Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 27 Aug 2006 22:07 Thomas Palm wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote in > news:1156618406.299172.223500(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > >>>Why is it so hard for you to understand that CO2 is up 36% in the >>>atmosphere, that the only source is human activities, and that this >>>warms the atmosphere? >>> >> >>You're really truing to make me laugh. 36% of .0005 is how much? > > > Enough. The idea that you can just look at a small number and believe it > to be insignificant without any context is what is laughable. Try eating > batrachotoxin comparable to 0.0005 of your body weight and see how well > you feel. (actually that is overkill by many orders of magnitude, but > you'll get the point if not for long). Of course this is totally off topic, and less than honest. Why is it that there is a _need_ for the GW industry/religion to deliberately misrepresent and paint an untrue picture for? Is their "evidence" _that_ weak they cannot stomach reality? >>If >>you guys had any math at all, you'd be dangerous. How much of a >>calorie change can you get from .00003 in 150 years. > > > You do the math. It turns out to be surprisingly much. 1 W/m^2 in > radiation imbalance integrated over 150 years is a lot of energy. How can it possibly be done? So far the GW industry don't actually know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So far I have see 5 dramatically different claims as to what that is. How the hell can they calculate anything when they don't even know the fundamentals to begin calculating from? > > >>How much greater >>is the heat capacity of the total mass of the ocean? > > > The large heat capacity of the ocean only slows the process up. That doesn't make sense. > As long as you put more energy in than you remove it will heat up. It is also known that heat changes the Ocean conveyor, causing cooling effects, potentially greater than any warming effects, these are being ignored by the GW industry. ....
From: Lloyd Parker on 28 Aug 2006 11:23 In article <t3sIg.18969$rP1.7789(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <4GQHg.18114$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. An increase in your body temp. from 310 K to 313 K doesn't seem do dramatic either, does it? But you'd be toast. > >> 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. OK, what has come on line in the last 150 years to account for the CO2, and where has all the CO2 humans produce gone? >> >> >>>>>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.
From: Orator on 28 Aug 2006 19:38 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <t3sIg.18969$rP1.7789(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> .... >>>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. > > > An increase in your body temp. from 310 K to 313 K doesn't seem do dramatic > either, does it? But you'd be toast. First of all body temperature isn't measured in the Kelvin. Secondly all that would result in is a fever, and not a particular serious one either. Thirdly it is totally UNrelated to the discussion. It is a deliberate side tracking the issue! It is also a misrepresentation, alternately a demonstration of your lack of actual knowledge. > >>>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. > > > OK, what has come on line in the last 150 years to account for the CO2, and > where has all the CO2 humans produce gone? The question of CO2 is the wrong question. It doesn't prove what you are out to prove "GW is man made", which is a bogus predetermined answer to a question you fear to ask because the answer is ridiculously simple. See below. The correct question is: "What has come on line in the last 150 years to account for the GW" Answer: The end of the Little Ice Age. As for your "where has all the CO2 humans produce gone?", you have to first be able to calculate what that is. It cannot be calculated so you have no question to put in the first place!
From: Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms on 28 Aug 2006 20:38 Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote in news:z7LIg.19506$rP1.7845(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: > Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <t3sIg.18969$rP1.7789(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>> > ... >>>>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. >> >> >> An increase in your body temp. from 310 K to 313 K doesn't seem do >> dramatic either, does it? But you'd be toast. > > First of all body temperature isn't measured in the Kelvin. Secondly all > that would result in is a fever, and not a particular serious one > either. Thirdly it is totally UNrelated to the discussion. It is a > deliberate side tracking the issue! It is also a misrepresentation, > alternately a demonstration of your lack of actual knowledge. OK, a 36% increase in body temperature of 98.6 farenheit, or 37C, is how much? 134.F, 50C? It doesn't matter WHAT HE OR ANYBODY SAID. The answer can be calculated in 30 seconds flat and that ends the skunk pissing contest. The math does not take sides and the math does not lie. The Fundamentals are: (1) The Gas Laws, @ STP one Avagadro's Number of Molecules in every 22.42 liters of air. (2) CO2 is 381 parts per million of that Avagadro's Number. Divide 6.0e23 by 22.42 to find molecules of air per liter. Divide the liter answer by 1e6 and multiply the result by 381 to find the CO2 per liter. So simple even an Aussie can do it. Bing, Blang, Boom, done in 30 seconds. Want the answer in CCs or cm^3? Divide again by 1,000. Bam, Bam, done. Compare your answer to this one (which didn't round off Avagadro's number, but carried it out to 14 decimal places for greater precision) and your answer ought to be with 10% of this one: There are then 1.02338800691347e16 molecules of CO2 per every cubic centimeter of air. There are many ways to get the answer, and the answer may be stated in CCs in inches-cubed, in feet^3, or meters^3, or columns of atmosphere from Earth to the sky. You have to PAY ATTENTION to the units used or you will embarrass yourself. Different decimal places of precision will give answers which vary slightly (within less than 10%). Compound round-off errors will give numbers which seem different, especially if expressed in different units of volume. Didn't they teach you any science and math in Australia? What kind of backwards place is that shithole that people can't do math and figure out a problem that takes 30 seconds to solve?
From: Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms on 28 Aug 2006 21:51
Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote in news:z7LIg.19506$rP1.7845(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: > Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <t3sIg.18969$rP1.7789(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>> > ... >>>>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. >> >> >> An increase in your body temp. from 310 K to 313 K doesn't seem do >> dramatic either, does it? But you'd be toast. > > First of all body temperature isn't measured in the Kelvin. Secondly all > that would result in is a fever, and not a particular serious one > either. Thirdly it is totally UNrelated to the discussion. It is a > deliberate side tracking the issue! It is also a misrepresentation, > alternately a demonstration of your lack of actual knowledge. OK, a 36% increase in body temperature of 98.6 farenheit, or 37C, is how much? 134.F, 50C? It doesn't matter WHAT HE OR ANYBODY SAID. The answer can be calculated in 30 seconds flat and that ends the skunk pissing contest. The math does not take sides and the math does not lie. The Fundamentals are: (1) The Gas Laws, @ STP one Avagadro's Number of Molecules in every 22.42 liters of air. (2) CO2 is 381 parts per million of that Avagadro's Number. Divide 6.0e23 by 22.42 to find molecules of air per liter. Divide the liter answer by 1e6 and multiply the result by 381 to find the CO2 per liter. So simple even an Aussie can do it. Bing, Blang, Boom, done in 30 seconds. Want the answer in CCs or cm^3? Divide again by 1,000. Bam, Bam, done. Compare your answer to this one (which didn't round off Avagadro's number, but carried it out to 14 decimal places for greater precision) and your answer ought to be with 10% of this one: There are then 1.02338800691347e16 molecules of CO2 per every cubic centimeter of air. There are many ways to get the answer, and the answer may be stated in CCs in inches-cubed, in feet^3, or meters^3, or columns of atmosphere from Earth to the sky. You have to PAY ATTENTION to the units used or you will embarrass yourself. Different decimal places of precision will give answers which vary slightly (within less than 10%). Compound round-off errors will give numbers which seem different, especially if expressed in different units of volume. Didn't they teach you any science and math in Australia? What kind of backwards place is that shithole that people can't do math and figure out a problem that takes 30 seconds to solve? |