He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
He probably read that section and thought it was a set of instructions.
King Canute Obama is planning to have his royal army to launch surveillance balloons around DC.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-to-launch-blimps-to-guard-against-cruise-missiles/
CBS news says there is no law against it. I beg to differ. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the army from enforcing state laws. Army spying on the people of Virginia, Maryland, and DC is unacceptable.
If only we still had King George. Even King George the W would be better.
I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.
The interesting thing is that is exactly what the radiative transfer models used by all major climate models report. The people writing and using those models know that Mann-made CO2 is not important.
Now you know, they have to obtain CO2 bandwidth readings from the driest, highest places on Earth. Looking at the MODIS pictures at the relevant frequencies shows squat all of the seas and land. The air is opaque and no amount of extra CO2 is going to make a tap of a difference.
There is no evidence that Mike Sanicola exists:
http://boards.fool.com/im-a-professional-infrared-astronomer-who-spent-31086695.aspx?sort=postdate
“I’m an astronomer and been around quite a while, and I’ve never heard of Mike Sanicola so I did a little checking. He is not in the American Astronomical Association directory (very unusual for a professional U.S. astronomer), nor is he one of the 10,727 astronomers worldwide listed in the International Astronomical Union (IAU) directory of professional astronomers. The link associated with his name in Goddard’s post takes you to the GE (yes, that’s General Electric) home page, where there is absolutely no mention of a Mike Sanicola. There are *no* papers in the Astrophysics Data System by anyone named “Sanicola”, and this source indexes all papers that appear in the significant astronomy journals and conference proceedings. A Google search finds no reference to a Mike Sanicola, astronomer, other than to the same Steve Goddard article that Ajax quotes. I don’t think Mike Sanicola exists, or if he does, he is not a professional astronomer.”
Now I don’t buy the CO2 forcing claim but before you go out and jump on the bandwagon of some skeptics claim some fact checking is strongly recommended, otherwise your credibility is at risk; and since Mr. Goddard’s credentials are in question, as well as his very existence, this just damages his credibility severely to no end from the warmistas.
Don’t go embracing false flags just because they sound credible. A post on WUWT by Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Emission Spectra
Posted on March 10, 2011 by Ira Glickstein, PhD
refutes what Mr. Sanicola posted.
It is a pen name.
I have sent this on to all in the House of Reps in Australia. However, you can lead a horse to water, but……………………
Thanks Mike. Copied and saved, with link.
I work for one of the major news networks in Alaska. Can anybody please put me in contact with Mike Sanicola. We would like to interview this expert about the true science of CO2 origins. Regards [email protected]
I E-mailed your request to Mike.
Cool. Thanks
Thanks for speaking out.
Thanks, Mike, for the information. I agree with you regarding the importance of water vapor, and the fact that CO2 is most active at the cold end of the thermal spectrum.
One minor point is that you say:
It sounds like you are saying that CO2 has almost no effect above 13 microns. In fact, CO2 absorbs strongly from about 13 to 18 microns. And although you are right that water vapor is the biggest player, the total absorption by CO2 is substantial.
For those interested in the topic, MODTRAN lets you see the absorptive effects of CO2, H20, and the like at various temperatures and atmospheric conditions. For example, if there were no clouds or GHGs, in the tropics we’d see upwelling longwave radiation of about 400 W/m2. If there’s just water vapor, it absorbs about 70 W/m2 of that 400 W/m2. If there’s just CO2, it absorbs about 40 W/m2. Because of overlap, if we have both CO2 and H2O it’s not 110 W/m2 absorbed but only 100 W/m2.
In winter near the poles, of course, all the numbers are smaller. No ghgs or clouds we’d see upwelling radiation of 230 W/m2. If there’s H20 only, 30 W/m2 absorbed. CO2 only, 17 W/m2 absorbed. Curiously, there is total overlap at these low temperatures, so combined they absorb the same as H20 alone.
So you are correct, Mike, that between 9 and 13 microns CO2 does almost nothing. But there is strong CO2 absorption between 13 and 18 microns. The overall absorption is smaller than that of H20, to be sure, but it is not insignificant, either in the tropics or near the poles.
All the best, thanks for the good word from the field,
w.
Mike, where can I see your credentials and bio? I have done an internet search for your name, but there are several people with that name. I am interested in your theory, but, as a fellow scientist (a professional metrology engineer), I verify everything (give a metrologist and inch and he will measure it). I have shared your ideas with a few other people, who, also, have asked for credentials. Thanks.
For more than a decade now I’ve been BEGGING for someone to give me, in reasonably understandable terms for a layman, the science behind just how CO2 “traps heat in the atmosphere.” Perhaps you misunderstood me for your explanation does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE as has been pointed out by others here.
So how is it even remotely possible that this science exists and yet “the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree…” that CO2 “causes global warming by trapping heat”. Is it possible that our government would deliberately MISLEAD US? There must be some error in your calculations. Such a caring and compassionate person as The One would never tell us something unless it was absolutely irrefutable.
I also believe back radiation from “objects” – CO2 molecules – that are cold is totally incapable of causing any heating effect in much warmer objects.
Back radiation has never been shown to cause a heating effect in a real experiment yet there must be thousands of laboratories around the globe that could easily conduct an experiment where an object is heated by radiation capable of inducing a certain temperature, then heat the same object with radiation from a second source capable of inducing the same – or different – temperature – it doesn’t matter.
Then heat the object with both sources and see if the sum of the radiation fluxes induces the temperature Universities teach happens in climate science lectures such as 239.7 Solar + 239.7 back radiation equals 479.4 at a temperature of 303 Kelvin.
It doesn’t happen – I’ve tried it and it doesn’t happen.
I heated a thermometer to 30 with one spotlight, 36 C with another and then turned both on.
The final temperature was 46 C on a day when air temperature was 18 C.
Climate science radiation sums to over 90 degrees C which is obviously nonsense.
If you calculate the “net” radiation for each spotlight using the SB equation and add them to the ambient air radiation the sum equals a value which calculates to be ?
46 C
The heating is done by the sun. The back radiation slows cooling. A doubling of CO2 in theory should warm the place up about 1.2°C. Whether it does or not is entirely another matter.
It doesn’t because the same clouds that take albedo from 0.15 to 0.3 also condense water vapor aloft which allows surfaces (water droplets) to radiate as blackbodies far above most of the atmosphere through which this IR would otherwise have to travel. This is especially true in the tropics at mid-day and in the afternoon. The GHE is physically bypassed by condensing the water vapor aloft, especially when large amounts of heat are to be rejected (cumulus, cumulonimbus clouds, after the onset of the more intense solar heating around mid-day). It’s inherently a negative feedback process (acts as a divisor to the 1.2°C), supported by a process that routinely goes +feedback (clouds, thunderstorms) on demand.
Indeed. Water “intervenes” early in the sequence.
A cooler object CANNOT make a warmer object warmer still … PERIOD … not by ANY mechanism without additional energy. No way, no how… period
I see. You suppose that IR photons are intelligent, and know how to steer away from warmer objects. I would like to meet these photons.
No Michael, that’s silly. It’s that every IR photon absorbed is emitted in equal proportion (Kirchhoffs law). You cannot get energy for free from the greenhouse gas layer. Seems to be quite the intellectual differentiator: not many understand the clear violation of energy conservation laws (both 1st and 2nd) by this bogus greenhouse effect.
Just because EMR is blocked doesn’t mean you gain temperature — the light may be blocked optically, but the energy continues in other forms.
If the greenhouse effect was real, and cooler objects could warm warmer objects via EMR as you claim, mutual radiation would heat objects in an infinite feedback loop leading to the almost instant heat death of the Universe; that’s how stupid the greenhouse theory is.
But, apparently unbeknownst to greenhouse believers, mutual radiation cancels, it does not add, as required by the theory.
LOL
@PeterMG
It’s true. The only two things that can affect the EMR output of any object is the heat content and the emissivity. If anything, CO2 should increase earth’s emissivity. There is no heat-trapping via EMR.
So a quick check netted the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_telescope
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_astronomy
They both say that the infrared telescopes are built on mountains to try to escape the effect of water vapour. A quote from the second link says the following:
“The principal limitation on infrared sensitivity from ground-based telescopes is the Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation, and the atmosphere itself emits at infrared wavelengths. For this reason, most infrared telescopes are built in very dry places at high altitude, so that they are above most of the water vapor in the atmosphere.”
Nothing there about CO2.
The http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/ir-telescopes.pdf file says, “Another problem to be overcome by ground-based observatories was the absorption of infrared radiation by gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. Fortunately, in the near-infrared and mid-infrared regions, from 1 to 10 ?m, there are some clear atmospheric ‘windows’. From observatories on high mountain peaks, astronomers are able to use these ‘windows’ to investigate the infrared sky at certain wavelengths.”
That is the only mention of carbon dioxide in the file. The rest is about water vapour like, “However, even the Mauna Kea site is not high enough to allow far-infrared observations. In order to rise above the bulk of the water vapor and the atmosphere, astronomers have turned to placing telescopes on balloons, sounding rockets or high-?ying aircraft.”
There is also the following paragraph from the second page:
“However, a much larger, more powerful successor is scheduled to become operational in 2002. NASA’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) will fly on board a modified Boeing 747-SP aircraft at an operational height of 12.5 km (nearly 41 000 ft). From this altitude, SOFIA will be above 99.9% of the infrared absorbing atmospheric water vapor that limits ground based infrared observations.”
They are working hard to get above 99.9% of the water but they don’t care to mention carbon dioxide.
Interesting.
John M Reynolds
They are working hard to get above 99.9% of the water but they don’t care to mention carbon dioxide.
There are two reasons why astronomers don’t and can’t do much about CO2:
1. The CO2 absorption in the infrared is mostly confined to strong bands between 13 and 18 microns, where the atmosphere is essentially opaque, and so you can’t do astronomy from the ground or at easily obtainable aircraft elevations. Elsewhere, there isn’t much CO2 present. So, where the atmosphere is transparent enough to do astronomy, CO2 isn’t generally a problem.
2. H2O is present as a haze of lines over almost the entire infrared spectrum. So at most infrared wavelengths, water vapor is the problem and not CO2. Also, water vapor condenses out rapidly with increasing height in the atmosphere, because it gets cold. At common flight altitudes (35,000 ft = 10 km), temperatures are typically about -50 to -60 C. There is very little water vapor left at these temperatures because it freezes out.. Even at mountain top elevations, water vapor contributions are much reduced over those at sea level. So elevation helps a lot to reduce water vapor in the observed infrared spectrum. But elevation reduces CO2 amounts much less — CO2 decreases by the same ratio that overall atmospheric pressure decreases — because CO2 is well mixed and doesn’t freeze out in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The world is messy:
1) Willis’s comment: “CO2 absorbs strongly from about 13 to 18 microns. And although you are right that water vapor is the biggest player, the total absorption by CO2 is substantial.”
and Bennett’s comment: 2) “The CO2 absorption in the infrared is mostly confined to strong bands between 13 and 18 microns, where the atmosphere is essentially opaque, and so you can’t do astronomy from the ground or at easily obtainable aircraft elevations.”
So Sanicola’s points about not seeing appreciable absorption bands of CO2 and “This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2.” can be true AT THE SAME TIME AS the Willis-Bennett comments. The Willis-Bennett is about the presence of a phenomenon; even “substantial absorption” is a qualitative amount about presence, something that might mean just an amount worthy of an astronomer’s attention. Sanicola’s comments are about the implication of a phenomenon, i.e. how the observed proportionality of IR absorption relates to the warming effects of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.
Different subjects but related. Just as almost all the CAGW debate is: the warmists say THIS will happen, the skeptics say THIS will have not much impact.
The MSM and public can’t or at least haven’t realized there is a difference because we all talk loosely.
Well put D. Proctor,
And then: Astronomens are interested in finding widows. While the green house question must address the whole spectrum where and how much IR is absorbed and reradiated back to earth surface. Two different problems related to the use of the spectrum.
Anyone seen the broad H2o spectral energy addressed relative to the 15u Co2 energy where it can make an independent difference?