@olegil

Quote:

I don't quite see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics would say that a mirror needs to be hotter than me to reflect photons from a lamp to my eyes.

I agree. But, TMTisFree is telling us that cold objects do not radiate to hot objects. So clearly you wouldn't be able to see the mirror cooler than you. No EM Radiation, light, comes from the cold mirror to your warm eyeball. Again according to TMT

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The 3rd Law is precisely there to defined the existence of an absolute 0°K temperature

3rd law defines the definition of 0K. It doesn't prove that 0K objects exist.

Quote:

note that the 'temperature' of dark matter one can find in literature is really the velocity of matter and has nothing to do with 'thermal' temperature

If we haven't measured a thermal temperature for dark matter then how do you know it's at 0K? You don't know. I think you have some problems here. You are telling us dark matter is an object at perfect rest, no kinetic energy, aka 0K, but in motion?

Quote:

provided sufficient examples of atmospheric satellite cryocooled IR sensors to appreciate how funny it is to rebut your wrong claim with itself

Certainly you can see the false logic here. Using an example of a different type does not illustrate my point wrong. I never claimed ALL satellites are not cooler. Just that some are. So even showing a few as you did still fits and is not a disproof.

Quote:

It is your responsibility to define your own abbreviated term

Again in post 193 the 4th line defined the abbreviation -- "The Boomerrang Galaxy (BG)" and in the same post 193 I used the abbreviation BG. I didn't use BG in any other posts. Except of course as a response to you blaming me for your failure to read the 4th line where the abbreviation was established.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jul-2009 at 03:56 AM.

@BrianK

You have my full support on that last one. You clearly defined BG to be The Boomerang Galaxy in the manner used by writers everywhere.

And to lay the whole "IR measurement possible where object under test is colder than sensor" I give you this:

http://shop.weatherzone.com.au/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=155

Hopefully noone is claiming that this uses a cryogenic sensor. Does it?


And thirdly: by which mechanism does the atmosphere loose energy aquired through convection? Surely convection doesn't work in outer space? Ergo, the atmosphere transfers heat outwards through radiation. But how does it know that it should only radiate outwards? It doesn't. So about half goes towards space, other half goes towards earth.

We have all done the course on how the greenhouse effect works, and know that without it we would have frozen to death a LONG time ago. Will anyone here debunk this: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

With full math, please.

That is, show me that the greenhouse effect doesn't work and the temperature of the earth is NOT dependent on the back reflection of our atmosphere to stay above -18C.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

You clearly defined BG to be The Boomerang Galaxy in the manner used by writers everywhere.

Thank you for the feedback.


Quote:

I give you this

IMO, good example. I have one, well it's grey and a different manufacture. Though the last time I showed a scientific instrument which is calibrated the response was to the effect of 'false marketing...it can't do what the manufacture claims'. - HUMOR: Therefore this does measure -60 but only in -61 or less weather, such as Anarctica.


Quote:

But how does it know that it should only radiate outwards? It doesn't. So about half goes towards space, other half goes towards earth.

I agree.

Quote:

That is, show me that the greenhouse effect doesn't work

G&T try to do this by showing a Greenhouse doesn't work by IR and therefore conclude that the atmosphere must not either. Which is a might bit silly to assume an analogy is nbt an analogy but an exact description and claim a non-existence scientific definition is wrong. Strawman hoisting at it's finest.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jul-2009 at 12:16 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

3rd law defines the definition of 0K.

Strange wording but not that different of "3rd Law defines the existence of 0°K".

Quote:

It doesn't prove that 0K objects exist.

I also know how to play this game: it does not disprove that 0°K objects do not exist. And without restricting to the current time, it does not disprove that 0°K objects did not exist or will not exist. So you have nothing on your side, while on my side I have a universally recognized Law stating the existence of a 0°K temperature.

Quote:

If we haven't measured a thermal temperature for dark matter then how do you know it's at 0K?

Where is it stated that thermal temperature has not be measured? Dark matter is radiationless and has not exhibited thermal signature: that is why it is detected by gravitational perturbations.

Quote:

You are telling us dark matter is an object at perfect rest, no kinetic energy, aka 0K, but in motion?

Reread. I did not write dark matter:
1/ is an object :
2/ at perfect rest ;
3/ with no kinetic energy.
As dark matter is not made of usual matter (no atom thus not an object), definition of rest and kinetic energy is probably not applicable. Anyway, it will be known soon the temperature of dark matter, or if dark matter has a temperature.

Quote:

Certainly you can see the false logic here. Using an example of a different type does not illustrate my point wrong. I never claimed ALL satellites are not cooler. Just that some are. So even showing a few as you did still fits and is not a disproof.

Certainly what I think is that I will not demonstrate again the Physics just for you when the 2nd Law and other Laws are sufficiently clear for normal scientists and extensively used everyday.

Quote:

Again in post 193 the 4th line defined the abbreviation

Ok, I misread you have defined it in the 4th § where you used it and I did not find the definition there. Note that you complained I used the Plank satellite to rebut your own example but you used nevertheless a galaxy . No problem as you will see: about your initial claim of 1°K of BG measured with a telescope above 1°K, you did not provide any evidence of the instrumentation or method used to achieve such result. I provide this for you here: as the telescope (named Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope [SEST]) used in the original paper describing the 1°K BG and the relative instrumentations have been both decommissioned in 2003, there are no easy to find informations left relative to the instrumentations. But as SEST has been replaced by a more powerful device, the APEX telescope, below is what is found on the APEX page on the ESO site: Quote:

APEX is the largest submillimetre-wavelength telescope operating in the southern hemisphere. It has a suite of different instruments for astronomers to use in their observations, a major one being LABOCA, the Large APEX Bolometer Camera. LABOCA uses an array of extremely sensitive thermometers — known as bolometers — to detect submillimetre light. With almost 300 pixels, it is the largest such camera in the world. In order to be able to detect the tiny temperature changes caused by the faint submillimetre radiation, each of these thermometers is cooled to less than 0.3 degrees above absolute zero — a frigid minus 272.85 degrees Celsius. LABOCA's high sensitivity, together with its wide field of view (one third of the diameter of the full Moon), make it an invaluable tool for imaging the submillimetre Universe.

That closes your junk claim once for all.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil

Quote:

And to lay the whole "IR measurement possible where object under test is colder than sensor" I give you this:

"This is not an atmospheric satellite sensor" shouts BrianK.

Quote:

With full math, please.

My bad, surely I do not expect the home of Hansen refuting his own theories...of flawed Maths, assumptions and model-based research.

Quote:

That is, show me that the greenhouse effect doesn't work and the temperature of the earth is NOT dependent on the back reflection of our atmosphere to stay above -18C.

Refer to the calculation of Dr Nicol I "regurgitated" in a previous thread some months ago. What is your definition of greenhouse effect btw?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

The greenhouse effect is the atmospheres ability to keep earth warmer than -18C given our albedo, size and distance from the sun.

And nice vague pointer for me. given that if I use the search function here, I'm always pointed to the start of a thread. if you think I'll reread 3x21 pages of this then you are sadly mistaken.

Also, seems we're blocking Google. How nice.

Anyway. I think I found it by searching for Dr Nicol greenhouse effect on Google. What kind of moron distributes a technical paper as a word doc?

Also: You are really defending his claims that since the atmosphere does have a glass pane it isn't a greenhouse and therefore we don't have a greenhouse effect?

Did you TRY to understand what the greenhouse effect IS? I'm trying to understand your point of view here, but I really cannot say it seems you are doing the same. Seems like all you do is disagree. And we all know (at least those of us with a Monty Python education) that arguments aren't just contradictions.

Yes they are.
No they're not.


Anyway. While there is no glass pane around the atmosphere, you surely cannot suggest that the atmosphere is leaking heat to space (vacuum) through convection?

Last edited by olegil on 18-Jul-2009 at 06:53 AM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Actually, to check what the greenhouse effect does for us, one merely needs to look at the average temperature of the moon versus the earth.

Excercises for the reader:
What is the albedo of the moon?
What is the albedo of earth?
What is the average solar radiation per square meter for earth?
And for the moon?
Expected average temperatures of a black body at the two given sets of radiations and albedos?

You'll quickly see that with earths enormous ~0.35 albedo we should actually be a lot colder. But we're not. This is because of the existence of the greenhouse effect.

We can discuss mans ability to CHANGE the greenhouse effect, but discussing the EXISTENCE of it is rather pointless, methinks.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

US releases unclassified pictures of Arctic Ice Sat photos Useful to understand how changes in the world are occuring.

@olegil

Quote:

The greenhouse effect is the atmospheres ability to keep earth warmer than -18C given our albedo, size and distance from the sun.

This is the classical definition then.

Quote:

And nice vague pointer for me. given that if I use the search function here, I'm always pointed to the start of a thread. if you think I'll reread 3x21 pages of this then you are sadly mistaken.

Part of the calculation by Dr Nicol (the calculation with the absorption cross section of CO² is from me) is here (under the plot). I have set up the full Maths here in a more logical, consistent and understandable way (the last part, which has nothing to do with Dr Nicol's paper, is not finished yet).

Quote:

Also, seems we're blocking Google. How nice.

Not sure what you mean here.

Quote:

What kind of moron distributes a technical paper as a word doc?

The original was in PDF. I have it on my site (slightly edited/corrected).

Quote:

but I really cannot say it seems you are doing the same.

I realize you are already there after only posting 1 time to me...my final conclusion with you is here then: as you are too lazy to find data yourself and as I already wrote many times what I think about GHE, I will not repeat myself once again (just for you).

Quote:

And we all know (at least those of us with a Monty Python education) that arguments aren't just contradictions.

I keep repeating it to BrianK and Fuller without success, thanks for joining voice.

The post where is the direct link to the G&T (peer-reviewed) paper (entitled "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO² Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics") is here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@olegil

Quote:

Excercises for the reader:

What about giving here your results? Even a Wikipedia cut&paste can do it.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Quote:

But, TMTisFree is telling us that cold objects do not radiate to hot objects. So clearly you wouldn't be able to see the mirror cooler than you. No EM Radiation, light, comes from the cold mirror to your warm eyeball. Again according to TMT

I think some one is confusing reflecting with radiating.


Plaz

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I have set up the full Maths here in a more logical, consistent and understandable way

I have to say I am impressed.

I did not think even you could manage to completely contradict yourself within a few paragraphs without catching on or without caring about the contradiction. Turns out I was wrong about that.

Hint: "1 nanosecond" is decidedly not the inverse of 300kHz

Other than that --- re-iterating crackpot pseudo-science does not make it any more "logical, consistent or understandable". Well, that's not entirely true --- every time one crackpot re-iterates another crackpot's pseudo-science, it becomes ever so much clearer (and "more understandable") that it is, indeed, pseudoscience; The attempt to baffle with numbers and symbols where a simple argument falters....

@umisef

Quote:

I have to say I am impressed.

I am not: your moron!c-like posts so fully and monotonically lacking of argument suggest proper education to enable rational discussion is decidedly not widespread...I will not reply to your further trolling empty shells castles in the clouds.

Edit: made clearer the wording.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 19-Jul-2009 at 12:03 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

lacking of argument

I understand. It's quite difficult to defend one's arguments when in one paragraph, one states the average time-in-excited-state to be more than 3 microseconds, and in another paragraph, one states that time to be 1 nanosecond.

Of course, even if one could somehow defend such an argument, one might find it difficult to explain where one's misguided idea of the atmosphere being transparent to LW radiation comes from, or how one gets the weird idea that every collision of an excited CO2 molecule with another molecule will de-excite the CO2 molecule. Not to mention the rather bizarre idea of using an oscillator strength of 1 for a real-world vibrational excitation mode, especially while at the same time talking about many of the reasons that broadens (and thus also flattens) the absorption peak.

Of course, such minor issues pale in comparison to your insistence of simply ignoring the probolem of "your" "result" having the wrong unit (and no, a bit of quoted waffle about "per unit frequency" does not magically make the extra unit disappear the way you think it should). And any real scientist would run screaming just seeing your habit of calculating 3-significant-digit figures from 1-significant-digit figures

All of which means that, unfortunately, you never make it to the point where interesting discussion becomes possible. At that point, you would be faced with questions such as "so what ever gave you the idea that doing your calculations exclusively at 15um was a good idea, given the rather broad black body IR spectrum at 300K?" or (as Ole has tried to point out to you, only to realise the futility of expecting you to actually have a physical understanding) "how do you think convection or conduction works to remove energy from the extended Earth?". Or, on a slightly different issue, "How did the Boomerang Nebula know 5000 years ago that there would be a cryo-cooled detector on Earth in the 20th century AD, and that thus it needed to radiate photons in that particular direction, but not in any other direction (because, according to you, cold things do not radiate towards warm things)?".


There, plenty of argument. Too bad you never actually address any of it. Rather telling, though.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... Quote: Do you have a farm? Yes (not so far from Germany btw).

May I ask where? (I live in Cologne b.t.w.)
Does that mean you are able to read German scientific papers?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: And if so, do you mean GH effect in general, or with respect to CO2? There are misconceptions on the effect in general, and with CO² particularly.

Would you mind to specify those misconceptions you're just mentioning?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: And with "back-radiation forbidden by thermodynamics" you mean DLR published a flawed paper on the "1996 Meteorological Satellite Data Users' Conference" (Vienna, 16.-20-sep-1996)? Your link does not want to load.

The link basically listed a paper by L. Schanz & P. Schluessel, 1996, about "Atmospheric Back Radiation Measured, Simulated and Remotely Sensed over the Pacific Warm Pool.", presented at the Meteorological Satellite Data Users' Conference Vienna, 16.-20.9.1996 .

I don't have access to the paper itself - just saw the title listed on the DLR page.
And the title implied that back radiation has been measured, simulated and remotedly sensed back in 1996, while you/your link implied that back radiation could not exist because it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: What I mean is that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics formally prohibits a cold object (atmosphere) to warm a warmer object (surface) even by radiative means.

I'm no thermodynamics expert - but as far as I understood the thing (German Wikipedia entry for "Treibhauseffekt" is much more exhaustive than English version), its a matter of wavelengths:

Incoming radiation in the form of sunlight is short-wave and atmosphere is permeable to short wavelengths.

So sunlight hits the ground and other matter and heats it up.

The heated objects now also emit electro-magnetic waves with typical wavelengths of around 10000 nm, which is significantly longer than the sunlights wavelength. Cause for this increasing of the wavelength is described by Wien's displacement law.

But glass and certain elements of the atmosphere are impermeable for the wavelengths of this "back radiation" and so radiation gets partially absorbed. Coevally the greenhouse gases can release heat radiation much better than nitrogen and oxagen. They emit the heat energy received by absorbtion and convection evenly in all directions - thus as well towards the ground. By that the ground receives additional heat radiation (atmospheric back radiation).

Some have problems with the energy the greenhouse gases radiate towards erths surface (150 W/m^2), as this energy would go from a cooler body (about -40 °C) towards the warmer body (earthS' surface about +15 °C) and this would
ostensibly contradict the second law of thermodynamics. But this is a wrong interpretation because it doesn't take the incoming solar radiation (even up to 6000 K) into account - on the balance sheet the second law of thermodynamics is fulfilled again.

In summary:
Back radiation from atmosphere to earth leads to an additional warming by about 33 °C. Thus the average global temperature is around 15 °C instead of -18 °C.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: As I already said - I was more looking at the rise of the atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity I understand, but as CO² has nothing to do with temperature, I fail to see the point.

To me it rather seems CO² very well has to do with temperature. There's even an experiment available:

Experiment:
(If you scroll halfway down there is an English version available)

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: CO² is per se not harmful but rather beneficial to plants.

I highly doubt that.

In case your statement "CO² is per se not harmful" was meant in general, you might be interested in this paper:
degree dissertation on the effects of increased CO² concentrations on growth and basic metabolism of juvenile plaices by Jasmin Veronique Pahl from University Bremen (Alfred- Wegener- Institut for Polar- and scientific marine research in Bremerhaven.

In case your statement "CO² is per se not harmful but rather beneficial to plants." was meant with regard to plants, you might be interested in this:

Although scientists like the American soil researcher Bruce Kimball from Arizona assume based on their experiments that an increased level of CO² genarally would have an positive impact on the amount of harvest, there could be some unexpected surprises with regard to the nutrient content. The experiments showed that the protein content of many plant species was drastically reduced (20% for bread wheat)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: they might have wanted to find out more about "spatial and temporal cloud grid-scaling" Perhaps. I am nevertheless always critical on how models are tuned. ...

A sane degree of criticism is always good...

Last edited by Dandy on 20-Jul-2009 at 02:06 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

May I ask where? (I live in Cologne b.t.w.)

North-East of France. I will not give more details here, sorry.

Quote:

Does that mean you are able to read German scientific papers?

No. I learnt German for 6-7 years but stop practising: the Latin's teacher was far more interesting.

Quote:

Would you mind to specify those misconceptions you're just mentioning?

I think 1/3-1/4 of my last thousand posts are about them. I am sure you can understand I can not (and will not) discuss same problems over again and again any time a new person pops up here (or anywhere else btw) and asks.

Quote:

I don't have access to the paper itself...

Same here I don't find it with this title and year (and your link keeps loading without success). So it is difficult to comment without dissecting their methodologies and techniques (for ex. how they managed incoming solar IR flux, clouds influences, reflections, etc).

Quote:

But glass and certain elements of the atmosphere are impermeable for the wavelengths of this "back radiation"

This radiation by warming ground is not the 'back radiation' as defined and supported by alarmists. Their 'back radiations' come from the CO² re-emitting LW radiations after being excited by radiations from ground, 50% upwards (directly to outer spaced) and 50% downwards (this is their believed 'back(-to-Earth) radiation': actually this is about only 35% because they also think Earth is flat, but nevermind). Ah, I see you define it as 'atmospheric back radiation' thereafter.

Quote:

this energy would go from a cooler body (about -40 °C) towards the warmer body (earthS' surface about +15 °C)

So it is ok that heat flows from -40°C to +15°C? This is equivalent as saying Earth's heat (+15°C) flows to the Sun (about +6000°C) and warms it.

Quote:

To me it rather seems CO² very well has to do with temperature. There's even an experiment available:

I don't see a scientific experiment: what I see is a SWF of an amateur experiment. Where is the methodologies used to ensure the 2 greenhouses and related devices are strictly identical (no control [the zero experiment], no lamps calibration, no control of other gases, etc)? I have many 500W halogen lamps at home and I can assure you that you get more than a mere 24-27°C in such 0.726 m^3 enclosure after 3 minutes. Also I don't want to fall in the guilt by association fallacy, but when I see the name of Stefan Rahmstorf, I am a little bit more suspicious.

Quote:

I highly doubt that.

My statement is general and words of the sentence were carefully chosen to reflect what is the current state of the Science about effect of CO² on plants. I will not deny that there are always disadvantages/exceptions facing gains/general rule, respectively. So in case of CO², it is no surprise that you can find some plants that do not react in the same way than all others (Fuller has given another example recently). The reference site about plants and CO² is once again CO²Science.

Quote:

In case your statement "CO² is per se not harmful" was meant in general, you might be interested in this paper:

In German and about marine organisms: sorry there are so many in English I will not going to decipher it.

Quote:

Although scientists like the American soil researcher Bruce Kimball from Arizona assume based on their experiments that an increased level of CO² genarally would have an positive impact on the amount of harvest, there could be some unexpected surprises with regard to the nutrient content.

No paper reference = methodologies unavailable = no comment from me.

Quote:

A sane degree of criticism is always good..

Not quite different of being a sceptic...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Does that mean you are able to read German scientific papers?

If you are able to read German scientific papers I recommend...
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf

I wish my German was better than what's left of 7 years of study more than 15 years ago...

@BrianK

Quote:

I agree. But, TMTisFree is telling us that cold objects do not radiate to hot objects. So clearly you wouldn't be able to see the mirror cooler than you. No EM Radiation, light, comes from the cold mirror to your warm eyeball. Again according to TMT

Of course the second law of thermodynamics is being misused in claiming that CO2 in this case cannot radiate toward a warmer object. The false implication is that the warmer object, or the cooler black body of space are somehow acting on the lonely molecule of CO2 to prevent or invite re-radiation in the respective directions which simply is not the case.

The CO2 molecule may re-radiate across its ajacent space, which is large compared to the size of the molecule, according to its orientation at the moment of emmission which may be in any direction. The warm object, earth, and the cold sink of space, merely determine the direction of the eventual thermal gradient, not the direction of any re-radiation. Increase of CO2 and other gases slows the rate of longwave radiation into space while the system moves toward a new equilibrium. This whole business has been long researched. I was interested to see a summation in a 1979 paper available free here http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181.html

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment
Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide
and Climate, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 23-27,
1979, to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National
Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-11911-1, 34 pages, 6 x 9, (1979)

A part of this summation reads " The value 4W m^-2 is obtained by several methods of calculating infrared radiative transfer. These methods have been directly tested against laboratory measurements and, indirectly, are found to be in agreement with observation when applied to the deduction of atmospheric temperature profiles from satellite infrared measurements. There is thus relatively high confidence that the direct net heating value Q has been estimated correctly to within ±25 percent. However, it should be emphasized that the accurate calculation of this term has required a careful treatment of the thermal radiative fluxes with techniques that have been developed over the past two decades or more. Crude estimates may easily be in error by a large factor. Thus . ."

This is found at the bottom of page 20 of the pdf, page 7 of the report. Some references lead back to these measurements which began with research by the US airforce into infra-red radiation in the fourties.

I found the predictions and reservations in this 1979 paper of considerable interest with respect to the development of climate science since.

Noel

@Dandy

Quote:

To me it rather seems CO² very well has to do with temperature. There's even an experiment available:

Why not expand your thinking a bit and look at a "real life" news item and tell us what you learn from this?

The full story is......Spacewalk safety

"A spacesuit is a very small spacecraft and there's just really not much margin for error," NASA's lead space station flight director Holly Ridings told reporters late Wednesday.

The glitch occurred inside astronaut Chris Cassidy's spacesuit while he and fellow spacewalker Dave Wolf were replacing old solar array batteries on the International Space Station. The canister used to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere inside Cassidy's suit apparently wasn't doing its job right, NASA officials said.

NASA measures the amount of carbon dioxide in a spacecraft using millimeters of mercury. For example, the acceptable limit for space shuttle and the space station is about 5 millimeters of mercury, Johnson said. The typical range for a spacewalking astronaut is between 0.3 and 0.5 millimeters of mercury, he added.


At its worst, the carbon dioxide level in Cassidy peaked at about 3 millimeters of mercury, well below the accepted threshold for the shuttle and nowhere near the 8 millimeter mark that would have set off an alarm in his spacesuit warning of an impending problem, mission managers said.

It is only when levels reach 15 millimeters of mercury that astronauts would begin to feel the effects of carbon dioxide poisoning, known as hypercapnia, Johnson said.

The slightly elevated levels detected in Cassidy's spacesuit were on an upward trend, possibly because the lithium hydroxide canister used to scrub carbon dioxide from the suit's atmosphere dried out early in the spacewalk or stopped letting air flow through it properly, Johnson said

What is your thinking on this matter?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker