sci.environment

On Sep 20, 8:39 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/36750c4295cc6cc6/d58bdad615ee5a56?hl=en&rnum=121&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F36750c4295cc6cc6%2Faab3241984a6f98d%3Fhl%3Den%26lnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_aab3241984a6f98d

The false science of AGW as propounded by Sir Phil of Shit.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/36750c4295cc6cc6/d58bdad615ee5a56?hl=en&rnum=121&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F36750c4295cc6cc6%2Faab3241984a6f98d%3Fhl%3Den%26lnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_88c006b9b11f304a

kd
;> Bunch of false shit when one considers that the arbitrary assigment
of
;> albedo is used. Albedo must refer to reflected light. It is insane
to
;> say that this applies to all energy from the sun. The sun radiates
a
;> considerable amount of energy in the infrareds. A substance at
even
;> very low temperatures produces some radiation up to about 2-3um. If
an
;> object radiates in a particular frequency, it does not reflect
this
;> frequency. The visible frequencies are the only ones that the air
is
;> truely transparent to and which are reflected.

spos
Usual Deatherage bullshit, Albedo is measured as an integral over all
incident frequencies (typically 0.30-0.31).

Examples of instruments used: http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/erbenonscan.html
Plots of actual data: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/gifs/ALBALL.mpg

;> Albedo must not change with temperature. Does a white surface get
;> brighter at higher temperature? The factor of albedo is derived
soley
;> by the needs of AGW to support their false conclusion of human
effect
;> on temperature.

;> What about the bands of 2.7 and 4.2 um in which the solar constant
has
;> a considerable amount of energy? Are these equally reflected as
the
;> factor of albedo that is used suggests. This fact is also hidden
by
;> the fraudists of AGW.

spos
The fraud's all yours, according to you the CO2 band at 15 micron
constitutes a small fraction of the earth's radiation whereas 2.7 and
4.2 constitute a considerable amount of solar energy! It's about
time
you recalibrated your Stefan-Boltzmann calculator.

Only 6% of solar above 2 microns whereas 49% is above 14 microns for
S-
B at 280K, use this calculator if you like:
http://energy.sdsu.edu/testcenter/testhome/javaapplets/planckRadiatio.
.
;> The evalution of albedo must begin with the amount of solar energy
;> recieved in a collector at solar noon at the equator under optimal
;> conditions. Only with this intitial fact, can determnination of
the
;> portion of energy that is reflected be started. But this basic fact
is
;> entirely hidden also.

spos
No, this tells you nothing about how much is reflected. Where it
starts is measuring the shortwave radiation from the sun above the
atmosphere, then measuring the shortwave reflected from the earth, the
ratio gives you the albedo. This information is freely available as
is the data on the instruments used including those I've quoted
above.

;> Phil of Shit's statement here will be, "these values are measured
and
;> agreed upon" which he will make without any supportive analyses.

No Deatherage I give supporting data and references, you on the other
hand continue to spew your unsupported rhetoric, fantasies and abuse


============

So if you measure the 'shortwave' above the earth and then measure the
'shortwave which is reflected', why do you integrate over all
frequencies???
Answer, in order to perpetrate your fraud with false numbers.

Sir Phil is wrong and his references are wrong in these calculations.
Simply to divide by Planck's constant is not using Planck's radiation
law or his theory.

Energy is a quantity. According to Planck, the energy of radiation is
always in integral multiples, (whole values) of his constant ' h '.
Therefore one has 1 x h,,, 2 x h,,, 3 x h,,,, No intermediate values.
This means that it is not valid to integrate wavelengths, since a
continuum does not exist in wavelength and improper values are
obtained.

This is only relevant when using frequency. Planck's constant is a
value in ergs per second. When multiplied by frequency which is in
cycles per second, it denotes a specific quantity or packet of energy
which is unchanging, or a packet of energy as also described by
Einstein, as a photon.

The evidence of this is in the photoelectric effect. The wafers of
photovaltic cells are partly composed of alkali metals which have low
ionization potential. Only when photons are absorbed which have energy
higher than this ionization potential, are electrons liberated. The
energy of their motion in being ejected, is directly related to the
energy of the photons. One electron is ejected for each photon. If the
flux, (brightness), of the light is increased while kept at the same
frequency or color, a greater number of electrons are ejected, but
have the same energy.

This is the means that Planck's theory is able to properly quantify
emissions and to portray a graph which show relative energy at each
frequency. This proper graph in frequency has area beneath the curve
that is proportional to total energy as Stefan's Law. The frequency at
which highest intensity of energy is produced is according to Wiens
Law. This frequency displaces towards the ultraviolet as a direct
proportion to temperature. Therefore this is always , 4.95kT / h .
Which is also .2898cm / T. So at 300K, the frequency at which most
energy is transmitted is 9.66um.

The intensity of radiation on a proper Planck graph, which is taken
from direct experimental data, increases very nearly as a square to
frequency. Therefore at around 300K, the intensity at 10um is 2.25
times greater than the intensity at 15um. This puts the energy at 15um
out of the band around 10um of the earth's radiation.

Sir Phil is invalid. His references are invalid. His school of theory
is invalid. The graphs created used and believed by this school are
invalid. These facts can be directly proved.

This simple math and direct experimental data on the relative energy
at each frequency proves Sir Phil to be invalid and his references
here to be invalid. There is no need for the false qualifications used
at his reference. One only needs a graph in frequency and the actual
energy at each frequency.

See Planck's Radiation Law, Max Born, 'Atomic Physics'. Available from
any bookseller.

Max Born was a very prominent German physicist and a contemporary of
Planck and Einstein, with whom he discussed personally. He was
Heisenberg's mentor out of college and is credited with some of the
early development in quantum mechanics. His interpretation of Planck's
Law as recorded in his book, are much more correct than Sir Phil's
rhetoric which is not based upon any physical science.

Sir Phil's numbers for the energy radiated by the sun in the infrared
are a total joke. The sun does radiate most of it's energy in the
visible. This does not mean it does not radiate in the infrared. In
all Planck curves, as temperature increases, the intensity maximum
shifts according to Wiens Law. But the intensity in all frequencies
increases also. The sun is at 93 million miles. At it's surface it
radiates at about 6000K and at about 60,000,000Wm-2. At the distance
to the earth due to the inverse square law, this energy is diminished
to 1370Wm-2. This is still much more energy than the earth's
radiation. 50% of the solar constant of 1370Wm-2 is in the visible, 9%
in the ultraviolet, and 41% in the infrareds.

This is about 570Wm-2 in the infrared. In relative energy, the solar
constant has more energy in frequencies up to about 7um than the
radiation of the earth for it's temperature.

KDeatherage