface.
> Absorption and reradiation in the atmosphere of light from the surface.
>
> Sorry, but I don't have time to examine his other possible mistakes.
>
> > more at;
> >
> > https://principia-scientific.org/co2-absorption-spectrum-the-bogus-greenhouse-gas-effect/
benj
2018-04-05 23:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/5/2018 1:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
>
> Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
>
> CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
>
> Published on February 26, 2018
>
> Written by Dr Gary Novak
>
>
> There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> warming:
> 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.
>
> 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
>
> 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> gases’, not through them.
>
> Absorption Peaks
>
> Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> frequencies of CO2.
>
> Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> shoulders.
>
> The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is
> about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation
> is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with
> temperature.
>
> more at;
>
> https://principia-scientific.org/co2-absorption-spectrum-the-bogus-greenhouse-gas-effect/
>
Excellent wormballer spanking, Sergio!

And you didn't even mention that two of the three CO2 bands are blocked
by H2O bands and the third band is partially blocked leaving only one
CO2 wing peeping through for a much reduced effect.

I think this is pretty much "settled science".
James McGinn
2018-04-06 00:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 4:59:04 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 4/5/2018 1:52 PM, Sergio wrote:
> >
> > Principia Scientific International Feb 26, 2018
> >
> > CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect
> >
> > Published on February 26, 2018
> >
> > Written by Dr Gary Novak
> >
> >
> > There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide (CO2) creating global
> > warming:
> > 1. Climatologists missed the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air
> > molecules around each CO2 molecule, which means each CO2 molecule must
> > be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility.
> >
> > 2. The official science of climatology claims the earth is giving off
> > as much radiation as white hot metals, meaning 79% radiation with the
> > remaining 21% of the energy given off as conduction and evaporation.
> >
> > 3. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around ‘greenhouse
> > gases’, not through them.
> >
> > Absorption Peaks
> >
> > Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of
> > wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that
> > most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the
> > available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint”
> > frequencies of CO2.
> >
> > Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists
> > concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from
> > going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The
> > width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of
> > shoulders.
> >
> > The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is
> > about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation
> > is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with
> > temperature.
> >
> > more at;
> >
> > https://principia-scientific.org/co2-absorption-spectrum-the-bogus-greenhouse-gas-effect/
> >
> Excellent wormballer spanking, Sergio!
>
> And you didn't even mention that two of the three CO2 bands are blocked
> by H2O bands and the third band is partially blocked leaving only one
> CO2 wing peeping through for a much reduced effect.

undoubtedly Sergio is just parroting back what he read. There isn't the slightest chance he actually understands it.
Loading...