Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 26 Aug 2006 16:12 Like I said, If you had any math you'd be dangerous. But you don't, so go suck a lollipop. You should quit throwing that fit too. You'll get your little professor britches all dirty. Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/`kdthrge
From: Hoggle on 26 Aug 2006 16:17 kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Like I said, If you had any math you'd be dangerous. But you don't, so > go suck a lollipop. You should quit throwing that fit too. You'll get > your little professor britches all dirty. Are you twelve or thirteen? I mean, you ability to engage in cogent argument is pathetic! Answer people's critiques or stop whinging.
From: Orator on 27 Aug 2006 20:01 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>You are effectively stating several things. Let me list them: >> >>1- CO2 does not re-radiate any heat (IR) > > > ....A molecule of CO2 absorbs and radiates radiation energy > continually. It's rate of doing this is in no way affected by it's > peculiar dark spectroscopic bands. It's heat capacity at low pressure > and in an environment in which it is allowed to expand with temperature > increase (as apposed to increasing it's pressure with temperature > increase as in a container) is exactly the same as other normal gases, > and it obeys the perfect gas law. > Since heat is a quantity, any particular capabilities or properties of > CO2 in regards to heat retention would be possible to be quantified in > the laboratory.The fascination with the dark spectroscopic bands is not > a science that has any demonstrated validity.... > > > >>2- Oceans do not absorb any CO2. > > > ...CO2 is not a problem in Earth's environment. There are certainly > other serious issues in regards to pollution that should be > addressed.... > > >>3- If (1) is wrong, no CO2 exists near any oceans, proving (2) true. >>4- If both (1) and (3) are wrong, then CO2 only radiates heat up into >>the atmosphere. > > > ..CO2 especially at the very low concentrations at which it exist in > the atmosphere does not in anyway affect the thermodynamic conditions > of the environment It behaves exactly the same as the other > atmospheric gases in accord with the 'kinetic theory of gases'. There > is no scientific data that demonstrates otherwise... I hope Lloyd has read all that, not that his implied statements have been debunked again :-) >
From: Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms on 27 Aug 2006 20:23 Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote in news:xnqIg.18919$rP1.2748(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>>You are effectively stating several things. Let me list them: >>> >>>1- CO2 does not re-radiate any heat (IR) >> >> >> ....A molecule of CO2 absorbs and radiates radiation energy >> continually. It's rate of doing this is in no way affected by it's >> peculiar dark spectroscopic bands. It's heat capacity at low pressure >> and in an environment in which it is allowed to expand with temperature >> increase (as apposed to increasing it's pressure with temperature >> increase as in a container) is exactly the same as other normal gases, >> and it obeys the perfect gas law. >> Since heat is a quantity, any particular capabilities or properties of >> CO2 in regards to heat retention would be possible to be quantified in >> the laboratory.The fascination with the dark spectroscopic bands is not >> a science that has any demonstrated validity.... >> >> >> >>>2- Oceans do not absorb any CO2. >> >> >> ...CO2 is not a problem in Earth's environment. There are certainly >> other serious issues in regards to pollution that should be >> addressed.... >> >> >>>3- If (1) is wrong, no CO2 exists near any oceans, proving (2) true. >>>4- If both (1) and (3) are wrong, then CO2 only radiates heat up into >>>the atmosphere. >> >> >> ..CO2 especially at the very low concentrations at which it exist in >> the atmosphere does not in anyway affect the thermodynamic conditions >> of the environment It behaves exactly the same as the other >> atmospheric gases in accord with the 'kinetic theory of gases'. There >> is no scientific data that demonstrates otherwise... > > > I hope Lloyd has read all that, not that his implied statements have > been debunked again :-) Why? There are an infinite number of false statements which could be stated, but why should anybody waste time reading them?
From: Orator on 27 Aug 2006 21:56
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <4GQHg.18114$rP1.211(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <1156502181.488014.298530(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, >>> kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>The CO2 density is highest at the lowest levels of the atmosphere, and >>>>>therefore the Infrared Radiation absorption occurs mostly at lowest >>>>>altitudes closest to the Earth emitter of IR radiation.> >>>> >>>>Bullshit. Cannot be confirmed scientifically. CO2 causing all this IR >>>>absorption. And even if it did, you obviously cannot do the most basic >>>>arithmatic on heat capacity and thermodynamics or you would see that it >>>>is IMPOSSIBLE FOR CO2 warm the ocean. >>> >>> >>>It warms the atmosphere which in turn warms the ocean. >>> >> >>Are you stupid? >> >>You are effectively stating several things. Let me list them: >> >>1- CO2 does not re-radiate any heat (IR) > > > Wow, in one sentence I said all these? Absolutely! After all, the whole purpose of words is to communicate meanings with. Those meanings have consequences - if they didn't, there would be no meaning either....... but then perhaps that is a more accurate description of your writings -- words with no meaning? > > First, you're lying. I never said that. I don't need to "lie" at all, unlike you do, (evidence of it is below). I said you "are effectively stating", I did not say you had used those words, not do I indicate having quoted you. Therefore your libellous allegation that I "lied" is a lie all in itself. I analysed the meaning of your words, and their consequence. >>2- Oceans do not absorb any CO2. > > Irrelevant. They're not absorbing all the added CO2. I never made that claim either, and again you IMPLY that I had, another deliberate misrepresentation (better known as a "lie") by you. > >>3- If (1) is wrong, no CO2 exists near any oceans, proving (2) true. >>4- If both (1) and (3) are wrong, then CO2 only radiates heat up into >>the atmosphere. >> > > > Why is it so hard for you to understand that CO2 is up 36% in the atmosphere, There is another "truthful" but still a dishonest way of saying it. That the increase in CO2 has been 36%, and even that is the highest estimated figure I have seen. Then take the 36%(or the more conventional 30%) and apply that to the 0.003% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and what do you get? An increase of 0.0009% in the atmosphere! Of course reality doesn't sound dramatic enough to the GW religion observers. > that the only source is human activities, and that this warms the atmosphere? You have no proof of that, and _can_ have no proof of that, as other mechanisms are also know to exist. > > >>>>Get back with your liitle >>>>boyfriends and make up some better lies on how CO2 traps all this heat >>>>which can't be DETECTED. >>> >>> >>>Are you stupid? >>> >>> >>> >>>>It ain't gonna fly you saying that we just >>>>have to believe little dishonest runt school boys like you. Do you >>>>believe your own lies. Like the one you tell that you're and educated >>>>person. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Believe the science, fool. >> >>Please learn some. |