Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

palerider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,624
If AGW theory were correct and increasing atmospheric CO2 caused warming, it would happen because the increased CO2 would capture more long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelengths. That means that if one took a snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation in say 1970 and another snapshot of the outgoing long wave radiation at a later date when more atmospheric CO2 were present, less outgoing long wave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelenghts would prove the basis of AGW theory. An equal or greater amount of outgoing longwave radiation in those wavelengths would disprove the basis for AGW theory as it would indicate that even though more atmospheric CO2 were present, no more long wave radiation was being absorbed by that increased CO2. Well, guess what?

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

GT20pic2.jpg


The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.
GT20pic4.jpg

GT20pic3.jpg

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.
 
Werbung:
Further:

CO2 Absorption Spectrum
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

Saturation is a term physicists use when all suitable radiation gets absorbed, so adding more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything.

Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.

Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.

What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.


Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.

Absorption Peaks

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

Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.

A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

Attempted Fix

This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.
The outer edges of the shoulders of the absorption peaks are said to be unsaturated, because they don't absorb all radiation available to them. The unsaturated area is virtually nonexistent. The image at right shows how the distance of absorption increases as shoulder molecules get thinner. Where the molecules are one tenth the density, the distance is ten times as much, which is 100 meters. Where the density of one hundredth, the distance is 1,000 meters. Where is the unsaturation supposed to be? Fake equations are contrived to show a result in contradiction to the obvious logic.

The question is phrased in terms of what happens when CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Doubling only shortens the distance the radiation travels before being completely absorbed, as shown in the small image.

The green part of the image is the absorption spectrum superimposed onto the atmospheric effects. The yellow areas on the edges of the shoulders are supposedly where the heat is added to the atmosphere.


At mid levels of the atmosphere, the center of the peaks would absorb at about 30m instead of 10m, while the shoulders would absorb at about 300m instead of 100m. Reducing those distance by half is not relevant. But just like relativity, if it takes more than a mouthful of arguing to prove them wrong, frauds decree the obfuscation to be fact.

As shown on the page titled "Crunching the Numbers," the quantities involved are so miniscule as to be totally incapable of causing global warming.

There's another major reason why the fix is unreal. Supposedly, it is the outer shoulders on the CO2 peaks which are responsible for global warming. Not only is a small percent of the CO2 influenced by the shoulder radiation, but the distance increases for absorption. There is more nitrogen and oxygen per CO2 molecule in this area. Dilution reduces the temperature increase per unit of energy. If there is 5% as much CO2 on the shoulders, it is spread over 20 times as much space in the atmosphere. This means the temperature effect on the shoulders should be multiplied times 5% twice—once for the decrease in amount of CO2 and once for the dilution of the energy in the atmosphere. So much dilution of so few molecules could not be responsible for a significant amount of temperature increase....

Source: Lord Christopher Monckton

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html[/QUOTE]
 
If we accept your posted data as true and carbon dioxide is not a problem, it remains that almost all our current energy, cars, etc., are dependent upon fossil fuels, being coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Coal produces mercury and other serious pollutants. Petroleum is running out and results in currency flow to other nations. Natural gas is not a limitless resource.
Therefore, even if there is not a problem with carbon dioxide being a green house gas, the other negative ramifications of using fossil fuels are bad enough to make it prudent to curtail their use.
 
Can you provide some proof that petroleum is running out? The claim has been made for decades and present reserves are the largest in history.

The fact is that the line handed us by the priests of pseudoscience don't hold up under scientific scrutiny and CO2 is not going to cause runaway global warming. Therefore CO2 is not a valid reason to detrementally alter the world economy. Feel free to start over with a new reason if you like. Learn from history though. Try basing the new panic on fact. You might start with proof that petroleum is running out.

I know that petroleum has been created in a laboratory under the same conditions and using the same available material in the magma of the earth. I have not seen a rational explanation for how dead plants and animals "turn into" oil. Can you explain how it happens or do you simply subscribe to oudated 18th century theories because they are all you have?
 
I know that petroleum has been created in a laboratory under the same conditions and using the same available material in the magma of the earth.
We would all like to "know" that also. Do you have some proof? Links?
 
Well... as much as I hate to weigh in against the standard abiotic oil argument, I'm afraid I must. I don't go for AGW because of way-the-hell-and-gone too many technical reasons, but that's not really going to matter as it goes. Well and field depletion numbers are what they are, we can't get around that. I've been in too many oil and gas fields and watched 'em die to the point of no longer being economically viable to give that much consideration to that particular argument.

Frankly, I never understood the point of even bringing it up. Are we to believe that all oil is "abiotic"? Crap, the biggest oilfield in the world ever found (Gwahar) was fecal pellet limestone (essentially the biggest pile of prehistoric sh*t ever found). Much of the source rock for our oilfields has been sedimentary rock, that's not in debate, never has been.

In any case it doesn't matter where the stuff comes from, if the world comes to a virtual production peak, we're in trouble. I've said it before, quit listening to what the oil company's say and watch what they DO. When you've got companies like Petrobras looking in 6,000 feet of water and exploring down with 20,000 feet of drill pipe, you KNOW we're in some serious sh*t! Pitching out AGW theory lock, stock and barrel, and accepting that we need to "DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!!"... we've STILL got a horrible problem: RCO (Regular Conventional Oil) production has been falling since 2005/06. "All Liquids" was growing right up until the spike in 2008 that caused the latest wave of demand destruction. However, just because "All Liquids" were going up doesn't mean that the net delivered energy to the consumer was--it often takes more energy to convert such products into something that you actually want to use. The higher the overall cost of the products go, the more damage it does to an economy that has cheap energy as its basis.

What y'all need to consider is that the production peak of oil is a dynamic, not a static number. If, due to the interplay of the various economies of the planet and their bracketing monetary policies (not to mention an exponentially-increasing population), we end up needing an exponentially-increasing energy supply... then it's simply a matter of an exponential differential problem. By the way... did any of you give any thought to the idea that harvesting the oil out of more fragmented and smaller oilfields would require more pipelines? More pipelines mean we need more steel. More steel means more iron ore. And that's just ONE small factor to consider--there's a pile of them.

No, sorry, folks... we're not too far away from a peak in energy production as a whole. And that said, you're looking at the beginning of one serious mother of a herd-thinning. That's another reason why I don't worry about "global warming".
 

O.K. I am convinced that the "Theory" is sound. However, that does not remedy the problem that our country must buy petroleum from the countries that have the wells. If it is not a "fossil fuel", so what? Our own production of oil has been over run by our domestic demand years ago.
 
O.K. I am convinced that the "Theory" is sound. However, that does not remedy the problem that our country must buy petroleum from the countries that have the wells. If it is not a "fossil fuel", so what? Our own production of oil has been over run by our domestic demand years ago.

We don't "have" to buy from anyone for lack of supply. We "have" to buy because your sort has fought tooth and nail for decades to keep us dependent. Don't cause the problem then claim that we must seek another energy source because of the problem.
 
Well... as much as I hate to weigh in against the standard abiotic oil argument, I'm afraid I must. I don't go for AGW because of way-the-hell-and-gone too many technical reasons, but that's not really going to matter as it goes. Well and field depletion numbers are what they are, we can't get around that. I've been in too many oil and gas fields and watched 'em die to the point of no longer being economically viable to give that much consideration to that particular argument.

Frankly, I never understood the point of even bringing it up. Are we to believe that all oil is "abiotic"? Crap, the biggest oilfield in the world ever found (Gwahar) was fecal pellet limestone (essentially the biggest pile of prehistoric sh*t ever found). Much of the source rock for our oilfields has been sedimentary rock, that's not in debate, never has been.

In any case it doesn't matter where the stuff comes from, if the world comes to a virtual production peak, we're in trouble. I've said it before, quit listening to what the oil company's say and watch what they DO. When you've got companies like Petrobras looking in 6,000 feet of water and exploring down with 20,000 feet of drill pipe, you KNOW we're in some serious sh*t! Pitching out AGW theory lock, stock and barrel, and accepting that we need to "DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!!"... we've STILL got a horrible problem: RCO (Regular Conventional Oil) production has been falling since 2005/06. "All Liquids" was growing right up until the spike in 2008 that caused the latest wave of demand destruction. However, just because "All Liquids" were going up doesn't mean that the net delivered energy to the consumer was--it often takes more energy to convert such products into something that you actually want to use. The higher the overall cost of the products go, the more damage it does to an economy that has cheap energy as its basis.

What y'all need to consider is that the production peak of oil is a dynamic, not a static number. If, due to the interplay of the various economies of the planet and their bracketing monetary policies (not to mention an exponentially-increasing population), we end up needing an exponentially-increasing energy supply... then it's simply a matter of an exponential differential problem. By the way... did any of you give any thought to the idea that harvesting the oil out of more fragmented and smaller oilfields would require more pipelines? More pipelines mean we need more steel. More steel means more iron ore. And that's just ONE small factor to consider--there's a pile of them.

No, sorry, folks... we're not too far away from a peak in energy production as a whole. And that said, you're looking at the beginning of one serious mother of a herd-thinning. That's another reason why I don't worry about "global warming".

The problem today is that oil companies, for the most part, are still looking for oil based on the theory that most oil is biological. When that outdated theory is finally put to rest and the search begins in earnest for abiotic oil, the entire picture may change radically very quickly.
 
We don't "have" to buy from anyone for lack of supply. We "have" to buy because your sort has fought tooth and nail for decades to keep us dependent. Don't cause the problem then claim that we must seek another energy source because of the problem.

My "sort"? That is odd...I have not "fought" anyone to keep us dependent upon oil.
 
Werbung:
Have I mentioned that gasoline powered cars cause smog? Or is smog naturally occurring also?
 
Back
Top