Comments on: Energy@Berkeley: Solutions for Global Warming

By: bbjornst07

bbjornst07 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

Brain dead is a …
Brain dead is a very purile thing to say don’t you think? Isn’t Berkeley the place where about a half a dozen chemicals were discovered and currently on the periodic table? Isn’t Berekely ranked as the 3rd best University on the planet only so to Stanford #2 and Harvard #1? I have never seem someone with so much temerity as you. Sure we can’t always prove something but to sit while something might happen and our grandchildren may suffer for it. I want to prevent it.

By: bbjornst07

bbjornst07 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

Sure it would take …
Sure it would take one so much faster then we have now. But we can model each component individually. LBNL is working now to develope a software that can accurately calculate the energy efficiency of buildings. The file is enormous and has been in development for some time. We are currently working with the University of Minnesota on this project to make what you imply is impossible now quite realistic.

By: RocketManF4

RocketManF4 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

nigelelsass
You …
nigelelsass
You say your are from Germany but you sure sound like a brain dead person from Berkeley, did you study there? Stop all the big talk and talk like a normal person. Bottom line co2 always follows temp by an average of 800 years. When you use higher contractions of co2 aka 100% it has nothing to do with real life and that is where I live. And by the way I also have “paper” but I do not rub it in everyone’s face

By: nigelelsass

nigelelsass — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

As with the …
As with the tropospheric cooling observed from satellites we know that less CO2 is reemitted to higher layers of the atmosphere. This is a measured effect of CO2.

So at least you recognize the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Why then don’t you trust experimental spectral absorbtion for its quantification? Especially with your claim that positive feedbacks are not relevant, you should prefer linear models, shouldn’t you?

What about placing two bottles in the sun? 1 filled of CO2, 1 with N2?

By: nigelelsass

nigelelsass — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

This is how physics …
This is how physics is told and is accurate enough. Spectrophotoscopy focuses on the effect of specific gases.

There is nothing wrong with isolating the effect of a single gas to outline its effect.

By: nigelelsass

nigelelsass — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

This replicate the …
This replicate the isolated effect of CO2 as non greenhouse gases do not anyway react with IR. To represent the likelihood of an interaction of a photon on IR length with an IR gas you need to have a sufficient amount on CO2 molecules on the path. A tube with 280 ppm but 1m length would not represent the kilometers of atmosphere. For this reason, a higher concentration is a first better approximation.

By: nigelelsass

nigelelsass — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

I would be very …
I would be very interested where you found this statement. We are here speaking about models which are for a first approximation linear up to the quantity of steam in the atmosphere. Nothing complicated here. This is a simple energy balance model. We are here only speaking of a first result of the climate sensitivity based on the main greenhouse gases.

By: RocketManF4

RocketManF4 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

nigelelsass
your …
nigelelsass
your “home solved ” model is worthless.
a tube 100% full of co2 is not what our air is made up with. try it with a nix of 280 parts then a nix of 380 parts and guess what NOTHING different

By: RocketManF4

RocketManF4 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

nigelelsass
The …
nigelelsass
The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. So your computer models are not “ROBUST”

By: RocketManF4

RocketManF4 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:23:24 +0000

nigelelsass
Your …
nigelelsass
Your “living example” is wothless

1. Venis has 95.6% co2
2. Earth has .036% co2

So your example make no sense to a normal person, but to a AGWer who is despertate to find any proof it will work for you