On 08/10/2013 14:14, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 13:16, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/10/2013 12:42, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 09:36, Nightjar wrote:

8

AIUI the main problem at the poles is that the seas are warming around
them. Seas are not likely to have much effect in the middle of Asia.

My understanding is that the northern polar regions in particular are
warming faster than average due to the change in albedo caused by sea
ice turning into open water and snow cover on land receding. The
northern march of the tree line will also eventually have an effect but
that is very slow process. There is much less scope for such changes in
the southern hemisphere.


You should also state that the sun is closer when the north is in winter
so solar changes may well have a bigger effect on ice than in the south
when its futher away in their winter.

I have no idea whether or not the Sun exhibits the properties you claim
and can't be arsed to even check since the one thing most of us know
about the polar regions in winter is that sunlight is largely or wholly
absent.

But that would require a more balanced view than you appear to have.

How I appear to you is the least of my worries.

Personally I will just assume any scientist that is unwilling to publish
their data and methods is lying.

There is 2 sides to any coin. Why publish only to have dishonest people
cherry pick the data and build a false case that then needs answering?


Like I said they are lying, I see no reason why I should not assume that.

On 08/10/2013 19:03, dennis@home wrote:
There is 2 sides to any coin. Why publish only to have dishonest people
cherry pick the data and build a false case that then needs answering?


Like I said they are lying, I see no reason why I should not assume that.

You can assume the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese. It
won't alter the facts in any way.

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.

--
Roger Chapman

On 08/10/2013 20:04, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 19:03, dennis@home wrote:
There is 2 sides to any coin. Why publish only to have dishonest people
cherry pick the data and build a false case that then needs answering?


Like I said they are lying, I see no reason why I should not assume that.

You can assume the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese. It
won't alter the facts in any way.

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.


So you don't believe the greenhouse effect warms greenhouses.
I think that is fairly easy to prove, but perhaps not to a denyer like you.

On 08/10/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.


So you don't believe the greenhouse effect warms greenhouses.
I think that is fairly easy to prove, but perhaps not to a denyer like you.

Not what I said. The greenhouse effect makes a negligible difference in
greenhouses. If there was no greenhouse effect you wouldn't notice the
difference in temperature in a greenhouse. Perhaps that is where the
deniers get the idea that CO2 is inconsequential as a greenhouse gas.
--
Roger Chapman

On 08/10/2013 21:08, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.


So you don't believe the greenhouse effect warms greenhouses.
I think that is fairly easy to prove, but perhaps not to a denyer like
you.

Not what I said.

What you said is in the quote, I suggest you read it.

The greenhouse effect makes a negligible difference in
greenhouses.

So why have a greenhouse if they don't work?

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 11:50:44 AM UTC+13, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/10/2013 21:08, Roger Chapman wrote:
The greenhouse effect makes a negligible difference in
greenhouses.
So why have a greenhouse if they don't work?

Some people put lots of extra CO2 in their greenhouses to make their plants grow faster, because there's not enough CO2 in the air at the moment. Plants and other organisms keep using it up and forming huge deposits of soil and limestone etc.

On 08/10/13 23:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/10/2013 21:08, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.


So you don't believe the greenhouse effect warms greenhouses.
I think that is fairly easy to prove, but perhaps not to a denyer like
you.

Not what I said.

What you said is in the quote, I suggest you read it.

The greenhouse effect makes a negligible difference in
greenhouses.

So why have a greenhouse if they don't work?


Glasshouses have a different '(glasshouse)' effect :-)


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 08/10/2013 23:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/10/2013 21:08, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.


So you don't believe the greenhouse effect warms greenhouses.
I think that is fairly easy to prove, but perhaps not to a denyer like
you.

Not what I said.

What you said is in the quote, I suggest you read it.

I suggest your try at least to comprehend what I wrote.

The greenhouse effect makes a negligible difference in
greenhouses.

So why have a greenhouse if they don't work?

Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.

--
Roger Chapman

On 09/10/2013 06:58, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 23:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/10/2013 21:08, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 08/10/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:

I assume there are still a few people around who think the world
really
is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what warms greenhouses.


So you don't believe the greenhouse effect warms greenhouses.
I think that is fairly easy to prove, but perhaps not to a denyer like
you.

Not what I said.

What you said is in the quote, I suggest you read it.

I suggest your try at least to comprehend what I wrote.

So what did you mean by "I assume there are still a few people around
who think the world really is flat or that the greenhouse effect is what
warms greenhouses."

I think its fairly safe to assume the world isn't flat and that the
greenhouse effect does warm greenhouses.


The greenhouse effect makes a negligible difference in
greenhouses.

So why have a greenhouse if they don't work?

Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

On 09/10/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

TFP gave you a helpful tip just upthread. You really should have taken
note of it as you are both on the same side.

The greenhouse effect is in essence simple. The greenhouse gas absorbs
infra-red radiation and re-radiates it equally in all directions. The
net result is that the amount of uv that eventually radiates into space
is significantly less than would have radiated had there been no
greenhouse gases to intercept it. This is inconsequential in a
greenhouse both because there is only a 6 foot column of air, not the 6
mile column in the atmosphere and, much more importantly, the air
outside the greenhouse is much the same as the air inside and it is the
difference in temperature between outside and inside that makes a
greenhouse so useful. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air which, if
not contained, would naturally rise.
--
Roger Chapman

On 09/10/2013 16:50, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

TFP gave you a helpful tip just upthread. You really should have taken
note of it as you are both on the same side.

The greenhouse effect is in essence simple. The greenhouse gas absorbs
infra-red radiation and re-radiates it equally in all directions. The
net result is that the amount of uv that eventually radiates into space
is significantly less than would have radiated had there been no
greenhouse gases to intercept it. This is inconsequential in a
greenhouse both because there is only a 6 foot column of air, not the 6
mile column in the atmosphere and, much more importantly, the air
outside the greenhouse is much the same as the air inside and it is the
difference in temperature between outside and inside that makes a
greenhouse so useful. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air which, if
not contained, would naturally rise.


Well I think that proves that you just don't have a clue.

On 09/10/2013 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:50, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the
likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

TFP gave you a helpful tip just upthread. You really should have taken
note of it as you are both on the same side.

The greenhouse effect is in essence simple. The greenhouse gas absorbs
infra-red radiation and re-radiates it equally in all directions. The
net result is that the amount of uv that eventually radiates into space
is significantly less than would have radiated had there been no
greenhouse gases to intercept it. This is inconsequential in a
greenhouse both because there is only a 6 foot column of air, not the 6
mile column in the atmosphere and, much more importantly, the air
outside the greenhouse is much the same as the air inside and it is the
difference in temperature between outside and inside that makes a
greenhouse so useful. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air which, if
not contained, would naturally rise.

Well I think that proves that you just don't have a clue.

I rather think your comment proves a) that it is you that doesn't have a
clue and b) that your mind is so tightly closed to reason that it makes
the dark of the polar night look positively bright.

Never mind I am sure all our other climate changer deniers will stay
silent out of sympathy so you will only have me to contend with.


Roger Chapman

On 09/10/2013 17:49, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:50, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the
likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm
the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

TFP gave you a helpful tip just upthread. You really should have taken
note of it as you are both on the same side.

The greenhouse effect is in essence simple. The greenhouse gas absorbs
infra-red radiation and re-radiates it equally in all directions. The
net result is that the amount of uv that eventually radiates into space
is significantly less than would have radiated had there been no
greenhouse gases to intercept it. This is inconsequential in a
greenhouse both because there is only a 6 foot column of air, not the 6
mile column in the atmosphere and, much more importantly, the air
outside the greenhouse is much the same as the air inside and it is the
difference in temperature between outside and inside that makes a
greenhouse so useful. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air which, if
not contained, would naturally rise.

Well I think that proves that you just don't have a clue.

I rather think your comment proves a) that it is you that doesn't have a
clue and b) that your mind is so tightly closed to reason that it makes
the dark of the polar night look positively bright.

Never mind I am sure all our other climate changer deniers will stay
silent out of sympathy so you will only have me to contend with.


Roger Chapman

Do you want a list of the cock-ups you made in your reply or do you want
to go and find out what was wrong in what you said.

I think the list would make you look pretty stupid so why not..

What do you suppose is wrong with "The net result is that the amount of
uv that eventually radiates into space is significantly less than would
have radiated had there been no greenhouse gases to intercept it."

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.

etc.

On 09/10/2013 18:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 17:49, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:50, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 09/10/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
Greenhouses do work. That is why the term greenhouse effect was
coined
in the first place to describe what greenhouse gases do but the
mechanism is different as most people ready understand even if the
likes
of TFP deny that there is any positive feedback involved.


The mechanism is the same, trap longer wavelengths of light and warm
the
insides up.
If you think the mechanism is different then maybe you should explain
your mechanism.

TFP gave you a helpful tip just upthread. You really should have taken
note of it as you are both on the same side.

The greenhouse effect is in essence simple. The greenhouse gas absorbs
infra-red radiation and re-radiates it equally in all directions. The
net result is that the amount of uv that eventually radiates into space
is significantly less than would have radiated had there been no
greenhouse gases to intercept it. This is inconsequential in a
greenhouse both because there is only a 6 foot column of air, not the 6
mile column in the atmosphere and, much more importantly, the air
outside the greenhouse is much the same as the air inside and it is the
difference in temperature between outside and inside that makes a
greenhouse so useful. Greenhouses work by trapping warm air which, if
not contained, would naturally rise.

Well I think that proves that you just don't have a clue.

I rather think your comment proves a) that it is you that doesn't have a
clue and b) that your mind is so tightly closed to reason that it makes
the dark of the polar night look positively bright.

Never mind I am sure all our other climate changer deniers will stay
silent out of sympathy so you will only have me to contend with.

Do you want a list of the cock-ups you made in your reply or do you want
to go and find out what was wrong in what you said.

I think the list would make you look pretty stupid so why not..

What do you suppose is wrong with "The net result is that the amount of
uv that eventually radiates into space is significantly less than would
have radiated had there been no greenhouse gases to intercept it."

I have no idea why I should have typed uv when I meant infra-red.

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.

The glass (or plastic) keeps the hot air from rising.

etc.

Do tell.

--
Roger Chapman

On 09/10/2013 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.

just a stray thought. Perhaps Dennis' greenhouse is made with low-e
Pilkington glass.

--
Roger Chapman

On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.



etc.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Don't confuse Chapman its hard enough with the very basics.


Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

Commercial greenhouses frequently have fans to prevent stagnation of the
air.


It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

No it doesn't.
Glass is poor at transmitting some wavelengths.
Why do you think passive IR detectors don't work through windows?
You did know they don't work through windows?


Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

It is as is water.
Whether it has a significant effect is another thing.


So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.



etc.

On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

Hands up all those who think TFP has gone too far for all but the most
dedicated of deniers.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.



etc.


But there you have it Dennis - the master has spoken and spoken so
nicely. What on Earth has happened to turn the most obnoxious poster on
this ng into a pussy cat?

--
Roger Chapman

On 09/10/2013 20:11, dennis@home wrote:

A lot more than that actually dennis.

Don't confuse Chapman its hard enough with the very basics.

Keep on digging but if you keep contradicting TFP he won't continue
being nice for very long.
--
Roger Chapman

On 09/10/2013 18:22, Roger Chapman wrote:
etc.

Do tell.

Dennis has unaccountably failed to explain all the other mistakes I
made. I would have thought he would have relished the opportunity.
--
Roger Chapman

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip
Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

Hands up all those who think TFP has gone too far for all but the most
dedicated of deniers.

I think I can accept that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates energy. I don't
know enough to place a value on that compared with black body radiation
hinted below, cloud cover, con trails or any of the other plus or minus
factors mentioned over the last few weeks.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.



etc.


But there you have it Dennis - the master has spoken and spoken so
nicely. What on Earth has happened to turn the most obnoxious poster on
this ng into a pussy cat?

:-)


--
Tim Lamb

On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said. But
until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the greenhouse
effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance about the subject
your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse than
crap on crap.

On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said. But
until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the greenhouse
effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance about the subject
your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse than
crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an open
topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can easily pass.

if I say 'Ive for lssa rockwool., but no wind proofing, so it will still
be just as good an insulator, right?' Its not that the physics is wrong,
its just become irrelevant..




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 09/10/2013 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said. But
until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the greenhouse
effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance about the subject
your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse than
crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an open
topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can easily pass.

snip irrelevance

I've not seen any claim that CO2 causes global warming through being an
insulator. Your statement says it all that you clearly don't understand
how or why CO2 is described as a greenhouse gas.

On 09/10/13 21:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping
the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere,
it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said. But
until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the greenhouse
effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance about the subject
your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse than
crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an open
topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can easily pass.

snip irrelevance

I've not seen any claim that CO2 causes global warming through being an
insulator. Your statement says it all that you clearly don't understand
how or why CO2 is described as a greenhouse gas.
perhaps you should study teh physics of how insulators do insulation


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 09/10/2013 23:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping
the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer than
the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar heating
would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases massively in
movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL air,
mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the atmosphere,
it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground radiation
direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said. But
until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the greenhouse
effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance about the subject
your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse than
crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an open
topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can easily pass.

snip irrelevance

I've not seen any claim that CO2 causes global warming through being an
insulator. Your statement says it all that you clearly don't understand
how or why CO2 is described as a greenhouse gas.
perhaps you should study teh physics of how insulators do insulation

Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.

On 09/10/2013 23:36, Fredxx wrote:


Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.

He (and some others) doesn't understand that different wavelengths are
absorbed more by some materials like gases and glass.

That however doesn't mean the bit of co2 we put into the environment has
a huge effect on climate. There is little evidence to support that
theory. If there was it would be published.

Fredxx wrote:

On 09/10/2013 23:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping
the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer
than the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar
heating would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases
massively in movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL
air, mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the
atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground
radiation direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said.
But until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the
greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance
about the subject your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse
than crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an
open topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can
easily pass.

snip irrelevance

I've not seen any claim that CO2 causes global warming through being
an
insulator. Your statement says it all that you clearly don't
understand how or why CO2 is described as a greenhouse gas.
perhaps you should study teh physics of how insulators do insulation

Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.


Maybe we are forgetting that the Earth does have containment (a roof and
wall) to prevent convection and conduction from allowing heat to escape.
It's called gravity. We are in a vacuum. Gain and loss come primarily
via radiation. At least that's what I understand to be the case.

That's why understanding greenhouse gasses is so important in trying to
understand the Earth. Particularly as it appears that we are one of the
causes of changing the levels of such gasses. It's not a matter that can
be resolved by discussion alone - we have to study the science.

Presenting "findings" based on secret data is worse than useless it just
contributes to the muddle. It's an insult to science.

Edgar

On 10/10/2013 08:27, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 23:36, Fredxx wrote:


Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.

He (and some others) doesn't understand that different wavelengths are
absorbed more by some materials like gases and glass.

Crucially that molecules with three or more atoms in them have a soft
mode that is excited by and can absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

That however doesn't mean the bit of co2 we put into the environment has
a huge effect on climate. There is little evidence to support that
theory. If there was it would be published.

It was originally published by Tyndall in 1860 and independently by
Fourier in around 1820 see for example the AIP review at:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Whilst you could complain about the name "greenhouse effect" the physics
is clear that adding CO2 slows down the escape of outgoing thermal
radiation at temperatures characteristic of the Earth's surface.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10/10/13 08:27, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 23:36, Fredxx wrote:


Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.

He (and some others) doesn't understand that different wavelengths are
absorbed more by some materials like gases and glass.


That is of course the general property of insulators.

That however doesn't mean the bit of co2 we put into the environment has
a huge effect on climate. There is little evidence to support that
theory. If there was it would be published.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/13 09:03, Edgar wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 09/10/2013 23:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping
the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer
than the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar
heating would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases
massively in movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL
air, mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the
atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground
radiation direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said.
But until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the
greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance
about the subject your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse
than crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an
open topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can
easily pass.

snip irrelevance

I've not seen any claim that CO2 causes global warming through being
an
insulator. Your statement says it all that you clearly don't
understand how or why CO2 is described as a greenhouse gas.
perhaps you should study teh physics of how insulators do insulation

Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.


Maybe we are forgetting that the Earth does have containment (a roof and
wall) to prevent convection and conduction from allowing heat to escape.
It's called gravity. We are in a vacuum. Gain and loss come primarily
via radiation. At least that's what I understand to be the case.


Its not the primary wy, ultimately its the only way, sione you
cantconductheat throuhgh a vacuum.

However waht goes on in between in terms of carrying te heat to where it
will radiate, is a rather different story. There is no roof, because
there is notyhing to stop radiation from escaping to space, except
whats in the atmoshere BUT - and this is the crux - that only holds true
if the atmsohere itself is 'just an insulating blanket'.

(for those of you challeneged by the science,an insulator is anything
that prevents heat from being carried through it, by whatever means,
i.e. it absorbs rather than conducts)

So if therewere no vertacal air currents at all, the greenhouse effect
so called would be valid.

Thast more or less how te crude pghysics that underpins it is justified.

Howver, the atmosphere nas MASSIVE vertial circulations. Radiation
doesnt just happen from the earths surface, but from cloud tops up in
the stratosphere *above* a large proportion of the earths atmosphere,
where any remaining insulative propertoies of greenhouse gases will
simply not affect the earth below, due to the cloud being in the way.

In short water vapour carries heat from the surface to beyond the point
where what's happening in the atmosphere has any effect on it.

which is why comparisons witha greenhouse are at best, disingenuous.

Also more low level cloud means less radiation reaches the earth in the
first place. Clouds reflect incoming radiation. Thats why they look
white from on top.


It doesnt take a genius to realise that the water vapour/cloud cycle is
an overwhelming cooling process, that negates the effects of CO2 in the
atmposhere, by carrying heat beyond it, and the response to higher
temperatures will be more clouds, more heat loss and less radiation
reaching the earth.

In other words te water cycle is a massive thermostat that keeps the
earth between the freezing and boiling point of water, by and large.

And tahts why global climate is probably affected by anything that
interferes with this process farfar more than it is by a few parts per
million of carbon dioxide.

Recent satelleite data is clearly showing deep correlation between
global average temepartures and global cloud cover.

But the IPCC of course brushes all that aside...


That's why understanding greenhouse gasses is so important in trying to
understand the Earth.

well no, its actually NOT that important in comparison with
understanding the water cycle, which dominates the whole system

Particularly as it appears that we are one of the
causes of changing the levels of such gasses. It's not a matter that can
be resolved by discussion alone - we have to study the science.


the IPCC faux logic.

Presenting "findings" based on secret data is worse than useless it just
contributes to the muddle. It's an insult to science.


The IPCC and in partcular the university of east anglia, in a nutshell.

Edgar




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/13 09:13, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:27, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2013 23:36, Fredxx wrote:


Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.

He (and some others) doesn't understand that different wavelengths are
absorbed more by some materials like gases and glass.

Crucially that molecules with three or more atoms in them have a soft
mode that is excited by and can absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

That however doesn't mean the bit of co2 we put into the environment has
a huge effect on climate. There is little evidence to support that
theory. If there was it would be published.

It was originally published by Tyndall in 1860 and independently by
Fourier in around 1820 see for example the AIP review at:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Whilst you could complain about the name "greenhouse effect" the physics
is clear that adding CO2 slows down the escape of outgoing thermal
radiation at temperatures characteristic of the Earth's surface.

yes, by about IIRC 0.2C for every doubling of CO2, all other things
being equal.

Which they are not.

And thats where the fraud begins.

The algorithm is simple.

IF all late 20th century warming is driven by CO2
THEN there must be an unkonwn 'amplifier' magnifying the effects of CO2,
to account for the quite rapid rate of rise.

AND that means that the future looks deeply scary and temperatures
should climb in response to rising CO2 levels.

On the otherhand IF all the 20th Century warming is down to an unknown
'other driver from CO2' THEN CO2 can do its 0.2C thing, and something
else does the rest.

AND the implications are that there is no scary future, its nothing to
do with human activity, and an organisation whose SPECIFIC TERMS OF
REFERENCE are to examine the impact of MAN MADE climate change, has no
useful function at all, and there is no good reason to have it, or
support the thousands of researchers who take as given the fact that man
made climate change is real, and happening.

AND if it were so a 20 year 'pause' in global warming despite continued
rises in CO2 levels would not be in the least bit surprising.

AND there would be no excuse for massive government intervention and
massive profits to be made selling 'green' policies and technologies to
a gullible public, or any continued justification for the control of
global politics by a small cadre of unlected politcians.

Go figure..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/2013 09:03, Edgar wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 09/10/2013 23:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 21:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 21:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/10/2013 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/10/13 18:11, dennis@home wrote:

What do you think the glass does in a greenhouse if not stopping
the IR
radiation from being radiated and hence making the inside warmer
than the outside. Its just as well that it does or passive solar
heating would be a waste of time.


A lot more than that actually dennis.

Its effects on convection are massive. And in genearal convection
accounts for around 80% of heat lost from a hot object in air.

A lot of te other 20% ois conducation, and that increases
massively in movng air.

So what a greenhouse does, is trap an insulating blanket of STILL
air, mostly. It can't rise and the wind dont get in.

It does sod all for radiation. That goes through glass easily.

Now until carbon dioxide puts a wall and a roof on the
atmosphere, it is
not a 'greenhouse' gas.

So long as the dominant energy loss is not 'nightime ground
radiation direct into space' it doesnt have a huge amount to do.


In the past I might have agreed with may things you have said.
But until you have a clue about CO2 and the role it plays in the
greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, or stop showing ignorance
about the subject your posts have become worthless.

Even where dennis is spouting crap as well. There's nothing worse
than crap on crap.

CO2 is claimed to work as an insulator. But it can't do that in an
open topped atmsophere through which clouds and water vapour can
easily pass.

snip irrelevance

I've not seen any claim that CO2 causes global warming through being
an
insulator. Your statement says it all that you clearly don't
understand how or why CO2 is described as a greenhouse gas.
perhaps you should study teh physics of how insulators do insulation

Most gases are very good insulators. What has this got to do with the
CO2 greenhouse effect? You still don't know what it is, do you.


Maybe we are forgetting that the Earth does have containment (a roof and
wall) to prevent convection and conduction from allowing heat to escape.
It's called gravity. We are in a vacuum. Gain and loss come primarily
via radiation. At least that's what I understand to be the case.

TNP doesn't understand radiation. He believes the most significant heat
transfer in a gas is through conduction.

That's why understanding greenhouse gasses is so important in trying to
understand the Earth. Particularly as it appears that we are one of the
causes of changing the levels of such gasses. It's not a matter that can
be resolved by discussion alone - we have to study the science.

Agreed. I sit on the fence climate wise, I'm more concerned over the
depletion of fossil fuels and natural resources. When they're gone,
they're gone.

Presenting "findings" based on secret data is worse than useless it just
contributes to the muddle. It's an insult to science.


But its all we have. Science, politics and money are often intertwined
distorting the real picture, though only temporarily.

On 10/10/13 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
TNP doesn't understand radiation. He believes the most significant heat
transfer in a gas is through conduction.


That's because actually it is

In many cases.

Radiators dont heat your house through radiation, but about 80% by
convections which is assisted conduction.

gases dont radiate much at room temperatures. The energy is the fourth
power of temperature.

This is sufficiently dumbed down as to pssibly be withing your grasp

http://www.g9toengineering.com/resou...attransfer.htm

As I have said time and agan, heat loss from the earths SURFACE is not
except in dry desests primarily radiation. It is via convection and
advection of water vapour and thereby to clouds, and clouds do the final
radiation into space. No one disputes this, but cO2 fanatics ignore it
and hand wave it away. Because its impossibly hard to model.

And because clouds sit high up in the atmoshere, what the compositiion
of the atmoshere underneath is, is totally irrelevant to their activity
in radiating heat away.

IPCC climate models are based on O level physics, at best. They simply
'paraemeterise' all the important detail and hand wave it away, just as
you do. But you cant do that and get an accurate preduction.

Which is why they never have.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 10/10/2013 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
TNP doesn't understand radiation. He believes the most significant heat
transfer in a gas is through conduction.


That's because actually it is

In many cases.

Radiators dont heat your house through radiation, but about 80% by
convections which is assisted conduction.

Air is heated by the radiator by conduction - yes, but the method of
transfer to the rest of the room is through convection. Heat conduction
within air is pitiful. Convection is hardly assisted conduction, and is
regarded as a separate form of heat transfer. Have you studied O-level
physic? At last you accept that the majority of heat transfer from a
domestic radiator is through convection.


gases dont radiate much at room temperatures. The energy is the fourth
power of temperature.

I can assure you there is much thermal radiation. Have you looked up
how much a 1 sq-m of surface radiates/emits in terms of W/sq-m at normal
temperatures. A black-body approximation will do.

This is sufficiently dumbed down as to pssibly be withing your grasp

http://www.g9toengineering.com/resou...attransfer.htm

And you still get confused with conduction and convection - shees.


As I have said time and agan, heat loss from the earths SURFACE is not
except in dry desests primarily radiation. It is via convection and
advection of water vapour and thereby to clouds, and clouds do the final
radiation into space. No one disputes this, but cO2 fanatics ignore it
and hand wave it away. Because its impossibly hard to model.

The Earth is a finely balanced thermal system with numerous competing
mechanisms. However until you understand the greenhouse effect and the
significance of CO2, you won't understand why some of us are concerned.

You have no idea of the wavelength of ground temperature thermal
radiation, and the corresponding transmission of those wavelengths
through the atmosphere, otherwise you would not have made such a
schoolboy like presumption that only deserts can radiate thermal energy.

And because clouds sit high up in the atmoshere, what the compositiion
of the atmoshere underneath is, is totally irrelevant to their activity
in radiating heat away.

IPCC climate models are based on O level physics, at best. They simply
'paraemeterise' all the important detail and hand wave it away, just as
you do. But you cant do that and get an accurate preduction.

Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

Which is why they never have.

Models aren't hand waving, hand waving is what you are doing here.

On 10/10/2013 12:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/10/13 12:24, Fredxx wrote:
TNP doesn't understand radiation. He believes the most significant heat
transfer in a gas is through conduction.

That's because actually it is

Untrue. Dry air is a supremely good insulator if you prevent it from
moving about by enclosing it in a foam. The most impressive being
aerogel which is to a very good approximation immobilised air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ae...r_filtered.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

Double glazing and fridge insulation also relies trapped air or a higher
molecular weight blowing agent being an extremely good insulator.

Helium or hydrogen are comparatively good conductors of heat for a gas. eg

http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_tr...vity-gases.htm

In many cases.

Radiators dont heat your house through radiation, but about 80% by
convections which is assisted conduction.

That is a very unusual and perverse definition of conduction you have
there Humpty Dumpty. Bulk movement of the working fluid to transfer heat
energy is convection just like the granulation cells on the solar
photosphere or easily seen on the surface of hot oil in a frying pan.

gases dont radiate much at room temperatures. The energy is the fourth
power of temperature.

Diatomic ones barely at all. Polyatomics like CO2, H20, O3 and CH4 do
which is why they are opaque to some thermal IR and make a difference.

This is sufficiently dumbed down as to pssibly be withing your grasp

http://www.g9toengineering.com/resou...attransfer.htm

As I have said time and agan, heat loss from the earths SURFACE is not
except in dry desests primarily radiation. It is via convection and
advection of water vapour and thereby to clouds, and clouds do the final
radiation into space. No one disputes this, but cO2 fanatics ignore it
and hand wave it away. Because its impossibly hard to model.

No they don't you are creating straw men here.

And because clouds sit high up in the atmoshere, what the compositiion
of the atmoshere underneath is, is totally irrelevant to their activity
in radiating heat away.

In the thermal IR bands where the atmosphere is opaque thermal IR
photons have to complete a random walk to escape.

IPCC climate models are based on O level physics, at best. They simply
'paraemeterise' all the important detail and hand wave it away, just as
you do. But you cant do that and get an accurate preduction.

Which is why they never have.

In your dreams.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:

The Earth is a finely balanced thermal system with numerous competing
mechanisms. However until you understand the greenhouse effect and the
significance of CO2, you won't understand why some of us are concerned.

Its a balanced thermal system, but its hardly finely balanced.
Just look at some of the variations we have had in the past.

What you can also see is that its actually quite well buffered too as
changes normally take a few decades.

On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have done.

On 10/10/2013 19:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:

The Earth is a finely balanced thermal system with numerous competing
mechanisms. However until you understand the greenhouse effect and the
significance of CO2, you won't understand why some of us are concerned.

Its a balanced thermal system, but its hardly finely balanced.
Just look at some of the variations we have had in the past.

What you can also see is that its actually quite well buffered too as
changes normally take a few decades.


The variations in the past have been significant. That is the point you
seem to be missing is that they may not have been caused by anything
significant.

A small increase in volcanic activity can have a profound effect on
global temperatures and a small change of precipitation in the Atlantic
can have a significant effect on the Atlantic Conveyor causing a massive
change in the weather patterns in the Northern hemisphere.

On 10/10/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/10/2013 17:20, Fredxx wrote:


Do you really believe that? At least they understand conduction,
convection and radiation, and can apply those simple laws of physic to
their models.

How do yu know?
they haven't published their models or what data they have selected.
Unless you are one of the "scientists" you don't know what they have done.

Most reputable models are explained in peer reviewed journals. Models
are often reproduced and compared. If they were truly published would
you be any the wiser?