Global Warming

Quoted message said:

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

Maxed out already??????? Please enlighten me as to how you've come to that
conclusion.

Actually I do know how CO2 warming works and unfortunately you haven't a
clue and you continue to argue with your narrow-minded, finger-pointing and
branding me a "leftist". Whether I am or not is not the issue here.

FYI: The reason CO2 affects T is because it can absorb IR (I'm assuming
that's what you meant by a "VERY" small segment of the light band). And it
does so, because the wavelength of IR is about the right value to interact
with the O-C-O bonds. A carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms in a
linear array, with C in the middle. When IR radiation hits the CO2 molecule,
the C atoms move back and forth, vibrating back to something that is more
linear. That's how CO2 traps heat.

The experiments showing the heat absorbing effect of CO2 go back to the 19th
century, when John Tyndall, in attempting to explain the ice ages, examined
the "heat blocking" effect of certain gases. He discovered that CO2, water
vapor and methane were all very effective at blocking (absorbing) heat.
This is what I was trying to point out regarding the feedback effects when
CO2 values become elevated in the atmosphere.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's sad to see an engineer such as yourself be so closed minded and
unable to accept scientific facts. If you set aside your political
inclinations and focus on what exactly is going on then you might 'see
the light'.

Not nearly as sad as seeing people with no knowledge of how the world
around them operates being led around by the nose by people with an
agenda.

Quoted message said:

1. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas; we know that it affects how much
IR radiation is trapped within out atmosphere, and is now at higher
levels in the atmosphere than ever recorded in any ice core in the past
800,000 yrs. (about 375 ppm today, compared to a long-term historical
high of 270 ppm)

As I pointed out before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that maxes out in the
neighborhood of 200 ppm. But by all means try to believe that somehow it
behaves differently than science has shown it does.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. CO2 has increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm since just 1960.

We most certainly have to be concerned about increasing levels of CO2. The
problem is that man is only the tiniest portion of that increase and the
other 97% is natural.

Quoted message said:

3. No one has yet observed in the 800,000 year ice core record a greater
rate of T increase or a greater rate of CO2 increase.

The leftists have been quoting CO2 levels from tests performed on bubbles
obtained from ice in glaciers. It has since been shown that the CO2 in
these bubbles IS NOT stable and CO2 slowly filters out of the bubbles into
and through the surrounding ice and that the _supposed_ level of 280 ppm
was completely wrong and suspected to vary around the same neighborhood it
is today.

Quoted message said:

4.. The arctic ice cap and glaciers throughout the world are at their
smallest sizes ever.

Yet strangely after they spent all that time decrying how those glaciers
in Austria had been there for millions of years, as they melted away there
were HOUSES and VILLAGES under them. Funny thing about stupid people -
they tend to believe anything someone they believe to be an authority
tells them.

Quoted message said:

6. One of the problems in understanding the climate system is in
understanding the feedbacks. If we pump more CO2 in the atmosphere, then
the atmosphere warms; this can lead to increased evaporation off the
oceans, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere, so more heating.
A negative feedback is that with increased CO2 there is global greening
(which is very real) so there are more plants to absorb more CO2.

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

Quoted message said:

> You crazy mostly. I get great mileage.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. Sounds like a potential challenge.

I prefer "virtual challenge." It's more in keeping with accepted
standards for record keeping in bicycle racing palmares.

I think I might be able to show that I get better mileage than you --
i.e., I've driven him crazier with fewer posts.

Ahhh.

Sensei, I was not trying to compete with you. I humbly apologize for
bragging.

Off to wax car, paint fence, sand deck.

--
Bill Asher

JS wrote:

<snip>

What you say is true, but the reason that CO2 has an impact on
longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the presence of so much
water vapor is that the mixing ratio of water vapor isn't constant through
the troposphere whereas CO2 is uniformly mixed. Go to:

www.realclimate.org

search for "saturated gassy argument" for the gory details. Tom won't read
the article, but you should.

--
Bill Asher

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

What happens to those places when the oil runs out?

They become another Dubai.

Quoted message said:

Here's a hint to jackasses such as yourself - let's run THEM out of oil
before we use up all of our own.

Yeah, that's a swift idea. Let's throw huge amounts of money at them
until they get sick of it. Sheesh.

R

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Remember, I'm here to help.

So what do you drive again?

Dumbass -

You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
wind energy and all that.

I'm not anti-any-damn-thing other than most government subsidies, but that's
just general politics, not just this case. I'm all for the research programs.

Do those windmills no longer have piles of dead birds under them, or is that
okay now.

Quoted message said:

If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
American companies and American workers. The oil?

Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

Ideology. It doesn't make sense.

And neither will the Saudis once we start working the deposits we have here.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

You know what blows me away about some of you Deniers? You're all anti-
wind energy and all that.

The real comedy is that you're so slow that no one here can slow their minds
enough to comprehend what you're thinking. My brother used to work for
Windpower, I've worked on alternative energy resources for companies in a
commercial sense and as far back as 1974 I was having these same arguments
in newspaper editorials that Solar and Wind wouldn't become practical until
the AVAILABILITY of oil started becoming a problem. And gee, I was right and
all those big-mouthed fools such a yourself were wrong. Yet again.

Quoted message said:

If the government made it policy, electricity would cost a little bit
more, but the $$$ could go to equipment manufactured and installed by
American companies and American workers. The oil?

Do you even understand what the hell you're talking about?

Quoted message said:

Oil money goes to places like Saudi Arabi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela,
Nigeria. Some of it probably goes from there to the pockets of various
extremist groups with whom we've been in conflict.

What happens to those places when the oil runs out?

Dumbass -

When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
to go, right?

Well . . .

Bakken Formation.

William Asher said:

Off to wax car, paint fence, sand deck.

Tom Sawyer would be able to get someone else to paint the fence.

William Asher said:

Off to wax car

A good idea if its wet a lot.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When that starts happening, we better have alternative sources ready
to go, right?

If you don't understand what's going on in the energy business why don't you
actually go out and find out rather than listening to morons on the left?

Dumbass -

When all else fails, the ad hominem is inevitable.

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

The supply/demand equation has gotten out of whack. The policy should
be to wean ourselves from the Saudis/Iraqis/Iranians/Venezuelans.

It's doable. The United States is capable of being the most innovative
culture on the face of the planet if the leadership is there.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Donald Munro said:

William Asher said:

Off to wax car

A good idea if its wet a lot.

He's been riding it hard.

[email hidden] wrote in news:a9e8717a-52d8-4b0b-afee-
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro said:

William Asher said:

Off to wax car

A good idea if its wet a lot.

He's been riding it hard.

Isn't the official rbr phrase: "pound it like there's no tomorrow"?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/df1a88c0c4067e01

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

Bill C said:

http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4985903

Quoted message said:

River at risk

Quoted message said:

BY RICHIE DAVIS RECORDER STAFF
Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Quoted message said:

AMHERST -- Climate change will reduce the availability of water in the
Connecticut River in summer and increase sediment and pollution loads,
according to a University of Massachusetts researcher.

Quoted message said:

This would be a disaster for me personally anyway as the river and
it's surroundings are up there with bicycles in my world, and the new
house is right near the river, and on a pond that used to be part of
the river.
 Bill C

Quoted message said:

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/crgw.htm
http://www.ctriver.org/
 http://www.portlandriversidemarina.com/river_raft_links/

Interesting story on the biofuel.  However, I think it is odd though that
we put so much effort into finding ways to continue on with lifestyles that
are inherently unsustainable.

I think decreased water in the Connecticut River is going to be the least
of your worries in 15 years.  But then I am a Casandrist at heart, mainly
because it goes so well with being a misanthropic secular nihilist.

Well, the bad news is that increased heavy rainfall in
the Northeast may flood Bill's house. The good news
is that we'll all be able to maintain our unsustainable
lifestyles a bit longer by damming the river (hey, his house
is already flooded, so who cares if it's submerged?) and
shipping water and power here to Arizona, where we'll
be dying of thirst and lack of power to run our A/C units,
except for the fact that we'll have persuaded the Feds to
let us steal Massachusetts's water. States' rights has
a funny way of going out the window sometimes, and
in 15 years, we may have more electoral votes, so the
outcome is fore-ordained.

Ben
Forget SUVs, what we need is to ban
golf courses in Scottsdale.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article [email hidden], "Kyle

Legate said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....

Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
like France because???? Anyone??

Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on very
undependable wind power?!?!

"ST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article [email hidden], "Kyle

Legate said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have?? Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA. Apples and oranges.....

What's more they have a small population on an island with a large volcanic
nature. Absolutely nothing like conditions in the USA and only someone
without the capacity to think would have suggested such a comparison.

Quoted message said:

Closest example to prove your point??? Probably France. And we cannot be
like France because???? Anyone??

We could be like France. All we'd have to do is build a hundred nuclear
power plants and allow oil drilling anywhere within US territories.

Quoted message said:

Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on
very
undependable wind power?!?!

I work in a state with the largest investment in alternate energy per capita
and the return on the dollar is tiny.

ST said:

On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article [email hidden], "Kyle

Legate said:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Quoted message said:

Iceland would make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have??  Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA.  Apples and oranges.....

Closest example to prove your point???  Probably France. And we cannot be
like France because???? Anyone??

Environmental wackos afraid of Nuclear power that want us to depend on very
undependable wind power?!?!

Fatso -

We'll be going more nuclear eventually. The carbon neutrality of
nuclear is starting to bring some environmental groups around. It's
not perfect, but it's better than coal and improved 21st century
reactors are engineered so that meltdowns are physically impossible.

As for wind, it is not dependable only on a moment to moment basis.
Overall it's a benefit since the amount of energy generated per year
is relatively constant. As the wind blows and extra wind generated
energy comes on the grid, dirtier sources can be modulated downward.

Almost anything is better than oil, unless one actually enjoys (or
profits from) the prospect of sending our soldiers to molder in
hostile foreign lands.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As for wind, it is not dependable only on a moment to moment basis.
Overall it's a benefit since the amount of energy generated per year
is relatively constant. As the wind blows and extra wind generated
energy comes on the grid, dirtier sources can be modulated downward.

Now if we could only get you to understand something about climactic
patterns.

Here's a clue - weather changes. Not just day to day but year to year. Wind
is not a constant.

ST said:

On 4/13/08 12:47 AM, in article [email hidden], "Kyle

Legate said:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If we put more resources into finding alternative sources of energy
(like Denmark which currently supplies 20% of electricity needs
through wind and has a long term goal of 80%), we could be paying the
Saudis, Iraqis and the Iranians $30/barrel (like we were 5 years ago)
instead of $100/barrel.

Quoted message said:

Icelandwould make a better example. 70% of energy from renewable
sources and a long term goal of 100% energy independence by 2050.

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Energy

What is their GDP? What kind of industry do they have??  Both extremely
minimal compared to the USA.  Apples and oranges.....

60% of the energy produced in Iceland go to industry and GDP per
capita is similar to the USA so it is not a case of apples and
oranges, all countries are comparable.

Great article...Thanks.

John

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JS wrote:

<snip>

What you say is true, but the reason that CO2 has an impact on
longwave radiative transfer in the atmosphere in the presence of so much
water vapor is that the mixing ratio of water vapor isn't constant through
the troposphere whereas CO2 is uniformly mixed. Go to:

www.realclimate.org

search for "saturated gassy argument" for the gory details. Tom won't
read
the article, but you should.

--
Bill Asher

JS said:

Quoted message said:

Please learn how CO2 warming works - it works by blocking a VERY small
segment of the light bands and IT HAS MAXED OUT ALREADY.

Maxed out already??????? Please enlighten me as to how you've come to that
conclusion.

Kunich learned everything there is to know about
radiative transfer back when he was designing
spectrochromatographs.

We've already explained to him several times that
CO2 absorption is not saturated because much of
it is in the upper atmosphere at low temp and
pressure:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2525f31aa16bd1c1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ec9f3be18c9e5323
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/a61d0a94249ab1e0

However, Kunich's programmer informs me that
upper management is more willing to fund work
on the invective module than the new-evidence-
and-argument module, so we'll be stuck with this
old argument at least until after the 2009 TdF.

Ben