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: kdthrge on 6 Sep 2007 06:02 On Sep 5, 11:14 pm, Bill Ward > >> > 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? Well let's analyse the basics which clearly prove 'prince' Phil a charlatan and the other theorists of AGW completely fraudulent in their theory and in their claim to have any validity at all in physics or any knowledge whatsoever of gases, temperature, energy or the subject of their concern. Pressure and temperature are directly proportional. Average velocity increases as a square root to the mean kinetic energy due to 1/2mv^2. Average velocity and number of collisons in unit time are directly proportional. Mean kinetic energy increases directly proportional to temperature as kT. So from 300K to 1000K is 700deg temperature increase which is a 233% increase in temperature and pressure. Pressure is a product of average velocity x number of collisions. So,, square root of 1000 - square root of 300 = increase in average velocity and also increase in number of collisions in a specific time interval. 31.6 - 17.3 = 14.3,,,14.3 / 17.3 = .8266 or 83% Average velocity and number of collisons both increase by 83% with temperature increase from 300K to 1000K. However, the energy radiating from the piece of metal in the air duct increases from 460Wm-2 to 56,700Wm-2. 56,700 - 460 = 56,240,, 56,240 / 460 = 122.26 or 12,226% The energy radiated per second from the metal which is recieving it's energy through the gas increases by 12,226%. The average velocity increases by 83% The number of collisions per time increases 83% The energy transfered increases by, 12,226% due to the Stefans Law and the increase of energy as a fourth power to absolute temperature. It is impossible that the energy is being transfered by the collisons and kinetic energies of the molecules. The existence of a radiation field within the gas is entirely proved. The density of the energy of this field is the determination of temperature and energy which is transfered. The gas molecules of O2 and N2 absorb the infrared frequencies in order to transfer the energy. They cannot possibly be tranfering energy by their mechanical motions as is claimed by the fraudulent theory of 'grenhouse gases'. The stated theory of the 'grenhouse gases' which entirely depends on their false idea that O2 and N2 are transparent to infrared frequencies and that these frequencies are absorbed by specific gases is complete fraud. KDeatherage CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help.
From: Baldin Lee Pramer on 14 Sep 2007 19:45 On Jul 28, 12:14 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > Algore Why should *anyone* believe a dittohead?? BLP
From: HangEveryRepubliKKKan on 8 Oct 2007 01:56
<pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > Good theory. A bit better than mine in some ways because sea-levels > followed temperatures by quite a few thousand years at the end of the > ice age. Lesson learnt I will stick to criticising your hypothesis. > Page 446 of the IPCC report "the explanation of glacial-interglacial > CO2 variations remains a difficult attribution problem." Only to the extent tha it's not quantified. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > So you could explain the high temperature braking of the positive > feedback by saying the greenhouse effect would tend to saturate, > reducing the loop gain. That leaves the asymmetry of the effect, which > is too abrupt on the warming side compared to the cooling side. Certainly the loop gain is reduced, but saturation is not a good term for it I think. The oceans just run out of Co2 to outgas, and the tundra runs out of runs out of organic material to rot while at the same time, you have an uptake of Co2 by re-invigorated biological processes that now have a non-ice surface on which to establish themselves. >> > 5) Why did ice-ages start 3 million years ago? >> >> Did they? That's not at all clear. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png Ya, I've seen it. I'm not all that convinced and there is very little evidence from that period of a causitive nature. In any case the period in question is the Pliocene and it was a period where the earth cooled. I would speculate that it is a matter of simple coincidence that the cooling temperatures have brought the earth to the point were variances in the earth's axial tilt with respect to it's orbital position are now large enough to provide enough influence to drive the climate into an ice age. During warmer times this would not have been possible due simply due to the overall warmer temperatures. > But you are theorizing that the main mechanism of the ice ages is > positive feedback between GHG and temperatures. Positions of > continents has nothing to do with this. If you are limiting youself to strictly 3 million years ago, that is correct. |