Prev: Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change
Next: Making lemonade with quantum lemons
From: Darwin123 on 30 Jun 2010 13:19
On Jun 29, 11:40 am, "John M." <jmorgan1234...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:01 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 28, 3:58 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 6:06 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

> The reason that Bilbo Ward bangs on about technical minutia such as
> these is in the hope that BullshitBafflesBrains. I can see no other
> explanation for it.
>
In this specific case, I can.The issue that I think he was
addressing was one of the ones that I listed.
The "problem" sometimes raised against AGW is that the IR energy
absorbed by a greenhouse gas gets remitted. Therefore, suppose a green
house molecule absorbs some photon with an energy far less than the
most probable photon energy in a region of the atmosphere. At that
photon energy, the absorption by the greenhouse gas is low. If the
photon is emitted with the exact same energy that it was absorbed at,
and if the reemitted photon is moving in the same direction as the
original photon, it merely gets remitted in the atmosphere.
I don't know if you ever used an argument like that. Maybe he
thinks you did, even though you didn't. Regardless, one rebuttal would
be that the atmosphere at these deep IR wavelengths is in a local
thermal equilibrium.
Local thermal equilibrium (LTE) in a region of the atmosphere
means that EM radiation energy and kinetic energy of the molecules are
totally randomized and in a dynamic equilibrium. This could only come
about if the optical depth for the EM radiation is small. All the EM
radiation that is part of the heat energy is absorbed by the molecules
of the area and remitted. That means a particular photon of infrared
"heat energy" has to be absorbed almost as fast as it gets emitted. If
the energy gets reabsorbed and remitted several times, the direction
and energy of the original photon is completely lost. The energy is
completely randomized. If the LTE condition is valid, that photon that
is absorbed by the greenhouse gas never gets to leave.
The energy is absorbed by the greenhouse gas, sure. However, the
original photon doesn't leave. There are several channels open for the
energy. A photon leaves with less energy than the original photon and
the rest goes into the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or the photon
some of it gains energy from the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or
several photons get remitted, each with far less energy than the
original. Another greenhouse molecule can absorb it then. It can get
absorbed by an H2O molecule.
The direction of the photon is also scrambled. In general, the
momentum (including direction) of the photon is randomized even faster
than the energy. Momentum transfer can occur almost right away, before
the energy gets randomized. Therefore, even if the photon didn't
change energy by very much, it changes direction. If the original
photon was heading out into space, upon remission by the greenhouse
gas the photon is heading somewhere else. The probability is very low
it is heading out into space. It may be heading downward, or
horizontally. If it is heading horizontal, it is very likely to be
reabsorbed since it passes through a larger distance of atmosphere.
I talked with an analytical chemist who gave me that "remission
argument." I am a physicist who has worked on scattering problems. He
worked a lot with an absorption spectrometer. A I couldn't convince
him his argument was wrong. He kept on telling me about how much he
knows about absorption. The problem is, those spectrometers are
designed to eliminate most remitted light.
Please understand. I wasn't insisting on the existence of AGW per
se. I have several liberal and environmental biases. However, I really
was trying to make him understand the scientific point. I don't have a
professional concern as to whether the earth roasts, freezes, or
blooms into a paradise. I really wanted him to understand the
scattering of EM radiation. It could have helped him in his work.
I am pretty sure a few of these antiAGW arguments are sound bites
dropped by ignoramuses. I am also pretty sure the same is true for
some of these AGW concerns.
From: Bill Ward on 30 Jun 2010 15:46
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:19:44 -0700, Darwin123 wrote:

> On Jun 29, 11:40 am, "John M." <jmorgan1234...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 5:01 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 28, 3:58 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 28, 6:06 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>
>> > > wrote:
>
>> The reason that Bilbo Ward bangs on about technical minutia such as
>> these is in the hope that BullshitBafflesBrains. I can see no other
>> explanation for it.
>>
> In this specific case, I can.The issue that I think he was
> addressing was one of the ones that I listed.
> The "problem" sometimes raised against AGW is that the IR energy
> absorbed by a greenhouse gas gets remitted. Therefore, suppose a green
> house molecule absorbs some photon with an energy far less than the most
> probable photon energy in a region of the atmosphere. At that photon
> energy, the absorption by the greenhouse gas is low. If the photon is
> emitted with the exact same energy that it was absorbed at, and if the
> reemitted photon is moving in the same direction as the original photon,
> it merely gets remitted in the atmosphere.
> I don't know if you ever used an argument like that. Maybe he
> thinks you did, even though you didn't. Regardless, one rebuttal would
> be that the atmosphere at these deep IR wavelengths is in a local
> thermal equilibrium.
> Local thermal equilibrium (LTE) in a region of the atmosphere
> means that EM radiation energy and kinetic energy of the molecules are
> totally randomized and in a dynamic equilibrium. This could only come
> about if the optical depth for the EM radiation is small. All the EM
> radiation that is part of the heat energy is absorbed by the molecules
> of the area and remitted. That means a particular photon of infrared
> "heat energy" has to be absorbed almost as fast as it gets emitted. If
> the energy gets reabsorbed and remitted several times, the direction and
> energy of the original photon is completely lost. The energy is
> completely randomized. If the LTE condition is valid, that photon that
> is absorbed by the greenhouse gas never gets to leave.
> The energy is absorbed by the greenhouse gas, sure. However, the
> original photon doesn't leave. There are several channels open for the
> energy. A photon leaves with less energy than the original photon and
> the rest goes into the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or the photon
> some of it gains energy from the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or
> several photons get remitted, each with far less energy than the
> original. Another greenhouse molecule can absorb it then. It can get
> absorbed by an H2O molecule.
> The direction of the photon is also scrambled. In general, the
> momentum (including direction) of the photon is randomized even faster
> than the energy. Momentum transfer can occur almost right away, before
> the energy gets randomized. Therefore, even if the photon didn't change
> energy by very much, it changes direction. If the original photon was
> heading out into space, upon remission by the greenhouse gas the photon
> is heading somewhere else. The probability is very low it is heading out
> into space. It may be heading downward, or horizontally. If it is
> heading horizontal, it is very likely to be reabsorbed since it passes
> through a larger distance of atmosphere.
> I talked with an analytical chemist who gave me that "remission
> argument." I am a physicist who has worked on scattering problems. He
> worked a lot with an absorption spectrometer. A I couldn't convince him
> his argument was wrong. He kept on telling me about how much he knows
> about absorption. The problem is, those spectrometers are designed to
> eliminate most remitted light.
> Please understand. I wasn't insisting on the existence of AGW per
> se. I have several liberal and environmental biases. However, I really
> was trying to make him understand the scientific point. I don't have a
> professional concern as to whether the earth roasts, freezes, or blooms
> into a paradise. I really wanted him to understand the scattering of EM
> radiation. It could have helped him in his work.
> I am pretty sure a few of these antiAGW arguments are sound bites
> dropped by ignoramuses. I am also pretty sure the same is true for some
> of these AGW concerns.

Thanks for your comments. I hope you can get through to Morgan - I
haven't been able to.

From: kdthrge on 30 Jun 2010 19:55
On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 11:40 am, "John M." <jmorgan1234...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 5:01 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 3:58 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 28, 6:06 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > The reason that Bilbo Ward bangs on about technical minutia such as
> > these is in the hope that BullshitBafflesBrains. I can see no other
> > explanation for it.
>
>       In this specific case, I can.The issue that I think he was
> addressing was one of the ones that I listed.
>       The "problem" sometimes raised against AGW is that the IR energy
> absorbed by a greenhouse gas gets remitted. Therefore, suppose a green
> house molecule absorbs some photon with an energy far less than the
> most probable photon energy in a region of the atmosphere. At that
> photon energy, the absorption by the greenhouse gas is low. If the
> photon is emitted with the exact same energy that it was absorbed at,
> and if the reemitted photon is moving in the same direction as the
> original photon, it merely gets remitted in the atmosphere.
>     I don't know if you ever used an argument like that. Maybe he
> thinks you did, even though you didn't. Regardless, one rebuttal would
> be that the atmosphere at these deep IR wavelengths is in a local
> thermal equilibrium.
>       Local thermal equilibrium (LTE) in a region of the atmosphere
> means that EM radiation energy and kinetic energy of the molecules are
> totally randomized and in a dynamic equilibrium. This could only come
> about if the optical depth for the EM radiation is small. All the EM
> radiation that is part of the heat energy is absorbed by the molecules
> of the area and remitted. That means a particular photon of infrared
> "heat energy" has to be absorbed almost as fast as it gets emitted. If
> the energy gets reabsorbed and remitted several times, the direction
> and energy of the original photon is completely lost. The energy is
> completely randomized. If the LTE condition is valid, that photon that
> is absorbed by the greenhouse gas never gets to leave.
..>      The energy is absorbed by the greenhouse gas, sure. However,
the
..> original photon doesn't leave. There are several channels open for
the
..> energy. A photon leaves with less energy than the original photon
and
..> the rest goes into the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or the
photon
..> some of it gains energy from the kinetic energy of the molecule. Or
..> several photons get remitted, each with far less energy than the
..> original. Another greenhouse molecule can absorb it then. It can
get
..> absorbed by an H2O molecule.


You do all this talking and cannot quantify.

R as the gas constant gives the energy of the molar kinetic energy for
the molecular velocities. RT is the total of this energy of all of the
molecules for their velocites above the velocity of zero. In the
perfect gas law, RT is zero at zero, where there is no pressure and no
volume.

Therfore if the total energy for the molar molecular velocities is RT,
dividiing by number of molecules gives kT, or the average kinetic
energy for a molecule among the multitudes of velocites for a gas at a
specific temperature.

So for 300K or about 81F, kT or the average energy for the linear
velocity of a molecule of gas is,
13.805E-24 Joules x 300 =
4.14E-21 Joules

One electron volt is 0.16E-18 Joules, so kT at 300K is,
0.026 electron volts.

This is the average kinetic energy for the kinetic energy of the
linear velocities of the molecules. Some molecules have higher
velocities, some have lower velocites.

A photon of 15um, at which the important DARK spectroscopic band of
CO2 is centered, has the frequency
2.99E10cm / 0.00015cm
of 1.99E13 cycles per second.

Multiplied by Planck's constant gives hv, or the energy in this
'packet' of energy described by Einstein as a photon and upon which
modern theory of electromagnetic radiation is based.

hv for a photon of 15um is therefore,
1.99E13 x 0.6625E-33 Joules, or

0.085 electron volts.

This is the energy of a photon of 15um
The average kinetic energy for a molecule at 300K is 0.026 electron
volts.

This 3.27 times greater. This would be the average energy for a
molecule, kT, at 981 degrees Kelvin (300 x 3.27).

Your description of 'absorption' or retention of energy by specific
gases is nonsensical when actual applied facts on energy and molecular
energies are applied. These molecules are not absorbing this quantity
of energy.

Dark bands of the infrared spectrum, are NON RADIATIVE bands. This is
why they appear DARK in laboratory analysis. The dark band of CO2 is
fully saturated with very low concentrations of CO2. But this is not
inordinate absorption of the radiation energy. It is only transmitted
at other frequencies.

This band fully saturated, if it were absorption, would retain
exorbitant quantites of energy, of which there is absolutely no
laboratory evidence.


KD


>      The direction of the photon is also scrambled. In general, the
> momentum (including direction) of the photon is randomized even faster
> than the energy. Momentum transfer can occur almost right away, before
> the energy gets randomized. Therefore, even if the photon didn't
> change energy by very much, it changes direction. If the original
> photon was heading out into space, upon remission by the greenhouse
> gas the photon is heading somewhere else. The probability is very low
> it is heading out into space. It may be heading downward, or
> horizontally. If it is heading horizontal, it is very likely to be
> reabsorbed since it passes through a larger distance of atmosphere.
>        I talked with an analytical chemist who gave me that "remission
> argument." I am a physicist who has worked on scattering problems. He
> worked a lot with an absorption spectrometer. A I couldn't convince
> him his argument was wrong. He kept on telling me about how much he
> knows about absorption. The problem is, those spectrometers are
> designed to eliminate most remitted light.
>     Please understand. I wasn't insisting on the existence of AGW per
> se. I have several liberal and environmental biases. However, I really
> was trying to make him understand the scientific point. I don't have a
> professional concern as to whether the earth roasts, freezes, or
> blooms into a paradise. I really wanted him to understand the
> scattering of EM radiation. It could have helped him in his work.
>     I am pretty sure a few of these antiAGW arguments are sound bites
> dropped by ignoramuses. I am also pretty sure the same is true for
> some of these AGW concerns.

From: spudnik on 30 Jun 2010 20:30
I didn't see what "last paragraph" you wrote; anyway,
the summary in the paper is fairly clear (~1.8 some thing .-)

> The last paragraph about the relation between surface temperature and pressure,
> and radiating temperature and altitude is my translation of what I think
> Miskolczi is saying in:  
> <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>

thus&so:
that is awfully interesting, if rather complex. anyway,
I have said for years, that no-one ever bothered
-- after Ahrrenius did not win the first Nobel in chemistry
for his coinage of the term, glass house gasses --
to model an ordinary glass house *at a latitude.*

thus, the overwhelming conception of the GCMers,
that the poles will heat more than the tropics,
which is quite absurd.

I'd also mention the '30s paper of George Simpson,
a table-top experiment with a Bunsen-burner & cubes of ice!

thus&so:
BP's and Waxman's cap&trade is striclty "free market;"
let the arbitrageurs & daytrippers jack-up the price of energy,
as much as they can, as with Waxman's '91 bill (presumably;
there seems to be a dearth of "story" about how fantastic it was .-)

> And those other ways could be much more fair than letting those
> with lots of money pay the carbon tax while the less well off go without.

thus&so: don't worry;
British Petroleum's cap&trade & free beer/miles is on the way!

thus&so:
like, I typed, sea-ice is the most unstable thing --
aside from clouds. so, see Fred Singer's retrospective metastudy
on world-around glaciers, Doofus. also, see the November '01 story
in the Sunday LAtribcoTimes, "120 New Glaciers Found
on Continental Divide."

thus&so:
what if El Nino is correlated with underwater vulcanism?
I started looking at ENSO, just before it was called that. well,
it was two things, El Nino and the Quasibiennial Southern Oscillation,
the latter having had a period of about 26 months. so, now,
draw some conclusion!
> The global temperature lags ENSO by 6 months.

thus&so:
as in, Beyond Petroleum (tm) -- stuff that's squeezed
from a holow rock, and is allegedly fossilized.
in my experience, neither R or D know the definition of
"republic,"
or much of the history of the idea. anyway,
the whole problem of the Anthropocene was highlighted,
perhaps for some purpose, by having the conference
in the venue of the Copenhagenskool of QM

thus&so:
Myth 1 is supported by the old Shackleton et al study,
which seems to show a spike in CO2, just before the glacial phase.
Myth 2 is somewhat overstated, since the change in obliquity
of Earth's orbit is synched -- not causative -- with the 100,000-year
cycle of glaciation in the Quaternary.
Myth 5 is supported by the fact that the floating-point spec
is inherently chaotic (IEEE-755, -855, I think); think, "fractals
are the very definition of psychedelia, man!"
> * Myth 1 – Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive
> changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is
> driving the current warming.
> * Myth 2 – Solar activity is the main driver of climate change.
> * Myth 5 – Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
> useful projections of climate change."
> http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-denie...
> ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N....

thus&so:
what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate
for Bernward at the Post, was also the Vice President,
who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
(second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
to make for a controlled demolition?
well, some of us believe that
he was not just the acting president --
especially since the impeachment of Bill C..
also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge --
doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance?

--BP's cap&trade + free beer/miles on your CO2 debits at ARCO!
http://wlym.com
From: John M. on 1 Jul 2010 08:23
On Jul 1, 2:30 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't see what "last paragraph" you wrote; anyway,
> the summary in the paper is fairly clear (~1.8 some thing .-)
>
> > The last paragraph about the relation between surface temperature and pressure,
> > and radiating temperature and altitude is my translation of what I think
> > Miskolczi is saying in:  
> > <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
>
> thus&so:
> that is awfully interesting, if rather complex.  anyway,
> I have said for years, that no-one ever bothered
> -- after Ahrrenius did not win the first Nobel in chemistry
> for his coinage of the term, glass house gasses --
> to model an ordinary glass house *at a latitude.*
>
> thus, the overwhelming conception of the GCMers,
> that the poles will heat more than the tropics,
> which is quite absurd.
>
> I'd also mention the '30s paper of George Simpson,
> a table-top experiment with a Bunsen-burner & cubes of ice!
>
> thus&so:
> BP's and Waxman's cap&trade is striclty "free market;"
> let the arbitrageurs & daytrippers jack-up the price of energy,
> as much as they can, as with Waxman's '91 bill (presumably;
> there seems to be a dearth of "story" about how fantastic it was .-)
>
> > And those other ways could be much more fair than letting those
> > with lots of money pay the carbon tax while the less well off go without.
>
> thus&so: don't worry;
> British Petroleum's cap&trade & free beer/miles is on the way!
>
> thus&so:
> like, I typed, sea-ice is the most unstable thing  --
> aside from clouds.  so, see Fred Singer's retrospective metastudy
> on world-around glaciers, Doofus.  also, see the November '01 story
> in the Sunday LAtribcoTimes, "120 New Glaciers Found
> on Continental Divide."
>
> thus&so:
> what if El Nino is correlated with underwater vulcanism?
>      I started looking at ENSO, just before it was called that.  well,
> it was two things, El Nino and the Quasibiennial Southern Oscillation,
> the latter having had a period of about 26 months.  so, now,
> draw some conclusion!
>
> > The global temperature lags ENSO by 6  months.
>
> thus&so:
> as in, Beyond Petroleum (tm) -- stuff that's squeezed
> from a holow rock, and is allegedly fossilized.
>     in my experience, neither R or D know the definition of
> "republic,"
> or much of the history of the idea.  anyway,
> the whole problem of the Anthropocene was highlighted,
> perhaps for some purpose, by having the conference
> in the venue of the Copenhagenskool of QM
>
> thus&so:
> Myth 1 is supported by the old Shackleton et al study,
> which seems to show a spike in CO2, just before the glacial phase.
>      Myth 2 is somewhat overstated, since the change in obliquity
> of Earth's orbit is synched -- not causative -- with the 100,000-year
> cycle of glaciation in the Quaternary.
>     Myth 5 is supported by the fact that the floating-point spec
> is inherently chaotic (IEEE-755, -855, I think); think, "fractals
> are the very definition of psychedelia, man!"
>
> >     * Myth 1 – Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive
> > changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is
> > driving the current warming.
> >     * Myth 2 – Solar activity is the main driver of climate change.
> >     * Myth 5 – Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
> > useful projections of climate change."
> >http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-denie...
> >ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N....
>
> thus&so:
> what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate
> for Bernward at the Post, was also the Vice President,
> who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
> (second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
> of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
> and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
> to make for a controlled demolition?
>     well, some of us believe that
> he was not just the acting president --
> especially since the impeachment of Bill C..
>     also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge --
> doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance?
>
> --BP's cap&trade + free beer/miles on your CO2 debits at ARCO!http://wlym..com

A nutter responds to a kook. What a f**king game of soldiers
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change
Next: Making lemonade with quantum lemons