| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richard111
Experienced User
Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Posts: 433
|
 Posted: 16 May 2009 05:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Derek wrote: |
Richard111 - I think you are on to something very interesting, and relevant.
I look forward to you expanding further. Please let me know when you do. |
Derek - thanks for the vote of confidence. I do not think I have the background knowledge to take this very far. Do feel free to join in. I read long ago that water does not heat directly from infrared. The container heats first and warms the water by conduction. I have observed similar at the sea side, shallow rock pools are much warmer than deeper ones. Also when scuba diving, water temperature drops sharply only a few meters down. All indicative of the specific heat of water.
A post by a physicist at WUWT confirmed my thinking. Currently I am reading up on the Water aborption Spectrum. There is a graph there that shows the vast difference in absorbance between visible and IR radiation.
So far I have not found a reference for the penetration of the different e/m frequencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 16 May 2009 09:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
hqmonaro - I'm referring to John Phillips and ian's posts above.
Also, my post above about openly considering what Dr. Miskolczi is actually suggesting,
rather than what has or has not been observed.
Personnally I would "go" with his observations for the time being, to consider the suggestions / theory.
Some say his use of the virial theorum, or Kirchoff's law is somewhat peculiar.
I would reply, "Peculiar possibly, but observed none the less".
Time will tell if they are repeatable / verifiable.
I believe they are however.
As a suggestion of a new line or approach to reasearch I think criticisms need to be at a different "scale" than made so far,
and as for dismissal of his ideas, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" is about as polite a description as I can muster.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 16 May 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek wrote: | hqmonaro - I'm referring to John Phillips and ian's posts above.
Also, my post above about openly considering what Dr. Miskolczi is actually suggesting,
rather than what has or has not been observed.
Personnally I would "go" with his observations for the time being, to consider the suggestions / theory.
Some say his use of the virial theorum, or Kirchoff's law is somewhat peculiar.
I would reply, "Peculiar possibly, but observed none the less".
Time will tell if they are repeatable / verifiable.
I believe they are however.
As a suggestion of a new line or approach to reasearch I think criticisms need to be at a different "scale" than made so far,
and as for dismissal of his ideas, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" is about as polite a description as I can muster. |
FM has many problems with his ideas, I threw up two.
His comfirmation of this theory by referring to the climate on Mars. He has no measurements of the Martian climate to refer to. Any references to Mars as confirmation of this theory have to be questioned.
His referral to the "infinite" depth of the atmosphere is completely wrong. No current theoretical modelling of the atmosphere requires it to be infinitetly thick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
| Posted: 16 May 2009 04:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HQ:
Similar claims can be made about the output from the lead authors and research used by the IPCC. The information is not based on actual real life information but adjusted data to fit a wanted pattern. The suface temperature has been proven to be nevt to worthless as it has been adjusted to "FIX" bad data. Raw data from rural sites show little or no warming. The latest report from the people who have records from the Artic show no trend since 1958 without adjustments as made by GISS.
With the problems in the research used by the IPCC that turns thier reports into fantasy and propaganda. Any new approchs are welcomed or should be welcomed by scientists as a means of finding what is the primary driveing factors because CO2 nas proven to be only a bit payer if that much or maybe a spectator along for the ride.
If you would be so kind as to provide real world evidence of factual data used by the IPCC then we can start to discuss other views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 16 May 2009 09:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hqmonaro wrote: |
FM has many problems with his ideas, I threw up two.
His comfirmation of this theory by referring to the climate on Mars....
His referral to the "infinite" depth of the atmosphere is completely wrong.... |
As I said, your so wide of the mark you have thrown out the baby with the bath water in trying to avoid discussing,
and attempting to stifle real debate of Dr. Miskolczi's ideas.
Thanks for showing my original remark of, and about your intent was so correct.
I would further add that as a "history" of the greenhouse effect theory evolves over time,
there may well be recorded several steps in it's "progress", or rather development..
First came the original idea, that was even later changed / refuted by the original proposer.
Then came the Jim Hansen era, so beloved at present.
Miskolczi represents the next possible stage, but, there is a new school of thought on the table.
Many now suggest that the absorbsion / emission is so fast as to be of little effect, other than a slight slowing of the rate of cooling.
This goes to the heart of GHG gas theory and present "fears".
The new "school of thought" that is undoubtedly gaining ground still suggests water vapour IS the main dominant GHG,
but more by latent heat movements and the change of state transport of energy.
Present suggestions that H20 is the dominant GHG are right for the wrong reasons the "new school" suggests.
Hence my interest in Richard111's post earlier in this thread.
Cutting edge stuff.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 19 May 2009 01:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As I said, your so wide of the mark you have thrown out the baby with the bath water in trying to avoid discussing,
and attempting to stifle real debate of Dr. Miskolczi's ideas.
Thanks for showing my original remark of, and about your intent was so correct.
|
I don't know how I stifled anything, you seem to be expressing yourself quite adequately.
The 'baby and the bathwater' statement. Are you saying there are problems with the paper, such as the Martian 'measurements', but as a whole it is still important? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 19 May 2009 08:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hqmonaro - Please read my previous post, you obviously have not so far.
In all honesty you have missed so much already you do not realise how far off the subject your comments are.
Remain hooked up about Mars if you must, the rest of us are back on planet earth.
Elsewhere very relevant and forward thinking discussions about the greenhouse effect are at present continuing.
Much along a mix of Miskolczi / new school ideas suggested above.
Interesting times.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 21 May 2009 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Then came the Jim Hansen era, so beloved at present. "
It's not the "Hansen" era, the basis of the current science was research done by the US military when it was investigating infra red radiation in the atmosphere. The science and research involves a lot more people than him, and was well underway before he was involved. Read Weart's history of CO2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
