Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: John on 5 Aug 2006 20:15 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> Global warming is about *average* global temps over time, not >> individual temps at a specific time! Some areas may gradually become >> hotter while others (like the UK) may become cooler. You could >> measure >> the temps at night and they'd really be cool! :-) >> >> So argue all you want if global warming is occuring or not, it is >> absolutely impossible that it is caused by CO2. The density of the >> water in the ocean or molar quantity per square centimeter at the >> surface where the liquid meets the gas is prohibitive to the >> exchange of heat from the gas into the liquid which also has 4 times >> greater heat capacity. Only if the air can be maintained at a much >> higher temperature will eventually the radiation field of the gas be >> absorbed into the liquid. The time it would take to heat the ocean >> is very great. Evidence of oceanic warming proves that in the 100 >> years or so of man made CO2, there must be another cause. >> Laboratory evidence cannot show any causual link and instead proves >> that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. > > Kent Deatherage What incompetent fuckup wrote this line of Bullshit? They don't even have a clue to what global warming is.
From: EliRabett2003 on 8 Aug 2006 22:56 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > In the hopes that you can still be educated a little: > > > > Greenhouse gases cause warming because they alter the rate at which > > energy (in the form of infra-red radiation from the earth and ocean > > surface) leaves the planet. They absorb the radiation and then re-emit > > it in all directions. This heat energy remains in the system and > > therefore increases the total energy within the system. Energy is, > > eventually, expressed as heat. > > The absorption spectra of molecules is what is used to stipulate the > claim that greenhouse gases absorb radiation. The truth is that > wavelengths longer than one micron do not pass though the atmosphere. > Look it up. THE ATMOSPHERE IS OPAQUE FROM ONE MICRON/ Wrong. http://lasp.colorado.edu/aerosol/ATOC3500/lectures/Lecture30.pdf See page 14 and following, but really you should look at the whole thing. http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/ObsProcess/obsConstraints/ocTransSpectra.html for those interested in a high resolution spectrum SNIP..... > This means that the sun radiates in all the same frequencies as the > much lower temperature earth but in MUCH GREATER INTENSITY. Not far into the IR. > ALL RARIFIED GASES HAVE THE SAME HEAT CAPACITY > REGARDLESS OF MASS OR ABSORPTION SPECTRA. Wrong. The heat capacity of water vapor is different on a per molecule basis (and also per unit mass) than the heat capacity of N2 and O2 (at room temperature ~3 RT per mole for the former and ~5/2 RT for the later two) Some data if you are interested http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/heatcap.html > If it were true that "greenhouse gases absorb radiation" in any greater > equivelance than other gases, it would be apparent in labratory tests. > It is absolutely not. Look up 'heat capacity of rarified gases'. If > they absorbed radiation into a latent form they would demonstrate > higher heat capacity. Not even wrong. Radiation is only one of three ways that thermal energy can be transferred. > Atomic gases demonstrate emmision spectra and absorption spectra. > Molecules demonstrate band emmisions and absorption spectra/ > There is a big difference. The absorption spectra of atomic gases are > only the lines that match the emmision spectra of the principle series. Wrong. See, for example http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/lines_form.html > In the rarified gas, continous spectra, which is produced from atomic > gases under presure, passing through the gas are absorbed at the very > specific frequencies that match the principle series of the gas. Not even English. > When > absorbed the energy is absorbed and converted to other wavelengths. The > other frequencies of the continous spectra ARE NOT ABSORBED. Their > energy and their direction of travel is not changed. The energy can be degraded to thermal excitation through collisions. > Not so with molecules and the much lower frequencies with which they > are involved. Wrong. First of all molecules can absorb wavelenths from the far IR (rotational lines) to the far VUV (electronic excitation /ionization) > Absorption bands of moleculer gases are studied by the introduction of > a continous spectra ino a gas. Then it is registered which frequencies > are not present in the continous spectra that is produced. The gas is > absorbing all the continous spectra and radiating in all frequencies > except the 'absorption frequencies' Or by exciting at a single wavelength that is absorbed and looking at emission, or by exciting the molecules in a discharge and looking at the emission, or by electron detachment spectroscopy, or..... Non of these frequencies pass > through the gas non-absorbed like the much higher energy frequencies do > (generally below one micron). For whatever reason the molecule does not > emit these frequencies. It is radiating in continous spectra however > and this does not in any way cause the gas to retain heat and there is > no labratory data to corroborate your assumption. But who needs lab > data when you just know that that damned CO2 is makin' it hot. > Clearly you never took an IR spectrum. > > > > The transfer of atmospheric heat to the oceans is not even relevant > > then the proponents should not bring it up as proof of global warming > > (a> warmer atmosphere reduces the heat flux from the ocean to the > > atmosphere, and the ocean heats up because it cannot cool down > > This is your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Don't feel bad, it is > very common for poor or uneducated students of chemistry or physics. > Heat flux is in one direction. Heat flux does not register the heat > flux ahead of it. A heated body loses heat as it radiates. If a heated > body next to it also produces a radiation field that is absorbed by the > first body the temperature will be the difference of the influx to the > outflux. Any gas has and produces a radiation field for it's > temperature. Warmer air will slow the cooling of water. But only by the > flux of radiation it produces into the water. The outgoing flux of > radiation is in no way diminished or affected by level of the influx of > radiation. > Ken, I humbly suggest you get a day job.
From: kdthrge on 9 Aug 2006 00:10 the air is heated directly by > conduction. the reverse is, of course, also true. The infra-red > radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases (a fact dating from 1896 and > not the 1960s as you seem to think - As the atmosphere warms up, the temperature gradients from air to ocean > surface get steeper and heat is conducted into the ocean, while > gradients from ocean to air become shallower and less heat is lost from > the ocean. This is nonsense as the ocean controls the temperature of the air close over it. If in this shallow region CO2 had a noticeable effect of retaining heat it could be experimentally proven. The rest of the atmosphere or some "average increase of air temperature" is not pertinent to the temperature here nor in a rainstorm. The conditions of the enthalpy of phase transition of water and pressure changes according to the chemica nature of the constituents dictates the temperature. "less heat is lost from the ocean due to shollower temperature gradients." False idea. Stefan-Boltzman equation tells energy emmitted per sq centemeter per second for temperature. Since total energy incrases as a fourth power.to temperature, the influx of energy from adjacent heat scource must be great to increase tempeerature. In a changing temperature, there may be the appeareance that an adjacent heat scource slows down the rate of energy loss but this is not true. It only slows the change of temperature. Heat loss is always according to Stefan-Boltzman for temperature. If radiation is restricted, temperature rises until the density of radiation per square centemeter can radiate energy equal to the influx into the system through the unrestricted aperature.Your "gradient" ideas are pure trash. Both evaporation and radiation move energy into the atmosphere. In the > case of radiation, some escapes all the way into space and some is > absorbed by atmospheric constituents, known collectively as greenhouse > gases because they prevent the loss of energy and keep the world warm > enough for life. May god have mercy on your soul for stating this like a fact.You have no experimental data for the greanhouse gases and by the laws of science your math is not confirmed by scientific experiment. Theoretical scientist perhaps like that game of postulating where they cannot be challenged by SCIENCE EXPERIMENT AND METHOD Kent Deatherage > with reality meaningless.
From: Hoggle on 9 Aug 2006 05:25 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > If radiation is restricted, > temperature rises until the density of radiation per square centemeter > can radiate energy equal to the influx into the system through the > unrestricted aperature. Finally you understand the greenhouse effect. If radiation is restricted, temperature rises. Thank you for admitting this basic mathematically and experimentally proven fact. > known collectively as greenhouse > > gases because they prevent the loss of energy and keep the world warm > > enough for life. > > May god have mercy on your soul for stating this like a fact. But, if I may quote a learned gentleman of the practical science fraternity: "If radiation is restricted, temperature rises until the density of radiation per square centemeter can radiate energy equal to the influx into the system through the unrestricted aperature." I apologise for the appalling spelling in the above, but I am quoting directly.
From: David on 9 Aug 2006 11:53
Do you know anything about the effect the precession of the earths axis has on global temperature distributions? I've been told that the poles are now pointing more towards the sun now. |