Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 29 Aug 2006 01:30 Your obsession with infrared frequencies being absorbed by CO2 is false. As such a careful analyses of the actual physical laws involved will display a proof of the negative of your postulate. The physical law being that the undue absorption would be measurable at some point. The analyse of the heat properties of CO2 proves that at normal earth range of temperatures and pressures, it has NO UNDUE HEAT characteristics. It's characteristics are exactly the same as the predominate atmospheric gases. There may or may not be variations with the heat properties of CO2 compared to other gases at high temperatures. WE are only concerned with the temperatures and pressures of our environment. A careful analyses of CO2's absorption of heat and it's temperature change reveals NO UNDUE HEAT CHARACTERISTICS at normal temperatures. This analyses is called the analyses of the HEAT CAPACITY. Therefore it is proved. CO2 does not absorb or retain nor is unduly affected by any of the frequencies of the thermal frequencies of normal earth temperature. Evidence of dark spectroscopic bands is not evidence of heat retention. Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlin.net/~kdthrge
From: Hoggle on 29 Aug 2006 05:04 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Evidence of dark spectroscopic bands is not > evidence of heat retention. And here we get to the heart of your ignorance with respect to greenhouse warming. There is no part of the global warming theory that requires CO2 to warm up as a result of IR absorbtion. The only requirement is that the radiation be absorbed and then re-emitted in a random direction. By so doing, it interrupts the outwards path and allows 50% of the radiation to return earthwards and thus remain part of the overall system. Reducing the escape of energy from the system is the only thing necessary for global warming to be a reality.
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Aug 2006 05:13 In article <z7LIg.19506$rP1.7845(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <t3sIg.18969$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. K is the proper way to measure T if you want to look at the energy content. >Secondly all >that would result in is a fever, and not a particular serious one >either. A 3 K rise is a 5.4 F rise. I think you'd be pretty sick with a 104 F fever. >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. It shows that a minor increase in something can have big effects. Didn't you ever learn about an analogy? >> >>>>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. OK, idiot time I see. >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" OK, what? > >Answer: The end of the Little Ice Age. Happened longer ago, and wasn't global anyway. > >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 Yes it is. It's known. >have no question to put in the first place! > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Aug 2006 05:21 In article <1156829442.494716.289640(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Your obsession with infrared frequencies being absorbed by CO2 is >false. As such a careful analyses of the actual physical laws involved >will display a proof of the negative of your postulate. The physical Heat capacity and the ability to absorb IR wavelengths are two entirely different things.
From: Bob Cain on 29 Aug 2006 18:04
Hoggle wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> Evidence of dark spectroscopic bands is not >> evidence of heat retention. > > And here we get to the heart of your ignorance with respect to > greenhouse warming. There is no part of the global warming theory that > requires CO2 to warm up as a result of IR absorbtion. The only > requirement is that the radiation be absorbed and then re-emitted in a > random direction. By so doing, it interrupts the outwards path and > allows 50% of the radiation to return earthwards and thus remain part > of the overall system. Reducing the escape of energy from the system is > the only thing necessary for global warming to be a reality. At last the heart of the matter. Now, can someone explain, for the sake of those like myself who don't know about this stuff, exactly what it is about CO2 that gives it special IR absorption properties in the wavelengths involved in the earth's re-emission spectrum? What are those properties? Are there graphs that can be downloaded that depict these absorption properties for various atmospheric gases as a function of wavelength normalized to the earth's re-emission spectrum? How can the gas in the trace quantities at which it is present have such a large impact on atmospheric temperature? How can the low total heat capacity of the atmosphere relative to that of the oceans result in significant temperature increase of the oceans? In analogy with electrical capacitance, what is the ratio of that of the oceans to that of the atmosphere? Thanks, Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |