Considering Climate and Change.
Categories:
Considering Climate and Change.
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Roughly 15,000 years ago snow hares roamed somewhere just north of Texas it seems, 10,000 years from now they will most likely do so again If you look at any curve too closely, you can see a tangent as that curve, this is the flaw of 'greenhouse science' with the contrivance of 'CO2 is too blame' by application of poor method and poor science. Thus, in the presentation of those 'little period' data plots of 'temperature' even with millions of data sources, and in the attached inferences made of 'CO2' measurements, there is little valid SCIENCE.
The concepts related by the 'carbon cycle' where devised to trace the energy utilised by photosynthesis, especially within the energy that is actually incident to the planetary surface. If you will regard ‘Picture1vs.jpg’ (below) you will note that the only Energy that can be surface incident is within the lower third of the UV spectrum (NOT UV Region), in the ‘blue visible’ and the ‘red visible’ spectrums. The process of Photosynthesis is principally active within this range), in the ‘blue visible’ and the ‘red visible’ spectrums.
(Picture1vs.JPG)
The ‘carbon cycle’ was infact using CARBON as a convenient trace of the energy removed by the Photosynthetic process. There was no, and still is no, link to carbon directly in relation to this energy as it is NOT removed by ‘carbon’ and neither CO2 OR CH4 has any effect within these spectrums. The ‘greenhouse’ concepts became the current problem they are due to being ‘played up’ in a manner, there never was any retro attempt to validate the supposed link and it just became spoken of as actual, becoming opinion factualised but never validated.
To outline the simplest flaws, by adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, the NATURAL process is to intercept MORE energy before it is surface incident and so REDUCE the rate of kinetic energy induction IN the materialing of the planetary surface.
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
(a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so to will 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons be REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere and actions of gravity, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy of the H2O molecular unit.
(b) Alternatively these Photons MIGHT become surface incident, the LESS likely trend.
Due to INCREASES in atmospheric density, more Cascade interactions will ensue. With that lower 'rate' of incidence, as the higher atmospheric density increases, and the cascade terminator H2O is at its HIGHEST 'concentration' you find the opportunities for cascade Photons to reach the surface with any statistically SIGNIFICANT energy load is indeed minimal.
The Photon has to run a very real 'gauntlet' to become surface incident. Even if some DO make the surface, these 'lucky few' Photons will not retain much energy and so have little appreciable effect towards kinetic energy induction within the surface.
There is more energy being intercepted and suspended within the Atmosphere of this Planet, than becomes surface incident, and once suspended the STATISTICALLY trended direction of ESCAPE is towards higher altitudes, as in (a) above. Thus the inference of “Greenhouse Theory” attempting to produce a claim that these Photons become surface incident is again false. The trend is infact that energy will trend to be directed AWAY from the surface.
Remember Photosynthesis interdicts and consumes the incident energy predominately in the lower and upper visible spectrum. Thus the energy that is surface incident in a constant manner is that in the lower third of the UV spectrum. There is LESS energy incident to the surface of this planet (see above figure 1) due to the atmosphere and the opportunity is given for more energy to escape altogether without being ‘converted’ to kinetic gains (which would be measured as inducted ‘heat’ gains) is IMPROVED by the addition of more CO2 and CH4, regardless of WHERE these additions originate from as these molecules will interdict energy before H2O as they increase in ppm, and give the Photon an opportunity to move 'higher' in the atmosphere with a very small residual induction of intrinsic kinetic energy compared to that H2O would produce.
At best any ‘air pollution’ consisting of CO2 and CH4 will COOL the surface further by increasing the trend for photonic travel out of the atmosphere with avoidance of conversion of their transported energy into kinetic gains of atmospheric molecules, or the planetary surface.
Hence the 'statistics' often quoted within the “Greenhouse concept” platform relating:-
["The albedo of the earth is approximately 39% while the moon's albedo is about 12%.']
-: is infact relating the exodus of photons from the atmospheric cascade.
The lack of a Lunar Atmosphere allows no interdiction of incident photons and so the only remittance you will record is secondary photonic remittance from the actual Lunar Surface materialing.
You will see the ONLY section of the overall spectrum 'untouched' is the 'upper visible' (with some of the 'lower visible') and the bottom 'third' of 'UV' (figure 1).
This IS where the energy inducting kinetic energy into the surface is. It is in this area that photosynthesis predates energy for its own processes as mentioned previously. By reducing photosynthetic mass Humanity has availed the process of kinetic energy inductance with extra energy. The surface becomes more 'heated' and conducts this energy to the gases of the Atmosphere and into the Oceanic waters increasing turbulence by processes of Convection.
To observe this process elsewhere, let us consider what SCIENCE can indicate of the situation of Venus.
Let it be remembered that Venus has no perceived magnetic field of any consequence (at present), therefore has no permanent creation of a planetary ambient plasma interaction, that interaction which interdicts photons within the Gamma and X-ray Spectrums and spares this planet Earth bombardment by such energy.
TO quote:-
-----
["Venus is sometimes characterized as Earth's 'twin' because of its close proximity in solar system location (~ 0.72 AU heliocentric distance compared to 1.0 AU) and its similar size (~ 6053 km radius compared to - 6371 km radius), but other close resemblances are few. Besides the more obvious atmospheric composition and pressure differences, and the related extreme temperatures at the surface described elsewhere in this volume, events in the history and evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with practically no intrinsic magnetic field. The consequences for the space environment and atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an 'induced' magnetotail in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being scavenged by the passing solar wind."]
-----
Which continues after some use of non essential (for this discussion) material into:-
-----
["The observed fields for the most part could be explained as solar wind interaction-induced features, to be described below. The new upper limit on the dipole moment obtained from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter wake measurements placed the Venus intrinsic magnetic field at ~ 0.000010 times that of Earth."]
["Of course, the weakness of the present measurement does not imply that Venus has always been bereft of an intrinsic field. THEORIES OF THE DYNAMOS OPERATING IN THE LIQUID CORES OF THE NEWLY ACCRETED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS A MAGNETIC MOMENT OF VENUS OF THE SAME ORDER AS EARTH'S FOR ABOUT THE FIRST BILLION YEARS OF VENUS' LIFE."]
-----
Thus the 'shield' generated around the atmosphere of Venus (as so generated around the Earth's atmosphere) ‘fell’ and an enormous amount of energy from within the Gamma and X-Ray spectrums began to stream into the 'biosphere' of Venus. It was NOT 'greenhouse behavior' that created 'Venus' as it is seen today, but the failure of its magnetically induced shield.
Then, there is that the “~100%” Albedo often quoted for Venus is indicative of the density of the atmosphere of Venus, with relation to (a), whilst the temperature is driven by the differing materials and energy interactions.
Just to remind the reader:-
-----
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
(a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons is REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy.
-----
Hence the 'statistics' often quoted relating to the platforming of 'greenhouse' concepts:-
["The albedo of the Venus is approximately 100%”]
-: is infact relating the removal of photons from the atmospheric cascade due to the atmospheric density OF the atmosphere of Venus.
Now however, there is little to deflect the energy propagated in the Gamma and X-ray spectrums to protect the atmospheric structure of Venus, as the interactions that exist here with creation of Earth's ambient plasma, ceased as the magnetic field of Venus subsided. Hence the temperatures observed now 'on' Venus are due to the ENERGY within the Gamma and X-Ray spectrum, that would not be expected to enter a cascade within the atmosphere present on Venus, and so becomes surface incident. Thus the 'runaway' effect was infact that of increasing availability of energy, but not at all related to any supposed 'Greenhouse Effect'.
To return regard to this planet Earth, let us consider the activity of Humanity on the planetary surface. The effect on planetary inductance of kinetic energy by rematerialing of the surface by the sprawl of humanity as trended to population is far more obvious. From 500 Million to over 5 Billion in under 400 years, with the majority of that growth in the past 100 years, along with the 'coming of the chain saw':-
'Actual and estimated human population growth 0 - 2050 AD' (popgrowth.JPG)
Notice the similar profile of the plot seen in 'popgrowth.jpg' to that so often seen for 'CO2' and realise surface rematerialing is related closely to this population plot, with any residual kinetic energy measured as a 'temperature rise' of the surface, this kinetic energy is only that not yet conducted to the contacting atmospheric gases or oceanic waters (including outpourings of river system water).
Then to continue the trending of surface materialing with population expectations:-
'Relative rates of population growth between Less Developed Countries and More Developed Countries in millions of people (Source: United Nations).'
(Figure 3vs)
And notice that the trend to rematerialing will be to cater to the growth of population in the presently 'lesser' developed nations (LDC's).
The median 'age' of present populations will also split from 1999:-
'Percentage of people age 60 years and older, 1999 (Source: United Nations - Population Ageing 1999).'
(Figure 4)
Which is continued into the expectations for 2050:-
'Percentage of people age 60 years and older, 2050 (Source: United Nations - Population Ageing 1999).'
(Figure 5)
It is realised that expectations are only that, but the improvement in medicine has already seen the population boom over the past 400 years predominately in what would now be considered 'Developed Regions'. These improvements are only now becoming obvious in effect within the 'leaders' amongst those regions presently now considered as 'lesser developed'.
["Everyone will become wealthy; some will have to go first"] is very much the well spring of the overall effect.
If you consider the next image, 'population density (geographical) you see density of the human population 1994 (Source: CIESIN). (Yellow = low density - dark red = high density)
(Figure 6vs)
which can be overlaid with geographical data of marginal terrains, and if you then extrapolate growth of the fringes of the 'red zones' to accommodate the shift in population growth given in file 'pop1' then the image given in:-
'Actual and estimated human population growth 0 - 2050 AD' (popgrowth.jpg)
This plot (popgrowth.jpg) can then be rendered as indicative of the REAL alterations to inputs of kinetic energy inducted into the surface and Conducted to the gases of the atmosphere and oceanic waters. If left unattended, with greater attention to the methods of construction and materials involved, the turbulence will be SEEN to worsen, even if the AVERAGE surface temperature is only increased by 1 degree C (up from the present 0.6 degree C).
It is NOT the residual surface temperature that is in itself RELEVANT, but that kinetic energy added BY the planetary surface TO the Oceanic waters and Atmospheric gases, and to THESE processes that drive turbulence linked events Humanity IS making LARGE and REAL alterations by production of its habitat, in sprawl across the surface, with 'unsuitable' materials and methods with an increasing rate.
It is this process of Humanity that is producing any ACTUAL 'unnatural' alterations to 'climate', and 'greenhouse' concepts simply cannot validly be seen capable. As such 'greenhouse' concerns are only relatable to 'air pollution' and that is how the 'emissions' should be considered.
The alterations to 'turbulent effects', as they presently are, are due the last 200 to 400 years of surface rematerialing, most intensive within the past 100 years. These basal affects are now beginning to accumulate effect in a directly noticeable manner.
Rejuvenation of photosynthetic mass is not concerned in 'greenhouse' or 'carbon' issues but as to rematerial the surface in an energy USING material to lower kinetic energy inductance rates. Note that photosynthesis is most strongly interacting with energy in the visible blue (and lesser in manner with energy in visible red); then again notice (in Picture1vs) that energy becoming surface incident.
It is plainly straight forward; there cannot be a 'greenhouse effect, simple or enhanced' (as are presently outlined) in either LOGIC or SCIENCE whilst WISDOM makes even more certain and obvious the rudimentary mistakes made in the formation of these 'greenhouse concepts'.
There is a real problem; it is simply NOT involving of any 'greenhouse effect'.
To proceed now I would wish to pass by the ‘greenhouse’ and ‘climate’ clichés', there seems to be attempts to produce ‘opinioned reality’ for the claims relating to “warming productions’ without even mention of the lack of real detail and thus validity. CO2 was mooted to produce warming, this claim was made in the arena of SCIENCE beginning in the mid 19th Century, but failed three times to be shown possible, and valid in concept and process. We are still all waiting to hear how such is possible within all known properties of CO2.
Such validation was not found possible in three attempts for the ‘greenhouse’ concepts, within the 20th Century, as the knowledge of SCIENCE involving these materials was constantly improving, and leaving the concepts presented within the ‘greenhouse hypothesis’ further behind. When finally the ‘greenhouse concept’ was FAILED for the third time, it as run into the political arena not for any other purpose but the self interest of those attempting to promote these concepts. There it was ‘talked up’ with presentations of ‘scenarios of doom’, until it was not asked to produce details and validity OF the claims that where made. It seems such is still being protected, today by reports that still overlook the history OF the ‘greenhouse concepts’.
To aid in the realisation of the lack of veracity of claims attempting to relate CO2 from any source to supposed 'global warming' and 'climate change' I would point out the well documented and widely known material relating to the actual progressive alterations in climate that has lead to the situation the planet is presenting us all at this time.
To aid in considerations of the real defining climates of the oscillation involving an 'ice age' let me direct the reader to the link:- http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ from which I extract:-
-----
["When most people hear the words Ice Age, they think of glaciers covering much of North America and Eurasia, animals like mammoths and saber-toothed cats, and Cro-Magnon people painting cave walls. These things come to mind because the words "Ice Age" often refer to the last time that glaciers extended over a large portion of the Earth's surface. The ISM online exhibit The Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago provides more information on this glaciation in the Midwestern United States."]
["The amount of ice on the Earth's surface has varied greatly through time. For example, the extent of ice in North America has changed dramatically since the height of the last glacial advance 20,000 years ago."]
["During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Illinois has experienced changes in rocks and fauna during these times...."]
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between ~800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between ~350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between ~460 and 430 million years ago). "]
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred."]
["For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."]
["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances."]
-----
If you consider that we have been in a 'warm period between 'glaciations', this would be consistent with considerations that the planetary climate has indeed been presenting a rise in the surface inductance rate of kinetic energy (that ‘energy’ is measured as ‘temperature’) by natural rematerialing, over the past years within an overall ongoing oscillation.
This last period has seen a swing from the last 'ice age' encompassed within the 'trough' and the rise out of this by the oscillation, which need not be considered to be part of a consistent (sinusoidal like) wave form. The progression is infact best 'mapped' by consideration of the energy interactional properties of the surface presented to incident Solar Radiation.
At this point, being near or even within the oscillation peak, the surface would be highly covered within photosynthetic mass through the ‘temperate zone’ with a few 'deserts' around the equatorial regions, the 'near peak' of this 'warming' period being associated with a near maximum of the overall increasing rate of kinetic energy inductance. This is the conformation of natural surface materialing we observe now.
The 'topple' of the kinetic induction rate to a slower ('cooling') process would be associated with short term fluctuations in overall turbulence, the process associated with convection within the atmosphere and oceans. This is what we are observing presently, the effect is however being attempted to be linked to a supposed ‘greenhouse effect’ as a warming process. The release of sub polar methane and CO2 is an end cycle oscillator to aid in reverting the induction processes based in surface incident of ENERGY propagated as Solar Radiation (See Picture1vs with a view of greater cascade of energy above the surface lowering rate of 'surface heat induction').
There is no reason to think that the planetary climate associated with the 'peak' of the oscillation will be any faster moved through than the 'trough', with it's often associated 'ice age', and this "Peak Oscillation Climate Fluctuation" could readily be expected to progress for several centuries. WE will see 'Seasonal Behavior' alter, ocean currents will 'drift', rain patterning in density and location will alter. Wind based turbulence will display the kind of events we observe now. WE are in a unique situation to observe a climate topple, and all we hear are intonations of a 'greenhouse doom'. What we are seeing IS NATURAL for the vast majority of effect. The study of 'greenhouse science' is infact a formalised study of FALSE POSITIVES.
There is no closed shop attitude to be tolerated when the method of making the 'shop' is so obviously flawed. There is no SCIENCE in the presentation of those 'little period' data plots of 'temperature' and even less in the inferences made from 'CO2' measurements.
15,000 years ago snow hares roamed somewhere just north of Texas it seems, 10,000 years from now they will most likely do so again. If you look at any curve too closely, you can see a tangent as that curve, this is the flaw of 'greenhouse science' with the contrivance of 'CO2 is too blame', poor method and poor science together.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
Member of the Public, Australia.
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Learn to Write
When I read your ramblings I'm reminded of the nonsensical blurbs which accompany spam in order to confuse heuristic analysis. I'm truly sorry I just spent the past 30 minutes trying to associate any sort of credibility to arguments which you have posted on other sites. The only consolation is that anyone who is truly interested in researching GW/AGW will likely skip over anything you post once they realize that you don't make any sense.
considering climate and change
reading your take on climate physics while it rains on this mid-december michigan evening is akin to reading the musings of the 'flat earth' society as one orbits the planet on the shuttle. my god man, our grand children will die!
Nutbag
You are a nutbag. Simple really. Not only do you have a strange conception of how the world works, you can't even correctly or concisely communicate that conception.
Pressure and Weather ('Heat' and 'climate').
It is KINETIC ENERGY that powers our 'weather', by its influence to atmospheric pressure. It is the measure of 'kinetic energy' that is related as TEMPERATURE by the link to the kinetic velocity of the molecules/atoms that comprise the atmosphere.
This measure of TEMPERATURE and the links to PRESSURE alterations produces the observed 'weather patterning' and powers the 'events' enclosed. Lifting and transporting water as molecules/vapor, warming the surface and through conduction and convection giving the atmosphere and the ocean waters the 'heat' we measure today. This process has been occurring for BILLIONS of years, and is NOT just 'new'.
It is the alterations to the PLANETARY surface materialing, MADE by the production of Human Habitat, which is creating the alterations in distribution of, and rate of INDUCTION of kinetic energy. This is altering WHERE 'weather' will move, and by regulation (in increase of) kinetic energy WHAT events can be 'produced'.
This is due to the alterations made in the materials presented on the surface, and thus the interactional behaviors of the materials presented, to the energy incident photons. This is being done by Humanity, with the production of the sprawl OF the habitat of humanity as it is made.
**Hence the small alterations so far seen IN the recorded median surface temperature OF the surface.
Humanity does NOT like to live in deserts, and so the rematerialing produced BY Humanity is instead produced upon the REMOVAL of photosynthetic mass.
It is KNOWN that the PROCESS of photosynthesis consumes the energy of incident photons within the Upper and Lower visible Spectrums, this energy allowing the production of O2 as a side product, and the carbohydrates the plant requires, and are the real purpose FOR the photosynthetic process. There is NO 'destruction of energy'.
However, by removing the photosynthetic covering, the materials placed instead by sprawl are better able to generator intrinsic kinetic energy gains. This is readily known by all as common knowledge; grassed lawn will be 'cooler' than a spread of concrete.
On a large scale, the cityscape begins too place substantial amounts of kinetic energy into that atmosphere at places that are NOT 'natural' in their positioning. Over time, the increase in sprawl range, and 'internal sprawl density' further increases this effect in a cumulative manner.
Where a city grows too close to its 'water catchments', as example, it is already being seen that the precipitation into those catchments will dwindle.
'Rain' will fall less often, when it does it will be short and a 'heavy' fall as if there is 'less water' being held aloft by the increases in kinetic energy available across the distance of the now 'cityscape sprawl', it will continue until it reaches, for example a near by Mountain Range, where it might be 'dumped out' as snow on a more consistent basis than previously seen in the last 200 years.
It is the input of kinetic energy that suspends water, determining how MUCH water can be lifted, and how LONG a time that water CAN be suspended. The DIRECTION of transport is determined by PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS.
This is very much the case observed in and around Sydney (Australia) at present, for instance.
To observe some FACTS as to what IS 'temperature', please note the quotes below, again from standard texts as common knowledge. Notice also in the quotes below the TIMING of the divergence of two concepts.
One stayed stuck (it seems) on study of hypothetical constructs (the 'thermodynamic studies') of matter (like the 'Ideal Gas' and 'Uniform Blackbody' hypotheses).
The other attempted to make more direct study of the ACTUAL materials ('Molecular Dynamics') that led to 'Quantum' considerations and 'Quantum Theory'.
At the 'schism', there where those that thought that a 'cascade' of photons, and/or quantum objects was not possible, that a CHAIN REACTION was not feasible. To an unfortunate extent, they where very WRONG, but some are seeming still trying to live a 'thermodynamical dream'.
Quotes from (numerous) standard texts, just for today:-
-----
["What is Temperature? In a qualitative manner, we can describe the temperature of an object as that which determines the sensation of warmth or coldness felt from contact with it."]
["About the same time that thermodynamics was evolving, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) developed a theory describing the way molecules moved - molecular dynamics. The molecules that make up a perfect gas move about, colliding with each other like billiard balls and bouncing off the surface of the container holding the gas. The energy associated with motion is called Kinetic Energy and this kinetic approach to the behavior of ideal gases led to an interpretation of the concept of temperature on a microscopic scale."]
["The amount of kinetic energy each molecule has is a function of its velocity; for the large number of molecules in a gas (even at low pressure), there should be a range of velocities at any instant of time. The magnitude of the velocities of the various particles should vary greatly - no two particles should be expected to have the exact same velocity. Some may be moving very fast; others, quite slowly. Maxwell found that he could represent the distribution of velocities statistically by a function known as the Maxwellian distribution. The collisions of the molecules with their container gives rise to the pressure of the gas. By considering the average force exerted by the molecular collisions on the wall, Boltzmann was able to show that the average kinetic energy of the molecules was directly comparable to the measured pressure, and the greater the average kinetic energy, the greater the pressure. From Boyles' Law, we know that the pressure is directly proportional to the temperature, therefore, it was shown that the kinetic energy of the molecules related directly to the temperature of the gas. A simple relation holds for this:
average kinetic energy of molecules=3kT/2,
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Temperature is a measure of the energy of thermal motion and, at a temperature of zero, the energy reaches a minimum (quantum mechanically, the zero-point motion remains at 0 K)."]
-----
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
It is the measure of 'kinetic energy' related in TEMPERATURE!
It is KINETIC ENERGY that powers our 'weather' 'He who is not Pat N.'.
It is the measure of 'kinetic energy' that is related as TEMPERATURE 'He who is not Pat N.'.
It is the alterations to the PLANETARY surface materialing, MADE by the production of Human Habitat that is creating the alterations in distribution of, and rate of INDUCTION of kinetic energy.
This is due to the alterations made in the materials presented, and thus the interactional behaviors of the materials presented, to the energy incident photons. This is being done by Humanity, with the production of the sprawl OF the habitat of humanity as it is made.
**Hence the small alterations so far seen IN the recorded median surface temperature OF the surface.
You have not managed to show any displayed ability to comprehend, or have too little actual understanding (so far displayed) OF, the SCIENCE related to you.
You are also FABRICATING a position for me, a position that does NOT incorporate what I have actually mentioned and related.
From that FABRICATION, that CONTRIVENCE, you still attempt to 'argue your points from'.
As such you have made still NO relevant or even VALID point. Certainly you are NOT attempting to discuss what I mention.
Your rhetoric is amazingly pointless infact 'he who is not Pat N.'. You also overlook the 'crumb trail' 'He who is not Pat N.' part of which is have already shown.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
For old times sake
* I live in Glasgow
* I have an undergraduate chemistry degree
* I have never set foot in Minnesota
* I'm not claiming pre-eminent expertise on anything, just asking for clarification of your theory.
* I know nothing about Hydrology, but I did unblock a sink once.
* You haven't answered my questions
* I think your contributions here are counter to the site's aims
* You're not interested in questions about your work, it has never been peer-reviewed.
* - It is not Science and you should stop tagging it as such.
* - - Especially when there is a "Skeptic" tag you don't use
* I think your intention is to muddy the scientific waters by continually posting, trying to pretend that there is significant doubt about human-induced climate change.
* I try and act like an adult but I don't have the patience to continue attempting polite dialogue with a disruptive, irrational, troll.
* Get your own website.
* I no longer think you are sincere, I think you are being deliberately disruptive.
It is You Pat, beyond any doubt.
You still try to argue on fabricted points not involving what i mention. You still hide behind false identities. I have shown enought of the 'crumb tail' you leave.
All these 'little points' you attempt have been asnwered. If you are unable to behave in an adult manner as yourself, there is little reason to converse with you, most cetainly there is no reason to rehash what i have already explained.
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
You Are Not Listening
You aren't reading what I'm typing (not cutting and pasting).
I AM NOT:
- a hydrologist
- from Minnesota
- called Pat
- subscribed to any climate change email discussion lists
I only know of you through your posting unscientific nonsense cloaked in long words on this website, having 1st seen it on one of the US IMCs.
Above I took the time to try and understand the points you keep making and to state them briefly. Having done that, I pointed out where they diverge from the scientific mainstream, both in statement and implication.
I don't see any attempt from you above to engage with that, just references back to discussions you had with somebody else, lots of shouting that PEOPLE are ALL in AGREEMENT with HARTLOD. If that's you dealing with my questions in a "serious" manner then no wonder your "theory" hasn't ever seen a scientific journal. You're struggling with my amateurish attempt at "peer review".
Although I guess now I have some more statements from you:
1. heat is only transferred through Conduction and Convection, not Irradiation. IR is not heat
---> this raises the question of how the heat from the sun travels thru space to reach earth.
2. and we've narrowed down your "failed to validate 3 times" assertion to once in each of the 30s, 40s and 50s. Excuse me if I don't rush to the library on the basis of those bibliographic details.
You do not question Pat, you attempt allusion and bellittlement.
No, not any 'synonyms' Pat N., nor is there displayed IN REALITY any 'misunderstandings' of 'thermodynamics' either on my part Pat N.
What there is just another of your undocumented belittlements with additions of fabrication, just more of 'the same from you Pat N. in 'fact'.
It is not even 'that everyone else is wrong' either Pat N., you still tryto hide, it is the 'greenhouse concepts' that are poorly constructed and filled with misinterpretations, already many being seen within your attempts Pat N. to sound 'plausible', so often.
As you run from Yahoo discussions Pat N., where you cannot face scrutiny (hiding within 'protected-censorship-groups', often controlled by yourself) of your opinions under the Pat N 'identity', perhaps you should not attempt to ruin this article with such simplistic and puerile pestering as you make in "Yahoo", made under your assumed 'supporting cast' of aliases here as within 'Yahoo', and elsewhere.
From 'Yahoo'
-----
Real Name: Pat Neuman
Nickname: npat1
Location: Chanhassen, Minnesota
Occupation: hydrologist
-----
Then from [ www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php ] which WAS, for any interested, titled:-
"Hydrologist said climate change impacts hydrology, thus career in river prediction with NOAA/NWS ends"
And after some discussion:-
----
First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook for the Upper Midwest
by Pat N
Current rating: 0 28 Feb 2006
by Chanhassen snow hydrologist
----
Then after some more documented discussion a sudden 'CH attack' with:-
---
Hartlod, King of Irrelevance and Obfuscation
Current rating: 0 01 Mar 2006
by CH
---
Followed by Pat's 'main identity' trying to "sound clever" with a yet ANOTHER 'cut&paste':-
------
"Global warming may be even hotter"
By Deborah Smith
Current rating: 0 01 Mar 2006
by pat n
------
Then more documented discussion, followed by the appearance of 'pooper' (see thread if still interested).
Give it up Pat N., how stupid do you wish to look before you GROW UP?
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
What the transition unfurl!
From 'Yahoo'
-----
Real Name: Pat Neuman
Nickname: npat1
Location: Chanhassen, Minnesota
Occupation: hydrologist
-----
Then from [ www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
] which WAS, for any interested, titled:-
"Hydrologist said climate change impacts hydrology, thus career in river prediction with NOAA/NWS ends"
And after some discussion:-
----
First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook for the Upper Midwest
by Pat N
Current rating: 0 28 Feb 2006
by Chanhassen snow hydrologist
----
Then after some more documented discussion a sudden 'CH attack' with:-
---
Hartlod, King of Irrelevance and Obfuscation
Current rating: 0 01 Mar 2006
by CH
---
Followed by Pat's 'main identity' trying to "sound clever" with a yet ANOTHER 'cut&paste':-
------
"Global warming may be even hotter"
By Deborah Smith
Current rating: 0 01 Mar 2006
by pat n
------
Then more documented discussion, followed by the appearance of 'pooper' (see thread if still interested).
Give it up Pat N., that you are producing your own 'supporting cast' is obvious, and this is NOT the first and only occasion either.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Rather, you fabricate an arguement to make 'points' against!
Well Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) it seems you just go out of your way to avoid notice of any response made to you.
In an 'essence response':-
1) The greenhouse theory is INCAPABLE of producing a 'warming process'.
2) There is the confusion of language/labels within the 'greenhouse descriptions'.
3) Energy OF the molecules of the atmosphere is expressed as their KINETIC VELOCITY. The energy of the Photons within the 'bounds' of the atmosphere is SEPARATE from the molecules present, and is NOT measurable as 'heat', latent or otherwise, having NO kinetic potential (photons have equal velocity within a medium).
4) Energy of a randomly selected photon cannot be directly related to any particular object. As to the 'quote' see (3) above.
5) You make a complete misrepresentation in this 'attempt' Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) as I have constantly mentioned the processes, and shall do so again below.
6) Now you attempt to fabricate a situation to garner a 'platform' to 'argue' some 'point from' for I have not 'mentioned' such at all.
7) In any regard to 'greenhouse concepts' it is very obvious that the situation you mention IS indeed seen within the 'observed USE of theory' within the 'greenhouse concepts', and so by acquiescence of 'acceptance' these few 'scientists' are indeed making such a confusion of 'interpretation'.
8) You yourself Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) have provided a link in discussion that outlined the 'history' of these 'readings'. The 'greenhouse version' made "SCIENCE" seem to be the 'bad people' whilst the 'brilliant few' ran off to 'warn the world'.
It is that there is no possibility of the "theory" outlined AS the 'GREENHOUSE effect' of producing a warming effect. The PROCESS there in outlined is UNABLE to produce such and this was realised in all THREE of the failed validation attempts made on behalf OF the 'greenhouse concepts' within the 20th Century. ALL THREE attempted validations Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), in the mid 1930's, late 1940's and mid 1950's.
You see Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) the MEASURE of 'heat' is the average KINETIC ENERGY of the molecules/atoms of the 'sample'. That is represented as the average KINETIC VELOCITY, also measured in regard to expressions of PRESSURE, of the molecules/atoms of the sample.
'Heat' is transported via the processes of CONDUCTION and CONVECTION, and just as the rest of the atmosphere is warmed, CO2 and CH4 gain kinetic energy from the planetary surface as the materials there placed interact with energy propagated within the surface incident photons.
Realise that the concept of ASBSOLUTE ZERO is just that, a concept. The SI unit expressed as the zero point of the SCALE of TEMPERATURE 'named in honor' of Lord Kelvin is just that, a 'zero point' temperature. It has UNIT EQUIVILANCE to both the FAHRENHEIT and CELSIUS 'scales of temperature' and so is just a 'temperature' no different than if 'read' on any other scale. AGAIN it seems Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) you have been 'confused' by 'words' and are not noticing the relevant 'detail'.
The production of secondary PHOTONS is an intrinsic part of the known BEHAVIOR of matter Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), the AMOUNT of energy involved IN the production OF a secondary photon is DIFFERENT for molecules and incident Photon combinations, including alterations to the 'materials phase' (gas/liquid/solid).
AS I have mentioned there IS retention of energy, the DIFFERENCES in such marks, as example, H2O as being MUCH better at GAINING intrinsic kinetic energy of the molecular UNIT, i.e. the water MOLECULE gets 'faster' or 'hotter'. This ability of H2O molecules is to a factor near 100 times that of CO2, as example, whilst CO2 REMMITTS the energy difference as a secondary photon.
Again Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) you confuse 'metaphors' as in the context of the 'greenhouse theory' "LATENT HEAT" is infact the ENERGY suspended in the CASCADE effect tween the molecules OF the atmosphere. YOU Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) need to move BEYOND 'high school levels' a bit more OFTEN, and attempt to produce 'chemistry as physics' much LESS often.
So far we have then Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) that the molecules of the atmosphere within interactions with incident Photons are producing various amount of energy (particular to the molecule/photon interaction) as secondary photons, with some energy retained (as noted for the particular interaction) as a gain of the kinetic velocity of the molecular unit.
AS to (2) you have NOT detailed how a 'bulk' property can be different from the materials present in any manner Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), and very FEW agree with YOU in any manner that DOES provide the 'details'. There is NO 'greenhouse effect' possible Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), it is very EASY to realise this. The issue is NOT about adding energy Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), it is your SUPOSITION that energy is being 'trapped' somehow. So give DETAIL as to HOW such a 'greenhouse effect' CAN be produced, IN explicit DETAIL Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), in your OWN words.
(3) is Again a complete fabrication of convenience on your part Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), for I have NOT mentioned ANYTHING at all like (3). As I HAVE mentioned Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), you need to UNDERSTAND the processes of Conduction AND Convection. Realise also that the cascade of photons is omni-directional; the TREND is for photons to rise. Those Photons that are LOW in the atmosphere however have an enhanced RISK of 'hitting a water molecule'. DO you notice how COLD a 'desert night' is Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), deserts are VERY DRY Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota).
(4) Actually it cannot Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), in any manner be proven with a 'lamp', and you still avoid DETAIL Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), which you always do.
(5) There is no need to remember Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), here they are, as I linked previously
*****
For details relating to CO2:-
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node13.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node14.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node15.html
*****
You will notice that there is for CO2 mentioned that there is 'infra-red active' DIPOLE interactions. That is a PHOTON is produced in the INFRA RED, this is NOT 'heat' as the ENERGY is lost from the molecular unit. This ENERGY is NOT representative of the TEMPERATURE of the CO2 MOLECULE that produced the photon, Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), now is the time to refer to your 'lamp' Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota).
As such, Quantum Vibrational State Alterations are NOT 'heat gain' interactions infact, and 'greenhouse science' has got it WRONG again, as does its devotees like Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota).
It IS perfectly simple Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), YOU (and 'greenhouse science) simply do NOT have it 'correct' in any valid manner.
(6) YOU CONFUSE Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) the CHEMISTRY of LIQUID WATER with the QUANTUM DIPOLE(S) within H2O molecules. As such this little 'parrot' from you is irrelevant, as is near all you mention.
(7) The ENTIRE issue Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), is that it WAS 'picked up'.
It was PICKED UP THREE TIMES Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota).
The ISSUE is that the 'few' simply VOTED THEMSELVES correct Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), whilst trying to tell everyone they 'had found a terrible problem'.
(8) See mention earlier Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), and realise your own 'fractured renditions' show just how WRONG 'greenhouse science' IS still. AS to 'journals' Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), in the years relevant there was NOT magazines 'talked up' as journals. AS I mention GET YOURSELF TO A LIBRARY and CEASE trying to sound, and PRESENT yourself 'authoritive' Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota) when your hiding behind 'fake identities' constantly.
(...9..) I think I have covered everything you mentioned Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota), if you cannot respond with answers UNDER your REAL name I see LITTLE reason to treat you in anymore 'serious' manner, you only 'cut&paste' others articles to seem 'important' and 'knowledgeable', building up an internet 'high hit presence' (as some have explained to myself) but are not in yourself such (important and/or knowledgeable) are you Pat N. (Chanhassen, Minnesota).
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
stripping your argument down to its essence
1. it's impossible for CO2 and CH4 to produce a warming effect
2. there is no such property as a molecule's "latent heat"
3. energy in the atmoshere is not carried by molecules, it's just there
4. energy as photons cannot at all be related to temperature of an object ("the energy of a PHOTON is NOT representable within such calculations of temperature")
5. CO2 molecules don't gain energy thru absorbing photons as they tend to re-emit photons
6. H2O molecules have a lesser desire to move apart so they do gain kinetic energy, generally referred to as heat.
7. all climate scientists have confused quantum vibrations with molecular vibrations.
8. there were 3 failed attempts to validate the theory
Are those a fair summary of your argument once the politics have been removed?
I have some points of difference with you on them:
1. how do CO2 and CH4 molecules remain above absolute zero if they don't ever absorb heat, only re-emit photons? If the re-emission is only a tendency rather than an absolute, it follows that it is possible for them to retain heat.
2. I disagree, so does everyone that's studied high school physics. Whatever the quantum mechanical (i.e. individual molecules) details, on a bulk properties level (e.g the atmosphere) the property exists and can be observed.
You add energy to a system and the temperature changes. The change is at different rates depending on the material. AFAIK this is as true for carbon dioxide and methane as it is for any other substance.
3. If there were no energy in the molecules of the atmosphere, only photon bombardment, we would all freeze at night when facing away from the sun. It is self-evident that there is energy / heat in the atmosphere, or there would be no difference between a warm breeze and a cold one.
4. this can be disproved with an anglepoise lamp and a desk surface.
5. as I remember, there are a large number of conformational changes (quantum mechanical "twists" of the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms) available to CO2 and some for CH4 molecules. Therefore many ways for them to gain "heat"-type energy.
These are among the few systems simple enough for quantum mechanics to study as they have few atoms. They still have a huge number of possible vibrational states, making it perfectly simple for heat vibrations and heat radiation (Infra Red) to be both absorbed and transmitted.
6. H2O's 3 atoms have a large tendency to move apart. They exist partly as ions (charged particles) rather than neutral molecules. The different concentrations of H+ and OH- give us acidity.
7. It's just not possible to build a working theory on a misreading of 2 types of "vibration". It would've been picked up as soon as the first paper hit peer review.
8. You keep repeating this line and ignoring requests for clarification: which 3 attempts, published when in which journals?
How many times?
I am not a hydrologist, or American, or called Pat. I couldn't even find "NC" on a map. I'm starting to think I'm banging my head against a brick wall.
I think you need to accept that your untested, implausible theory and aggressive method of promoting it are likely to have annoyed more than one person on the internet.
pardon me for questioning, oh mighty one
"Consume" is pretty synonomous with destruction to most folk, but if you've been using that with your own particular meaning then fair enough.
I don't see how asking you to clarify your apparent ignorance of Thermodynamics equates to "platform[ing] old and tired theory", or "simple mention of a theory" in place of argument.
If your theory appears to contradict currently accepted theory, you need to explain why your ideas are better than the ones accepted by everyone else. Claiming that everyone else is just wrong doesn't cut it.
And you end by saying I "make it difficult for yourself only by your 'attempted interpretations'". That sounds suspiciously like "Do Not attempt to question Me, I know everything."
Maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong, but you aren't putting your points in any way that people can make sense of. If you are right then you should be explaining yourself a lot more clearly (NOT more often; if one of your drafts makes no sense once it's unlikely to make more sense the 23rd time).
I am aware of the theory AND how to use it VALIDLY.
Searching my posts I find only 7 have used the word 'destroy', none in contexts dealing with energy. I use MS Outlook to form my posts, and store ALL as drafts.
Photosynthesis consumes energy, it is infact as an energy predator that this process propagates itself, spreading across the surface in its hunt for energy.
Photosynthesis consumes energy in the lower and upper Visible Spectrum. It uses that incident energy to form molecules, the formation of which requires that energy.
It is within this narrow set of spectrums, and the lower one third of the UV Spectrum (NOT REGION), that energy is NOT absorbed by the atmosphere at near 100% levels, see slide above 'atmospheric absorbance'.
SO infact "He who is not Pat N." energy does infact seem to be being 'converted' by and within its consumption.
Realise that your attempt to platform old and tired theory is seeing such no longer itself totally correct within the applications of more modern SCIENCE. The classic is the energy release of the CHAIN REACTION which older 'theorists' often argued in past times was not possible.
You still persist in quoting theory "He who is not Pat", but seem unaware of the limits of validity always attached to these theories. A theory might be valid, but YOU need to use such theory validly to remain valid yourself. This is NOT done by simple mention OF a theory, too often the fall back of the 'greenhouse concepts'.
You make it difficult for yourself only by your 'attempted interpretations'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Building upon 'little magnets'..
In effect, Humanity is building itself into an 'early retirement', and seemingly is now building more and doing so unknowingly, AND uncaringly, of the consequences to the produced alterations to kinetic energy induction rate and the distribution across the surface of this generation.
The situation is fairly simple there is no ability as outlined within 'greenhouse science' for any effect to be produced with the materials it involves, this is not prone to 'statistical failure', it is based on the KNOWN properties of the materials involved, and the obvious errors in the compilation of the 'greenhouse effect' theory.
There is no such thing as 'latent heat', as that concept is expressed in 'greenhouse theory', as being 'trapped' by a 'greenhouse effect'. The energy mentioned within the 'greenhouse concept' as such is infact the energy of a PHOTON. This energy might be within the boundary of the atmosphere, but it is separate from the molecules within the atmosphere, totally unattached. Temperature is the scaled measure of the average kinetic VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms of the sample, and the energy of a PHOTON is NOT representable within such calculations of temperature.
The amount of energy made into kinetic energy by interaction is determined by the MATERIAL, FOR EXAMPLE, see 'little magnets in molecules, the dipole' to realise the process. For further reading and reference, see this information for CO2 also with regard to "Quantum Vibrational State" alterations.
*****
For details relating to CO2:-
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node13.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node14.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node15.html
*****
These interactions result in the production of a secondary photon, which represents the energy placed into the inter-nodal bond that is 'squeezed' out when the molecular conformation (shape) returns to 'normal' after interaction. There is not a 'kinetic vibration' with any 'kinetic considerations' involved in these Quantum events; they are associated with 'dipole moment' alterations. The energy NOT expressed in the remitted photon has gone into alteration to the kinetic energy/velocity of the overall molecular unit.
Both CO2 and H2O absorb energy (as seen in slide above). However, CO2 by the physical PROPERTIES of the molecule, trends to remit energy as secondary photons, whilst H2O simply gains kinetic velocity (mostly as an addition to its rotation velocity vector) and moves faster through the atmosphere in a 'cartwheel' motion. It is this, the energy of actual kinetic motion of the entire molecular unit, that is measured as alterations to 'heat' of H20, i.e. alteration to kinetic velocity, and such energy gain is that which does NOT involve the production of a secondary photon.
***
It is simply, 'greenhouse' has taken the word 'vibrational' and with NO understanding has attached 'kinetic potential', i.e. 'latent heat' in a total MISINTERPRETATION.
***
**
It is obvious that the 'greenhouse theory' has again REVERSED known SCIENCE to 'fabricate plausibility'. This is why 'greenhouse science' is promoted by concentrating on 'opinionation' of 'talking heads' rather than what the 'heads' are saying, it seems more important for 'greenhouse' as to who speaks, not 'what' is said.
**
NEXT, the REAL issue for the 'precautionary principle' is to ignore the propaganda of 'greenhouse concerns' and look at what WILL be able to redistribute kinetic energy induction across the planetary surface. It's the rematerialing of the surface by Humanity. This is creating new weather patterning, in response to the motion of kinetic energy induction in association with rematerialing.
Realise that the average rises in surface temperature are due TO the Human activities leading to surface rematerialing, we are CHANGING the materials whose temperature we are measuring and so the temperature IS changing.
****
The average rise might not exceed 1 degree C yet we will see much more alteration to turbulence. The is as the measured 'heat' is only that kinetic energy residual AFTER conduction has removed the remainder into the atmosphere, where convection produces TURBULENCE with such energy. That 0.6 degrees C increase in average SURFACE temperature is only the 'left over's'.
****
I have long been petitioning for roofline and façade power generation within the cityscape. Firstly this is the region where rematerialing produces the most intense inductions, evidenced by the high turbulence and wind velocities. Next, it is also the region that presents the least efficient to 'pump' electricity into from remote generation utilities. This will REMOVE kinetic energy from this process, resulting in LESS alteration to weather patterning FROM those increases produced by 'sprawl induction'.
*****
The best place for a 'wind farm' is not based in a 'remote region', but within the 'cityscape', upon the tall buildings. Instead of looking to 'windmill' like 'bladed propeller' fans, the most efficient would be ganged turbines with ducted air flutes reacting to wind velocity/direction.
*****
In effect, Humanity is building itself into an 'early retirement' but is being 'blinded by greenhouse' manifestos of 'faith and belief', and so is now building more and doing so unknowingly, AND uncaringly, of the consequences.
It is 'logical' for 'climate concerns' to be attached to 'greenhouse effects' ONLY IF the materials present CAN produce an effect that can influence climate. As these materials CANNOT produce such an effect with their KNOWN properties it is near irrational to propose any such 'climate alteration processes' can be so produced. This has been so known since the mid 20th century, when the 'greenhouse theory' FAILED all three of its attempts to gain validation, due to the paucity of its 'case' for the existence OF such a 'greenhouse effect' in matters of, and regard to, SCIENCE.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
The only poison is in Pat's pen. You are harrasming me Pat.
Pat, you are belligerently harrasing me, with no attempt over that past years to do more than call me names and start 'hate hartlod' threads whilst lying endlessly from behind numerous identities.
See
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
from which we see the below under
'With regard to'.
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
With regard to:-
-----
First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook for the Upper Midwest by Pat NCurrent rating: 0
28 Feb 2006
by Chanhassen snow hydrologist
Reply to this comment
For those who may still choose to have doubts on climate changing, ...
There hasn't been a "decent" winter in southern Minnesota and Wisconsin (the heart of the Upper Midwest) since 2001. Lake ice this year never got thick enough for ice fishing.
The really unusual thing about the winter of 2006 was the absence of cold air. Climate stations in eight states in the north central U.S. had record high January average daily mean temperatures (100-110 year long periods of record to current). At stations in the far north, only a few days in February in the far north had sub zero F temperatures, with most of February coming in mild by old Upper Midwest standards.
Snow depths and rankings in Minnesota are shown at the link below. On Feb 23rd there was less than one inch of no snow cover in a band from southwest Minnesota through the southern Twin Cities area into western Wisconsin. That area is near or at the bottom of the snow depth ranking scale, as compared to historical records of snow depth. Weather forecasts try to account for the bare ground heating in their forecast adjustments from the modeled forecasts, especially on days with lots of sun, but it still often gets warmer than what they issue. The explanation given to the public is that it's getting so unusually warm because of all the bare ground around which usually isn't snow free in late February. There is rarely if ever any mention of climate change or global warming in the explanations given to the public.
climate.umn.edu/doc/snowmap/snowmap_060223.htm
Also, some of you may be interested in
"The ultimate source for snow ... The National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) National Snow Analysis.
NOHRSC is the third NWS office in Chanhassen, MN, one building for 3 NWS offices.
NWS NOHRSC has national operational responsibility for modeling and measuring snow depth and snow water equivalent. NOHRSC measures the water equivalent of a snowpack by making many flights above hundreds of established flight lines. NOHRSC has been operational for the last 25 years. The water equivalent flight line data is used to update snow hydrologic models which are used in NWS river forecast center probabilistic spring flood outlooks, and river forecasting. Is the data worth the cost in money and GHG emissions? What do you think is the public value of NOAA NWS NOHRSC National Snow Analysis? Positive or negative?
For more info, please see:
www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/
* Highest of record (1897-2006) for January Avg. Daily Mean Temp.
--------------------
*Leech Lake Dam MN
*Milan 1 NW, MN
*Park Rapids 2 S MN
*Pine River Dam MN
*Dickinson ND
*Jamestown ND
*Langdon ND
*Forestburg SD
*Brodhead WI
*Lancaster WI
*Oconto WI
*Prairie Du Chein WI
*New London WI
*Solon Springs WI
*Spooner Exp Stn WI
*Stevens Point WI
*Ironwood MI
*Atlantic IA
*Windsor IL
*Lamar, MO
*Salem, MO
*David City NE
22
Temperature plots at:
pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
I'm monitoring the monthly temperature averages for the period of record in the regions for each of the NWS Cooperative Climate Stations (rural, forested and small town areas) and creating average monthly temperature plots because I think someone needs to be doing this. This should be a government agency function but I don't see any government agency people doing it. I think the gov people are afraid to stick their neck out and show the public that the climate is indeed warming. The proof is in the data, but the agencies that collect the data aren't doing anything with it to show the public what's happening, nor are they monitoring what's really going on.
In my opinion, the government agencies in the U.S. are failing badly in serving the public good on climate change. They're not doing what they should be doing in a time of global crisis... then they fired me for wanting to do what I believed was my job - to evaluate and take account of climate changes on the hydrology within the NC states of the U.S. for modeling and flood prediction purposes. It made no sense to me to use the same one set of calibrated parameters for snowmelt, evaporation and transpiration in a basin where I knew climate change was going on within the historical period of runoff calibration for the river basin.
PS Upper Midwest Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook: Forecast for Minneapolis, MN for March 1, 2006: high temp.43 F, rain. It is too early in the season for specific numerical guidance that means anything. River ice action will be below normal due to not much ice.
-----
..so you will see it again, where i think it needs to be placed.
The situation is fairly simple there is no ability as outlined within 'greenhouse science' for any effect to be produced with the materials it involves, this is not prone to 'statistical failure', it is based on the KNOWN properties of the materials involved, and the obvious errors in the compilation of the 'greenhouse effect' theory. There is no 'precautionary principle' to be regarded in this matter, towards 'greenhouse' concerns and never has been, the 'principle' only expressed to avoid scrutiny. It is all simple air pollution; this is where it began, and where it should have remained by the concerns of SCIENCE.
There is no such thing as 'latent heat' as expressed within the 'greenhouse concept'. The energy mentioned within the 'greenhouse concept as such is infact the energy of a PHOTON.
This energy might be within the boundary of the atmosphere, but it is separate from the molecules within the atmosphere, totally unattached.
Temperature is the scaled measure of the average kinetic VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms of the sample, and the energy of a PHOTON is NOT representable within such calculations of temperature.
The amount of energy made into kinetic energy by interaction is determined by the MATERIAL, FOR EXAMPLE, realise that CO2 has in close proximity 3 large 'positive polarities' as nodal centres O(8+) -- C(6+) -- O(8+). The nodal centres of CO2 will prefer to move apart further, it is only the covalent bonding that produces CO2 with any permanence.
Energy interaction with an incident photon will trend to make the inter-nodal distance larger in CO2, a 'more preferred' situation, but the double valence (of disassociated electrons, i.e. relative negative) 'bonds' will restrain and return the nodal centres, to the overall equilibrium 'common state'. This involves the interaction in a 'mutual attraction' of the retreating 'positive polarities' and the 'relative negative' polarity of the 'bond'.
Thus, CO2 tends to undergo the so-named "Quantum Vibrational State" alterations.
For details relating to CO2:-
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node13.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node14.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node15.html
These interactions result in the production of a secondary photon, which represents the energy placed into the inter-nodal bond that is 'squeezed' out when the molecular conformation (shape) returns to 'normal' after interaction. There is not a 'kinetic vibration' with any 'kinetic considerations' involved in these Quantum events; they are associated with 'dipole moment' alterations.
****
The energy NOT expressed in the remitted photon has gone into alteration to the kinetic energy/velocity of the overall molecular unit, in this case of the CO2 molecule.
****
H2O however only has 1 large and 2 small relative positive centres, the 'desire' to move apart is much lesser.
Energy involved in interaction with incident photons is less likely to make an impact on the molecular conformation (shape) as more will be needed to alter conformation, and so is instead directed in to alterations of the overall kinetic energy/velocity of the H2O molecule.
Both CO2 and H2O absorb energy (as seen in slide above).
However, CO2 by the physical PROPERTIES of the molecule, trends to remit energy as secondary photons, whilst H2O simply gains kinetic velocity (mostly as an addition to its rotation velocity vector) and moves faster through the atmosphere in a 'cartwheel' motion.
**
It is this , the energy of actual kinetic motion of the entire molecular unit, that is measured as alterations to 'heat' of H20, i.e. alteration to kinetic velocity, and such energy gain is that which does NOT involve the production of a secondary photon.
**
*****
It is simply, 'greenhouse' has taken the word 'vibrational' and with NO understanding has attached 'kinetic potential', i.e. 'latent heat' in a total MISINTERPRETATION.
*****
**
It is obvious that the 'greenhouse theory' has again REVERSED known SCIENCE to 'fabricate plausibility'.
**
****
This is why 'greenhouse science' is promoted by concentrating on 'opinionation' of 'talking heads' rather than what the 'heads' are saying, it seems more important for 'greenhouse' as to who speaks, not 'what' is said.
****
It is 'logical' for 'climate concerns' to be attached ONLY IF CO2 and CH4 CAN produce an effect that can influence climate. As these materials CANNOT produce such an effect with their KNOWN properties it is infact irrational to propose any such 'climate alteration processes' can be so produced. This has been so known since the mid 20th century, when the 'greenhouse theory' FAILED all three of its attempts to gain validation, due to the paucity of its 'case' for the existence OF such a 'greenhouse effect' in matters of, and regard to, SCIENCE.
It might be a 'manifesto' for some of a more socio-political intent to "change our ways", but it needs more than 'opinion' to propose that there is any ability to "disrupt the balance of life that has evolved over millennia" simply by considering as existent a 'greenhouse effect'.
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
I'm trying to Comprehend, You Don't Make it Easy
Just to check. You use the words "consume" and "destroy" a lot when talking about energy, e.g.:
Remember Photosynthesis interdicts and consumes the incident energy predominately in the lower and upper visible spectrum.
You are aware of the Laws of Thermodynamics, aren't you? Principle of Conservation of Energy? i.e. energy can be converted from one form to another but it cannot be created or destroyed?
I've Seen This Before
And it still isn't in context.
You say it's "obvious" that greenhouse theory has "reversed science".
Humour me, maybe I'm stupid but I can't follow at all the line of your argument from the discussion of quantum vibrational states thru the different properties of the 2 molecules thru what that means in practice and where it falsifies greenhouse theory. (What does greenhouse theory say in relation to quantum vibrational states? You can't expect everyone to know that straight off).
I'd also like you to respond to the questions I put to you elsewhere on the site, in the appropriate place please.
I am not Pat Neuman
I'm a Chemistry graduate in Scotland bothered by the disinformation and nonsense you are putting around. The same chunks of confusing text everywhere climate science is mentioned . I don't pretend to be authoritative on any topic, I'm just pointing out the things you say that appear to me to be wrong, where I can decipher them.
Your theory, that climate change as it is generally understood is not occurring and that current temperature fluctuations are a result of - what? - "greater kinetic transduction"?, that most certainly is unorthodox.
As such, it should be submitted to a Scientific journal, not a magazine they are very different things as you well know.
I'm not intereested in pursuing a vendetta across numerous websites, I only want to point out where you seem to me to be in error so that people who mightn't have the same scientific background as myself don't get the impression that the climate science is weak.
* Human-induced climate change as a result of "emissions" is a fact.
* This website should be used for exchanging useful information about campaigns to stop it.
* Your spamming behaviour is poisoning the atmosphere here.
Not 'unorthodox' CH, you just try to NOT comprehend.
To example the output of the cascade effect notice the pasage below (again reprised):-
_____
There is more energy being intercepted and suspended within the Atmosphere of this Planet, than becomes surface incident, and once suspended the STATISTICALLY trended direction of ESCAPE is towards higher altitudes, as in (a) above. Thus the inference of “Greenhouse Theory” attempting to produce a claim that these Photons become surface incident is again false. The trend is infact that energy will trend to be directed AWAY from the surface.
Remember Photosynthesis interdicts and consumes the incident energy predominately in the lower and upper visible spectrum. Thus the energy that is surface incident in a constant manner is that in the lower third of the UV spectrum. There is LESS energy incident to the surface of this planet (see above figure 1) due to the atmosphere and the opportunity is given for more energy to escape altogether without being ‘converted’ to kinetic gains (which would be measured as inducted ‘heat’ gains) is IMPROVED by the addition of more CO2 and CH4, regardless of WHERE these additions originate from as these molecules will interdict energy before H2O as they increase in ppm, and give the Photon an opportunity to move 'higher' in the atmosphere with a very small residual induction of intrinsic kinetic energy compared to that H2O would produce.
At best any ‘air pollution’ consisting of CO2 and CH4 will COOL the surface further by increasing the trend for photonic travel out of the atmosphere with avoidance of conversion of their transported energy into kinetic gains of atmospheric molecules, or the planetary surface.
Hence the 'statistics' often quoted within the “Greenhouse concept” platform relating:- ["The albedo of the earth is approximately 39% while the moon's albedo is about 12%.']
-: is infact relating the exodus of photons from the atmospheric cascade.
The lack of a Lunar Atmosphere allows no interdiction of incident photons and so the only remittance you will record is secondary photonic remittance from the actual Lunar Surface materialing.
You will see the ONLY section of the overall spectrum 'untouched' is the 'upper visible' (with some of the 'lower visible') and the bottom 'third' of 'UV' (figure 1vs).
This IS where the energy inducting kinetic energy into the surface is. It is in this area that photosynthesis predates energy for its own processes as mentioned previously. By reducing photosynthetic mass Humanity has availed the process of kinetic energy inductance with extra energy. The surface becomes more 'heated' and conducts this energy to the gases of the Atmosphere and into the Oceanic waters increasing turbulence by processes of Convection.
To observe this process elsewhere, let us consider what SCIENCE can indicate of the situation of Venus. Let it be remembered that Venus has no perceived magnetic field of any consequence (at present), therefore has no permanent creation of a planetary ambient plasma interaction, that interaction which interdicts photons within the Gamma and X-ray Spectrums and spares this planet Earth bombardment by such energy.
TO quote:-
-----
["Venus is sometimes characterized as Earth's 'twin' because of its close proximity in solar system location (~ 0.72 AU heliocentric distance compared to 1.0 AU) and its similar size (~ 6053 km radius compared to - 6371 km radius), but other close resemblances are few. Besides the more obvious atmospheric composition and pressure differences, and the related extreme temperatures at the surface described elsewhere in this volume, events in the history and evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with practically no intrinsic magnetic field. The consequences for the space environment and atmosphere are numerous, ranging from the presence of an 'induced' magnetotail in the wake, to an ionosphere and upper atmosphere that are constantly being scavenged by the passing solar wind."]
-----
Which continues after some use of non essential (for this discussion) material into:-
-----
["The observed fields for the most part could be explained as solar wind interaction-induced features, to be described below. The new upper limit on the dipole moment obtained from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter wake measurements placed the Venus intrinsic planetary magnetic field at ~ 0.000010 times that of Earth."]
["Of course, the weakness of the present measurement does not imply that Venus has always been bereft of an intrinsic field. THEORIES OF THE DYNAMOS OPERATING IN THE LIQUID CORES OF THE NEWLY ACCRETED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS A MAGNETIC MOMENT OF VENUS OF THE SAME ORDER AS EARTH'S FOR ABOUT THE FIRST BILLION YEARS OF VENUS' LIFE."]
-----
Thus the 'shield' generated around the atmosphere of Venus (as so generated around the Earth's atmosphere) ‘fell’ and an enormous amount of energy from within the Gamma and X-Ray spectrums began to stream into the 'biosphere' of Venus. It was NOT 'greenhouse behavior' that created 'Venus' as it is seen today, but the failure of its magnetically induced shield.
Then, there is that the “~100%” Albedo often quoted for Venus is indicative of the density of the atmosphere of Venus, with relation to (a), whilst the temperature is driven by the differing materials and energy interactions.
Just to remind the reader:-
-----
The energy is placed into a CASCADE of Photons within the Atmosphere where it is moved tween 'repeaters' such as CH4 and NO2, step-down agents like CO2 (that remove a little energy before reemitting the residual as a secondary photon) or the terminator (being the H2O molecule) that produces large kinetic gains with little remittance of energy as secondary Photons and thus lowering rapidly the energy content of the Cascade.
(a) Alternatively these Photons might escape to open space, the more likely trended behavior.
This is very likely as atmospheric density is reducing with altitude and so 'incidence rates' with molecules for these Photons is REDUCING with altitude. Also with increased altitude the atmosphere retains less H2O, this molecule being constrained by the condensation and ice point altitudes within the atmosphere, so there is a reduced trend for cascade termination leading to induction of kinetic energy.
-----
Hence the 'statistics' often quoted relating to the platforming of 'greenhouse' concepts:-
["The albedo of the Venus is approximately 100%”]
-: is infact relating the removal of photons from the atmospheric cascade due to the atmospheric density OF the atmosphere of Venus.
Now however, there is little to deflect the energy propagated in the Gamma and X-ray spectrums to protect the atmospheric structure of Venus, as the interactions that exist here with creation of Earth's ambient plasma, ceased as the magnetic field of Venus subsided. Hence the temperatures observed now 'on' Venus are due to the ENERGY within the Gamma and X-Ray spectrum, that would not be expected to enter a cascade within the atmosphere present on Venus, and so becomes surface incident. Thus the 'runaway' effect was infact that of increasing availability of energy, but not at all related to any supposed 'Greenhouse Effect'.
_____
AS mentioned Pat, you need more time in a library, less on the 'internet'.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Little magnets within molecules, the 'dipole'.
Realise that CO2 has in close proximity 3 relatively large 'positive polarities' as nodal centres:-
O(8+) -- C(6+) -- O(8+).
The nodal centres of CO2 will prefer to move apart further, it is only the covalent bonding that produces CO2 with any permanence.
Energy interaction with an incident photon will trend to make the inter-nodal distance larger in CO2, a 'more preferred' situation, but the double valence (of disassociated electrons, i.e. relative negative) 'bonds' will restrain and return the nodal centres, to the overall equilibrium 'common state'. This involves the interaction in a 'mutual attraction' of the retreating 'positive polarities' and the 'relative negative' polarity of the 'bond'.
Thus, CO2 tends to undergo the so-named "Quantum Vibrational State" alterations.
For details relating to CO2:-
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node13.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node14.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node15.html
These interactions result in the production of a secondary photon, which represents the energy placed into the inter-nodal bond that is 'squeezed' out when the molecular conformation (shape) returns to 'normal' after interaction. There is not a 'kinetic vibration' with any 'kinetic considerations' involved in these Quantum events; they are associated with 'dipole moment' alterations.
The energy NOT expressed in the remitted photon has gone into alteration to the kinetic energy/velocity of the overall molecular unit, in this case of the CO2 molecule.
H2O however only has 1 large and 2 small relative positive centres, the 'desire' to move apart is much lesser. Energy involved in interaction with incident photons is less likely to make an impact on the molecular conformation (shape) as more will be needed to alter conformation, and so is instead directed in to alterations of the overall kinetic energy/velocity of the H2O molecule.
Both CO2 and H2O absorb energy (as seen in slide above). However, CO2 by the physical PROPERTIES of the molecule, trends to remit energy as secondary photons, whilst H2O simply gains kinetic velocity (mostly as an addition to its rotation velocity vector) and moves faster through the atmosphere in a 'cartwheel' motion.
It is this that is measured as alterations to 'heat' of H20, i.e. alteration to kinetic velocity, and such energy gain is that which does NOT involve the production of a secondary photon.
It is simply, 'greenhouse' has taken the word 'vibrational' and with NO understanding has attached 'kinetic potential', i.e. 'latent heat' in a total MISINTERPRETATION.
It is obvious that the 'greenhouse theory' has again REVERSED known SCIENCE to 'fabricate plausibility'. This is why 'greenhouse science' is promoted by concentrating on 'opinionation' of 'talking heads' rather than what the 'heads' are saying, it seems more important for 'greenhouse' as to who speaks, not 'what' is said.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Missed a bit more Pat N.?
"CH", 'Chanhassen snow hydrologist', otherwise known widely as Pat Neuman, you are well aware that the material I mention is not 'unorthodox' and most certainly does not need to be printed in a 'greenhouse magazine' to be valid. Simply as YOU are unknowledgeable is not a reason for myself to educate you. You need Pat to cease pretending to be 'authoritive' in any manner.
Firstly Pat you highlight EXACTLY the misinterpretations of 'greenhouse science'. PHOTOSYNTHESIS consumes ENERGY to use CO2. The CARBON CYCLE was devised to track the ENERGY consumption using 'carbon' as a convenient 'trace'. It is that 'greenhouse science' has REVERSED the situation, and then every other situation it 'imagines' has become 'back-to-front' from reality.
You Pat obviously have no knowledge of cascade effects, and the ACTUAL material properties involved in remittance of energy after interaction, and after years have shown no attempt TO understand, simply continuing to attack myself.
The Theory of UNIFORM BLACKBODIES is a conceptualisation of a material that pre-dates the greater and more detail SCIENCE of the 20th Century.
The concepts contained within the 'greenhouse theory' are based in hypothetical constructs of 'matter' and 'interactions' from a time when direct study was not available. In this period (19th century) theory, such as seen in the 'Ideal Gas' or the 'Uniform Blackbody', where devised to aid philosophical concerns.
These theories HAVE displayed variance from reality however; the 'ideal gas' concept is applicable in a universal manner only at low pressure. This was realised in the late 1800's even within the design process of the 'gas thermometer'. As such, the best 'ideal gas' is at near vacuum levels of 'pressure'. The 'blackbody' has various assumptions used within its assembly that need to be maintained to USE the theory validly. That the star Sol can produce a 'blackbody' output, but is not in any manner within the definition of being a 'uniform blackbody' again highlights limits of use for this theory also.
It is that the 'greenhouse theory' was not validated in the 3 attempts of the 20th century as the knowledge of SCIENCE regarding the ACTUAL materials present was improving. BY the 3rd attempt, it was clear to all that it was NOT possible to 'fit' VALIDLY the 'greenhouse theory' into the reality known at that point, and it has NEVER been seen that this situation has altered in SCIENCE.
So the REAL problem of the 'greenhouse THEORY' is it cannot produce the 'greenhouse effect', with the materials it involves, in the manner it 'produces'. It is really that simple.
To place the rhetoric of Pat N into perpespetive for those wo visit this thread, it needs to be realised the level of harrasement Pat is engaging in after it became obvious he (and others) could NOT overcome my points in discussion, even after having blocked my ability to respond in many discussion sites. It is Pat N. can only produce 'discussion' as a monologue or as an 'alias identity' (like 'pooper' perhaps), with reference to:-
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
-----
Hartlod, King of Irrelevance and Obfuscation
01 Mar 2006 by CH
Re: And you know this HOW 'pooper'?
02 Mar 2006 by Pooper
-----
I will answer here also
Why should we have seen more 'cooling'?
There is not answer forthcoming to validate such opinion 'pooper', just the sound of rapidly running sneakers, and it also seems to overlook the entire situation as I outlined for the past 400 years, that being again human sprawl, with regard to other common knowledge:-
--------------------
From 'A chronology of climate change'
.
.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
-------------------
#file_1# (human population)
It is very simply 'pooper' there is no trend viable from only '15 years', there is no trend viable from the past 150 years, and no matter how many data points you place into that period, you will still not get a trend. This is known of statistical process, often ignored within the opinion and inference proffered in regard to 'greenhouse climate change'.
#file_2#(surface temp plot)
If you look at the plot of SURFACE temperature you link to 'pooper' you will notice the trend linked to HUMAN POPULATION for the period. I again provide the most relevant plots. The rise in average surface temperature (Chart 2) is in tandem with rematerialing produced by the rise in population (Chart 1).
Greater definition of population rise and redistribution is seen in chart 3, with geographic redistribution of Human population seen in chart 4.
#file_3#(pop redistribution)
The trend of Human Population redistribution will continue to see sprawl over presently existing 'green' regions, like the Amazonian basin. This trend, along with its linked interactions with turbulence and weather patterning, from surface kinetic energy induction rate and distribution alterations, will follow this redistribution produced by surface rematerialing producing further changes to weather and regional 'climates'.
#file_4#(pop geographic redistribution)
There is no possibility in SCIENCE however for a 'greenhouse effect' to even be produced by the materials such 'greenhouse concepts' would involve as the actual materials do not posses the properties outlined as 'greenhouse behavior'. To save typing again, please read http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and additional comments.
So it is only an opinion upon which you base your premise 'pooper' (Pat)? What about considering SCIENCE. An OPINION from a 'scientist', or a journalist 'science editor', are NEITHER expressions of SCIENCE. It is that few if any of the labeled ‘climate experts’, the supposed 'relevant scientists' often presenting ‘doom and woe’, can actually place our ‘present’ into the actual known climate oscillation.
How then can they be at all referenced as producing ‘future scenarios’ of ‘human induced ‘climate woes’? Effectively they are 'lost' and if we had heeded these ‘climate experts’ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the ‘Global Cooling scare’ of the 1970’s.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Missed a bit
About your ideas about the energy of photons, i.e.
The Photon has to run a very real 'gauntlet' to become surface incident. Even if some DO make the surface, these 'lucky few' Photons will not retain much energy
Basically, NO. A photon's energy is proportional to its wavelength. Read up on the Photoelectric Effect, Black body radiation and Einstein's early experiments to understand where the energy of a photon comes from and how it is absorbed. Photons that hit the surface do so because they have the right level(s) of energy to get through the protective layers of our atmosphere. They don't limp down to the surface.
Also NO:
There was no, and still is no, link to carbon directly in relation to this energy as it is NOT removed by ‘carbo