AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Phil. on 5 Sep 2007 14:42 On Sep 5, 1:50 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:44:48 GMT, Phil Hays <inva...(a)dont.spam> wrote: > >Bill Ward wrote: > >> I think they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. It's > >> "agenda first, reality later", that drives their behavior. If AGW won't > >> further their agenda, they'll dump it for the next scare that comes > >> along. > > >Like the loss of sea ice this summer, for instance. A third of the Arctic > >polar cap is melted. A bit of reality on the AGW issue. > > A bit of delusion on the AGW issue, the Gulf Stream did > not originate by way of AGW, or even natural GW, it has been > there a long time, and feeds warm water to northward flows on > both sides of Greenland. > > Do you really believe that if a third of the ice has melted > as measured after months of solid sunshine or very long periods > of daylight that it won't refreeze this winter, at least to some extent. > > Thinking that something that is happening will never stop > is a psychiatric disorder, could all global warmers suffer from that? > > >Don't you wonder what the climate is going to be like with an ice free > >Arctic? > > Don't you wonder why you imagine such things as an ice free > Arctic? All the species that make use of the Arctic sea ice breath > air, so even if you fantasy delusion were to happen, they would just > go where there is ice near shore. > One of the more critical issues is mammals like the Narwhal > > http://images.google.com/images?q=narwhal+image&hl=en&um=1&sa=X&oi=im... > > need to hide from killer whales, but it is possible they would adapt > some defense or move to a safe place. > > Perhaps we could prevent the water from flowing across > the Arctic Ocean by building a dam across the Bering Strait, but > that might leave England and northern Europe 15 or 20 degrees > colder. > > But keep the AGW hoax going, if the funds were cur off, > the economy in Europe might collapse. I think you'll find most of the influx is from the Atlantic end. The point is that during this summer more than 1 million sq km extra ice has melted than in previous summers that we have comparable records for, that requires a lot of heat and has allowed more heat to be absorbed by being open for so long. Consequently the freezing season is likely to get off to a slow start and making a follow up melt next year more likely. If that is so a couple of more years would see a dramatic reduction in the September sea ice.
From: Whata Fool on 5 Sep 2007 15:48 On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:42:10 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >On Sep 5, 1:50 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: >> Perhaps we could prevent the water from flowing across >> the Arctic Ocean by building a dam across the Bering Strait, but >> that might leave England and northern Europe 15 or 20 degrees >> colder. >> >> But keep the AGW hoax going, if the funds were cur off, >> the economy in Europe might collapse. > >I think you'll find most of the influx is from the Atlantic end. Of course, which is likely the reason both sides of Greenland have ice free land, isn't in within the Arctic Circle? >The >point is that during this summer more than 1 million sq km extra ice >has melted than in previous summers that we have comparable records >for, that requires a lot of heat and has allowed more heat to be >absorbed by being open for so long. That sounds impressive, but readers should not form an opinion without knowing the total area of Arctic ice remains all summer. If it is less than a million square kilometers, then it is something to consider, if it is 40 or 50 million square kilometers, then maybe it is a cyclic thing. >Consequently the freezing season >is likely to get off to a slow start and making a follow up melt next >year more likely. If that is so a couple of more years would see a >dramatic reduction in the September sea ice. I think I remember years when the entire coast of the Arctic Ocean was frozen year round, and then there are stories of being able to go by ship all the way from England to Alaska. I think a lot of shipping depends on being able to navigate a good portion of the coastline. But something as extreme as turning down thermostats in winter needs more background information than a number like one million square kilometers without a comparison number of remaining ice. To form thick ice, what is needed is glaze ice on the surface and then lots of snow, which can happen any time, so there is more involved than just the one time gain in BTUs.
From: Phil. on 5 Sep 2007 18:25 On Sep 5, 3:48 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:42:10 -0700, "Phil." <fel...(a)princeton.edu> > wrote: > > >On Sep 5, 1:50 pm, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > >> Perhaps we could prevent the water from flowing across > >> the Arctic Ocean by building a dam across the Bering Strait, but > >> that might leave England and northern Europe 15 or 20 degrees > >> colder. > > >> But keep the AGW hoax going, if the funds were cur off, > >> the economy in Europe might collapse. > > >I think you'll find most of the influx is from the Atlantic end. > > Of course, which is likely the reason both sides of > Greenland have ice free land, isn't in within the Arctic Circle? > > >The > >point is that during this summer more than 1 million sq km extra ice > >has melted than in previous summers that we have comparable records > >for, that requires a lot of heat and has allowed more heat to be > >absorbed by being open for so long. > > That sounds impressive, but readers should not form an opinion > without knowing the total area of Arctic ice remains all summer. > > If it is less than a million square kilometers, then it is > something to consider, if it is 40 or 50 million square kilometers, > then maybe it is a cyclic thing. 3 million, last year it was 4 million (the previous record) > > >Consequently the freezing season > >is likely to get off to a slow start and making a follow up melt next > >year more likely. If that is so a couple of more years would see a > >dramatic reduction in the September sea ice. > > I think I remember years when the entire coast of the Arctic > Ocean was frozen year round, and then there are stories of being > able to go by ship all the way from England to Alaska. > I think a lot of shipping depends on being able to navigate > a good portion of the coastline. This is the clearest it's been, guys like Amundsen took two years to get through, they'd be frozen in and have to wait for it to open up in 6 months time. This month it's been wide open all the way through. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/shownh.php3?img_id=14479 > > But something as extreme as turning down thermostats > in winter needs more background information than a number > like one million square kilometers without a comparison number > of remaining ice. > > To form thick ice, what is needed is glaze ice on the > surface and then lots of snow, which can happen any time, > so there is more involved than just the one time gain in BTUs. Most of Arctic sea ice is formed from freezing sea water rather than precip I believe.
From: kdthrge on 5 Sep 2007 18:31 On Sep 5, 12:56 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:17:04 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > > On Sep 4, 7:08 pm, Bill Ward . > > >> From the kinetic energy of the molecules of the air. > > >> > This proves the gases are also transmitting energy according to the > >> > density of the radiation field of Boltzman Stefan for temperature. > > >> There's where you lose me. It seems to me the gas is equilibrating with > >> the plate, then the plate radiates the energy. The radiation is emitted > >> from the plate, not the gas. > > > But it must transfer through the gas in order to radiate from the metal. > > > It is impossible that the kinetic energy of the gases is being transmitted > > into the metal, > > Why do you say that? The molecules of gas are pounding on the molecules > of metal, and transferring KE. What about that is "impossible"? > > > and that on the other side of the metal there is radiation > > of Boltzman Stefan from the transference of energy in this fashion. This > > proves the existence of the energy of the radiation field. > > There's radiation from the metal, but not from the gas. The gas to metal > transfer is by direct molecular impacts. > > > > > The average kinetic energy of the molecules of a gas is kT. At 300K this > > is about .025eV. For 1 mole this is 2490 Joules. This is the kinetic > > energy of all the velocities of every molecule in 1 mole. This is the > > sum total of all of the energy of all of the velocities of the mole of > > gas. > > I don't think those numbers are exactly correct, (IIRC, KE is 3/2 kT) > but I'd rather not tackle that now and stay on a qualitative level. > > > > > At 300K, 459 Joules per second per sq meter is leaving the surface of > > the metal. This means in 5.4 seconds, all of the energy of all of the > > velocities of the molecules in 1 mole of gas must be delivered through > > the metal of 1 sq meter from the gas for the metal to maintain this > > temperature. > > Don't forget that the T will drop rapidly unless energy in coming in from > somewhere else. And you're assuming a 0K black body sink. > > > This mole of gas if 1 meter square would be .38 meter deep. > > > If one is using a monatomic gas at constant volume, the heat capacity of > > this gas is 3/2RT or 3735 Joules. Although not exact, this is the total > > heat in one mole of monatomic gas above absolute zero. > > > At 460 Joules per second per sq meter, this energy would be lost in 8.1 > > seconds. > > Only if you were radiating into 0K, and no energy was coming in from the > source. > > > What if you cut the source of heat into the gas and evaluated the time > > of total heat loss, rate of radiated energy loss with decreasing > > temperature and how much time this takes? > > > You see nothing wrong with these numbers for the kinetic energy of the > > velocities and the quantity of energy that is radiated, or that it is > > possible for the gas to deliver this energy at this rate to the metal by > > collisional energy? > > Yes, actually 460 Wm-2 seems plausible if the gas is hot enough and the > metal thin enough. Remember we're off equilibrium, because heat is flowing > through the system. The amount of heat flowing is proportional to the > temperature drops. > > > > > The idea of the metal and the transference of heat to and through the > > metal is to prove the idea false that gases do not obey to Boltzman > > Stefan for temperature and energy. > > The existence of the radiation field is proved. There is no other > > possible means for this energy to be transferred to the metal. > > I don't see the proof. Why can't it be molecular collisions? > > > > > It is impossible that the energy of the velocities of the molecules is > > transfering the energy to the metal which then leaves the other side at > > the rate that it does. > > > Let me see some numbers in Joules that show this to be possible. Or show > > me where this figuring is wrong and where the energy comes from that is > > radiating from the metal if it is at 300K. The room could be cooled, and > > the temperature in the duct adjusted so that the exterior of the metal > > was at 300K. This is to reduce the radiation from the room on the > > outside of the metal for the accounting of the energy that is being > > radiated. > > If the room (sink) were at 300 K you'd be at equilibrium, with no > radiative transport. > > > > > At this point I damn sure need to see your accounting for the energy > > supposedly transfered into the metal by the collisions of the molecules. > > It comes from the gas, which presumably gets it from a similar plate on > the other end of your cell, which gets it from ... > > > Or maybe you could explain your viewpoint and education that can > > quantify this energy according to collisional transfer of energy. > > I'm not really qualified. What I'd recommend is that you take a look at > what hyperphysics has to say about kinetic theory: > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/ktcon.html#c1 > > I have to warn you that they have unfortunately fallen for the AGW scam, > but most of the traditional physics looks OK to me. It's easy to follow > the hyperlinks to browse around to related areas. > > >> > If the pressure is decreased radically, there becomes too few > >> > molecules to adequately absorb radiation and re-emit this radiation. > > >> If you reduce the gas pressure, you reduce the temperature, and must > >> add energy to come back to the same temperature. You haven't yet shown > >> that there's any radiation interacting with the gas. > > > Of course you do. But now at the same temperature, the transfer of > > energy is very nearly the same, although the number of collisions is > > reduced. No viable evidence that the collisions are the sole means that > > energy is transfering to the metal. > > But many experiments show the conductivity is actually proportional to the > pressure. Thats how Pirani vacuum gages work.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If you see that the kinetic motions of the molecules can transfer the energy to the metal so that the metal radiates as it does, let's look at higher temperatures. At 1000K, RT = 8315 Joules 3/2 RT = 12472 Joules Stefan Boltzman = 56,700 Joules per second per sq meter The frequency of highest intenstity of the radiation is 2.892um,, or .428 eV kT is equal to .0864eV or a photon of 14.345um So the mean kinetic energy if considered as 3/2 kT is .1296 eV If the gas within the duct is maintained at 1000K, it will bring the temperature of the metal plate to this temperature at which time it will radiate at these specifics. This rate of radiation is enough to radiate the energy of 1 mole of monatomic gas, (3/2 RT) in .21 seconds. So you are saying that the kinetic energy of the molecules which has an average equal to a photon of 14um is transfering energy to the metal to produce the photons of greatest intensity at 2.898 um. And that this quantity of gas with this average kinetic energy of the molecules is capable of producing the 56,700 Joules per second per meter? Should we go to higher temperatures? O2 and N2 can easily be heated to higher temperatures in which they radiate in the visible. So now we place the gas in a metal container with a glass window. Only rarified gases radiate in the specific intervals of spectra. All gases under pressure emit the same continous spectra through the visible frequencies. So at a little higher temperature, intensity maximum will be clearly in the visible, while average kinetic energy of the molecules is still in the infrared. This means that when a molecule collides when at average velocity, if it loses ALL of it's energy into a photon, this will still be 4.95 times less than the energy of highest intensity photons. How do the oxygen and nitrogen gas molecules attain the energy in which they are clearly radiating in the continous spectra in the visible, if they are not absorbing this energy in the infrared? The light leaving through the window is a quantity of energy. This loss of energy to the system, the loss of the heat through the rest of the container cannot be from the velocities and collisions of the molecules. The rate of replacement of this energy from the heat source through the gas to the molecules that are losing their energy to the environment cannot be quantified without the concept of the radiation field. The energy that is transfered through the gas to the metal is of this radiation field and is radiated as packets of energy from the electron membranes or oscillator of the molecules. KD
From: kdthrge on 5 Sep 2007 19:27
On Sep 5, 9:44 am, Phil Hays <inva...(a)dont.spam> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > I think they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. It's > > "agenda first, reality later", that drives their behavior. If AGW won't > > further their agenda, they'll dump it for the next scare that comes > > along. > > Like the loss of sea ice this summer, for instance. A third of the Arctic > polar cap is melted. A bit of reality on the AGW issue. > > Don't you wonder what the climate is going to be like with an ice free > Arctic? > The ice caps reached to St. Louis 18000 yrs ago. Anyone with any education or you would think, people interested in climatology, should know this. But we only get the twits with their false and pretended concern who only enjoy the thought of controlling other peoples lives and ignore the FACTS OF CLIMATOLOGY. If you want to change the fact of the ice caps melting, you should do something about it. Buy a big air conditioner and go blow it on the ice or something. Instead of sitting around and whining that other people should modify their modern existence. Even if CO2 caused warming, you have no program of reducing US emissions in any way which will affect concentration increases in the air. This fact can be roundly proved. The simple fact that China and India's growth will completely overshadow any reductions that we could possibly make is only one. China overtook the US in 2006 with a 10% increase 1 yr. At this rate, they will emit 2 times US CO2 in 10 yrs. No evironmental effects whatsoever from complete elimination of US input. So your attempt to promote the passage of laws to stop the ice from melting is an attempt to commit fraud. In the meantime, enjoy the euphoria of your delusions and obsession with your HOLY WAR against society which has no valid basis in climatology. KDeatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney. |