I appriciate, this is a very good work. Further, i need some information about co2 sequestration how much ppm released/observed from the cyanobacteria.

We have been workin on the ability of differnt cyanobcteria to tolerate varying levels of co2, like 5-10%

First some arithmetic: The atmosphere weighs about 10**19 pounds -- which can be calculated from the atmospheric pressure. Of this amount, the CO2, at 300 parts per million, weighs about 5*(10)**15 pounds. We add about 10**12 pounds per year!

Bob Hamilton, Engineer

Richardson Texas USA

The Global Warmers have now tried to deal with the fact that the planet is not heating up. They now propose that the extra heat from the so-called greenhouse effect is being sequestered in the deep oceans. These people will stop at nothing to promote a non-existent effect to control and obliterate our industries. There is no such thing as a Green House Effect and this was known in the early part of the previous century. Cf. my previous posts about this almost criminal use of 'Global Warming Science'

Robert L Hamilton, Engineer

Richardson Texas USA

This is a research forum. Where is the published, peer reviewd research to support this accusation? Where is the research to show that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? I think the blog you need is wattsupwiththat.com; not a real research forum. Make your case with science, not empty rhetoric. BTW, you should avoid using the phrase "these people" in any form of correspondence, it is ugly, unnecessary are, more importantly it will lead most thinking people with any sense of history to reject your ideas before you even have a chance to make them... not that you tried here.

Where is the research to show there is such an Effect? One need not have to try to prove something doesn't exist. You will have trouble trying to prove a Negative and some of 'these people' know that. The fact that the Effect hasn't been proven to exist is probably all the reason you need, to know that it does not exist.

Thanks for your time and Enjoy your Day.

Robert L Hamilton, Engineer

Richardson Texas USA

Well Robert. Take a class read a book. But I suspect that would have little impact. Enjoy life. My last comment to you.

There is a "greenhouse effect", and I know of very few people who dispute that, including serious people at Wattsupwiththat.com. The problem is that the physical description of the cause of that effect is totally incorrect and this is easily proven. As you say, read a book, perhaps do your own research, and quit simply believing what the "authorities" on the subject say. They are not describing the atmosphere, they are describing the manner in which they coded their models in their attempts to simulate the physics of the atmosphere.

"The problem is that the physical description of the cause of that effect is totally incorrect and this is easily proven."

Mr Shaffer: Could you please post a reference to this 'proof?'

Thanks.

Robert L Hamilton, Engineer

Richardson Texas USA

;lhht;jh'g;jlu ; h hff'glhgf

hltfoklggl; yjkhhggbog uho

Sorry, a 6 year old goblin was pounding on my keyboard when I wasn't looking.

This seems slightly inappropriate for a thread that started with a question about cyanobacteria, so I will be brief.

References, not a complete list; Kirchhoff, Bunsen, Stokes, Maxwell, Beer, Lambert, Rayleigh, Mie, etc.

Anyone with a solid background in spectroscopic theory should be capable of determining why the commonly given description of the "greenhouse effect" is misleading, if not totally incorrect. Absorption, by itself, can never exceed 100% of the incident energy. There is only one way to "trap" EM waves.

Keywords; Cavity ring-down, White pass cell, cavity enhanced IR spectrometer, radiative transfer theory, Mie theory, ideal gas, vapor.

No ideal gas can "trap" the wavelengths emitted by the surface of the earth. Only an actively condensing gas can accomplish such a thing. No H2O, no "greenhouse effect". The surface temperature would be below freezing.

Larry:

"Anyone with a solid background in spectroscopic theory should be capable of determining why the commonly given description of the "greenhouse effect" is misleading, if not totally incorrect."

How would they know that, and why don't they be the first to write a paper about it and collect their 10,000,000 Krona and their Nobel prize?

"Absorption, by itself, can never exceed 100% of the incident energy."

If you mean that absorption respects conservation of energy, yes, you are right.

If you mean that Venus' atmosphere absorbs less energy from below than it does from the sun, you are not right.

At 745K the surface of Venus puts out about 16000W/m². Solar isolation is less than 3000 W/m². The reason that it is not losing energy fast is that the atmosphere absorbs nearer 500% of the incident energy than 100%. (If incidence energy is defined as the energy incident on the atmosphere from the sun.)

"There is only one way to "trap" EM waves."

Absorption.

"No ideal gas can "trap" the wavelengths emitted by the surface of the earth."

An ideal gas is "a theoretical gas composed of a set of randomly-moving, non-interacting point particles". It is an approximation used for statistical mechanics. It has nothing to do with the spectral absorption properties of the gas.

You appear to be talking pseudo-scientific babble, intended to mystify the uneducated. Get a life.

"Only an actively condensing gas can accomplish such a thing. No H2O, no "greenhouse effect"."

Rubbish. H₂O and CO₂ both have absorption bands in the range of frequencies emitted by earth. Therefore they absorb wavelengths emitted by the earth's surface.

"The surface temperature would be below freezing."

... Sorry?