|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 5:43:05 GMT
I no longer have any idea what you are talking about. Yesterday you were telling me the word latent was totally redundant. Don't be such a moron! The word "latent" isn't redundant being used alone! The word "latent" is redundant when attaching it to the front of the "heat of fusion". The heat of fusion is a latent heat. Thats why it was ridiculous that you wrote the Univ of Florida and asked them to modify their paper by inserting the word latent in front of "heat of fusion". The act of freezing alone cannot raise falling temperatures unless supercooling is involved. >>The california article is specifically saying freezing of the spray raises the temperature of the plants above zero and the plants cool below zero after the rotating spray moves away and the plants rewarm above zero when it returns due to freezing. As described they are describing the impossible. ObviouslySigurdur says this is an accurate description and it is just physics. I would guess you garbled it as its basically unintelligible in your sentence. A link to the paragraph you are talking about would be helpful. I would guess that you have already read the text and graph provided and no matter how clearly I express myself you will keep up the game that nothing I say is satisfying to you. You had me jumping thru hoops over the GHE even though it was totally clear your comments about the fourth power rule showed you could have no objections to the GHE. It is also totally clear that no auditor would object to netting, or claim he had never heard of financial netting. It is all good though. I learnt something about my naive and gullible nature and learnt something about malignant psychopaths that I had to witness first hand to believe.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 7, 2014 6:49:36 GMT
Don't be such a moron! The word "latent" isn't redundant being used alone! The word "latent" is redundant when attaching it to the front of the "heat of fusion". The heat of fusion is a latent heat. Thats why it was ridiculous that you wrote the Univ of Florida and asked them to modify their paper by inserting the word latent in front of "heat of fusion". I would guess you garbled it as its basically unintelligible in your sentence. A link to the paragraph you are talking about would be helpful. I would guess that you have already read the text and graph provided and no matter how clearly I express myself you will keep up the game that nothing I say is satisfying to you. You had me jumping thru hoops over the GHE even though it was totally clear your comments about the fourth power rule showed you could have no objections to the GHE. It is also totally clear that no auditor would object to netting, or claim he had never heard of financial netting. It is all good though. I learnt something about my naive and gullible nature and learnt something about malignant psychopaths that I had to witness first hand to believe. You are correct I have no objections to the GHE and have no reason to believe it works as advertised either. I am convinced that embedded shells with reflectivity would operate to increase heat and that is supported by the equations related to emissivity. And since there is no perfect blackbody anything else you could use to build embedded shells would no doubt increase heat to some extent as well. Anybody can draw a model and figure out how to balance the numbers purely mathematically, but thats not proof they are right. There are several issues that make me question the principle. No greenhouse effect on Mars, the fact that days on the earth do not get anywhere close to the SB limit as defined by the inverse square law, but surfaces do get to that limit on the moon, and surfaces do get to that limit on Mars (suggesting that its the thickness of the atmosphere that is the true variable and because of conduction and convection there is not much difference due to greenhouse gases). But those are just suggestions to keep an open mind on the topic. It could well be that greenhouse gases are a necessity for the greenhouse effect, but that the limit is defined by the lapse rate and the thickness of the atmosphere. But as we know the atmosphere is more complicated than that so that may be a gross oversimplification of the answer. I guess what is difficult to understand is why you feel compelled that everybody should believe the same thing. Do you hold that sort of prejudice for skin color as well?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 7:22:12 GMT
I would guess that you have already read the text and graph provided and no matter how clearly I express myself you will keep up the game that nothing I say is satisfying to you. You had me jumping thru hoops over the GHE even though it was totally clear your comments about the fourth power rule showed you could have no objections to the GHE. It is also totally clear that no auditor would object to netting, or claim he had never heard of financial netting. It is all good though. I learnt something about my naive and gullible nature and learnt something about malignant psychopaths that I had to witness first hand to believe. You are correct I have no objections to the GHE and have no reason to believe it works as advertised either. I am convinced that embedded shells with reflectivity would operate to increase heat and that is supported by the equations related to emissivity. And since there is no perfect blackbody anything else you could use to build embedded shells would no doubt increase heat to some extent as well. Anybody can draw a model and figure out how to balance the numbers purely mathematically, but thats not proof they are right. There are several issues that make me question the principle. No greenhouse effect on Mars, the fact that days on the earth do not get anywhere close to the SB limit as defined by the inverse square law, but surfaces do get to that limit on the moon, and surfaces do get to that limit on Mars (suggesting that its the thickness of the atmosphere that is the true variable and because of conduction and convection there is not much difference due to greenhouse gases). But those are just suggestions to keep an open mind on the topic. It could well be that greenhouse gases are a necessity for the greenhouse effect, but that the limit is defined by the lapse rate and the thickness of the atmosphere. But as we know the atmosphere is more complicated than that so that may be a gross oversimplification of the answer. I guess what is difficult to understand is why you feel compelled that everybody should believe the same thing. Do you hold that sort of prejudice for skin color as well? You can of course believe whatever you want to believe. Possibly you can remember that I contacted Trenberth over the claim mars has no greenhouse effect. He said he does not believe Mars has any CO2. Nasa apparantly is claiming the presence of CO2 and the presence of a GHE I would tend to believe Nasa rather than a climate scientist or somebody from the internet. You and I were talking about the simple science behind the idea of a green house effect. And daily you produced comical reasons why you were going to object to the simple science. Netting was a criminal act The fridge was mains powered the bricks were heated by the sauna stove At the time i did not know what to believe. I just assumed you were thick. I just assumed that all the blatant lies you told about me were part of your confusion. At the end of the day I still do not know why you behave as you do.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 7, 2014 11:32:58 GMT
You can of course believe whatever you want to believe. Possibly you can remember that I contacted Trenberth over the claim mars has no greenhouse effect. He said he does not believe Mars has any CO2. Nasa apparantly is claiming the presence of CO2 and the presence of a GHE. Actually NASA is the source of data that Mars does not have a greenhouse effect. I realize you pulled up some antique table, with no reference as to a data source, probably an academic institution that suggests a greenhouse effect. But I have not seen a referenced source of such information. If you have one I would be interested in seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 12:17:38 GMT
You can of course believe whatever you want to believe. Possibly you can remember that I contacted Trenberth over the claim mars has no greenhouse effect. He said he does not believe Mars has any CO2. Nasa apparantly is claiming the presence of CO2 and the presence of a GHE. Actually NASA is the source of data that Mars does not have a greenhouse effect. Just provide the NASA link to support your belief system and the issue can be resolved. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and probably you are going to be dancing on this, and name calling me, for the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 7, 2014 13:23:55 GMT
You and I were talking about the simple science behind the idea of a green house effect. And daily you produced comical reasons why you were going to object to the simple science. Science always seems simple to a simpleton.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 7, 2014 13:25:19 GMT
You and I were talking about the simple science behind the idea of a green house effect. And daily you produced comical reasons why you were going to object to the simple science. Science always seems simple to a simpleton. Evidently so.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 7, 2014 16:18:39 GMT
Actually NASA is the source of data that Mars does not have a greenhouse effect. Just provide the NASA link to support your belief system and the issue can be resolved. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and probably you are going to be dancing on this, and name calling me, for the next two years. Good! Here it is resolved. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.htmlThe blackbody temperature is given as 210K The average temperature is 210K The atmosphere is 95% CO2. The atmosphere is 6 millibars. Earth CO2 if the atmosphere was reduced to just earth's CO2 would be .4 millibar So Mars has a lot more CO2 screening that earth does by a factor of over 10 times, equivalent of more than 4 doublings. The reason? It seems the KISS answer would be that the lapse rate on Mars is almost non-existent. Its about .6% that of earth, so if you took earth's greenhouse effect with clouds at 33degC or its greenhouse effect without clouds in accordance with SB equations at 10degC, the Martian greenhouse effect should be between .2degC and .06degC, respectively. Something probably that can't be measured, giving no measurable greenhouse effect. When are you going to write to NASA and tell them they are all muddled up? Oh you already did that once with no results!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 5:18:25 GMT
Just provide the NASA link to support your belief system and the issue can be resolved. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and probably you are going to be dancing on this, and name calling me, for the next two years. Good! Here it is resolved. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.htmlThe blackbody temperature is given as 210K The average temperature is 210K The atmosphere is 95% CO2. The atmosphere is 6 millibars. Earth CO2 if the atmosphere was reduced to just earth's CO2 would be .4 millibar So Mars has a lot more CO2 screening that earth does by a factor of over 10 times, equivalent of more than 4 doublings. The reason? It seems the KISS answer would be that the lapse rate on Mars is almost non-existent. Its about .6% that of earth, so if you took earth's greenhouse effect with clouds at 33degC or its greenhouse effect without clouds in accordance with SB equations at 10degC, the Martian greenhouse effect should be between .2degC and .06degC, respectively. Something probably that can't be measured, giving no measurable greenhouse effect. When are you going to write to NASA and tell them they are all muddled up? Oh you already did that once with no results! I dont see anything there at all that says Mars has no greenhouse effect. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up, totally confused and totally dishonest. 1. C02 is more or less an irrelevant gas on Earth and has almost no relevance to disprove the GHE. 2. The overwhelmingly most dominating GHG on earth is water vapour. 3. You produced comical reasons why water could not create a GHE on Earth: My fridge was mains powered Netting was a criminal act Financial netting was something unknown to an auditor! My bricks were cooling and could not be getting hotter as you stupidly claimed I had said they would My sauna was being heated and my results were representative of nothing
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 8, 2014 6:39:43 GMT
Good! Here it is resolved. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.htmlThe blackbody temperature is given as 210K The average temperature is 210K The atmosphere is 95% CO2. The atmosphere is 6 millibars. Earth CO2 if the atmosphere was reduced to just earth's CO2 would be .4 millibar So Mars has a lot more CO2 screening that earth does by a factor of over 10 times, equivalent of more than 4 doublings. The reason? It seems the KISS answer would be that the lapse rate on Mars is almost non-existent. Its about .6% that of earth, so if you took earth's greenhouse effect with clouds at 33degC or its greenhouse effect without clouds in accordance with SB equations at 10degC, the Martian greenhouse effect should be between .2degC and .06degC, respectively. Something probably that can't be measured, giving no measurable greenhouse effect. When are you going to write to NASA and tell them they are all muddled up? Oh you already did that once with no results! I dont see anything there at all that says Mars has no greenhouse effect. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and totally confused. Sorry if I am going a bit fast for you. Subtracting 210.1K from 210K is indeed challenging.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 6:48:31 GMT
I dont see anything there at all that says Mars has no greenhouse effect. Obviously i think you are totally muddled up and totally confused. Sorry if I am going a bit fast for you. Subtracting 210.1K from 210K is indeed challenging. It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. The fact is if CO2 is proven to be an irrelevant or insignificant gas on Earth is has no bearing on the power of water vapour as the most overwhelming powerful GHG on Earth, where comments about C02 are of insignificant consequence to the science of the GHE theory. Meanwhile the fact is you produced comical reasons why water could not create a GHE on earth. Including: My fridge was mains powered! Netting is a criminal act! An auditor had never heard of financial netting, when nearly every person with a job knows what a net income is! My cooling bricks were supposed to be getting hotter! And I have no doubt you thought the whole thing was one big laugth from start to finnish.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 8, 2014 7:11:22 GMT
Sorry if I am going a bit fast for you. Subtracting 210.1K from 210K is indeed challenging. It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. Yeah like the 20th century warming was approximately 1k plus or minus 2k
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 7:15:16 GMT
It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. Yeah like the 20th century warming was approximately 1k plus or minus 2k the fact is you produced comical reasons why water could not create a GHE on earth. Including: My fridge was mains powered! Netting is a criminal act! An auditor had never heard of financial netting, when nearly every person with a job knows what a net income is! My cooling bricks were supposed to be getting hotter! And I have no doubt you thought the whole thing was one big laugth from start to finnish. What kind of a sick pervert does that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2014 7:25:09 GMT
It says 210.1 K and approximately 210K. Yeah like the 20th century warming was approximately 1k plus or minus 2k It makes no difference at all to the reality you were the sick pervert who played around with me for months on end while you continually lied for months on end. The other sicko was trenberth who tried to make out Mars had no CO2 in the atmosphere!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 9, 2014 2:43:14 GMT
Yeah like the 20th century warming was approximately 1k plus or minus 2k It makes no difference at all to the reality you were the sick pervert who played around with me for months on end while you continually lied for months on end. The other sicko was trenberth who tried to make out Mars had no CO2 in the atmosphere! Hmmmm, you must be a maschist after all its you who keeps reviving the topics. This phase change thing was put to rest a long time ago until a few weeks ago when you resurrected it by throwing a bunch of insults around. I think the correct term for what has happened to you is Self-flagellation.
|
|