Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 29 Aug 2006 20:44 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. ....And here we get to the truth that heat capacity of pure CO2 is exactly the same as air and any combined proportions. You hate me and nit pick every little mistake I may make, so I will accept your acknowlegment that I am correct. You know as well as I do that you checked your figures. I least we got that fact out of you Mr. scientist.... ....Your next paragraph is the usual non-scientific bullshit that has NO laboratory data at all to support it. In fact it is impossible because data from careful experiments of the opacity of the atmophere absolutely preclude this postulate. The atmophere is opaque, TO ALL WAVELENGTHS THAT ARE EMMITED IN THE THERMAL OR INFRA-RED AT THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH.... YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE OR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND FACTS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO YOUR SUPERSTITION ABOUT CO2. .. You know that's really funny your statement, " There is no part of the global warming theory that requires CO2 to warm up as a result of IR absorbtion". Obviously there's no part of 'CO2 as a greenhouse gas' theory that needs to be confirmed by science or math either. You have no understanding of light or heat. Only reflected radiation remains unchanged. Any absorbed radiation is reemited at different wavelength and causes warming of the gas in whcih it is aborbed and reemited. I know laboratory data means nothing to a theorist like you, but the rest of us are concered with facts. Supposition, assumption, and made up dynamics, are not science. But of course you can redefine English to fit your needs and always avoid the truth. Kent Deatherage
From: Orator on 29 Aug 2006 22:33 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. Tell that to the advocates for the GW religion :-) > 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. And again we see the total ignoring of 50% of the story. It affect radiation likewise on the way IN, preventing radiation reaching the globe, that will be in balance with the amount it prevents radiation leaving. One of the GW religion High Priests has actually confirmed this -- only to wake up to what he said and attempted to distance himself from it after that :-) >
From: Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms on 29 Aug 2006 22:34 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote in news:1156898658.781949.76020(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com: > > 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. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > ...And here we get to the truth that heat capacity of pure CO2 is > exactly the same as air and any combined proportions. You hate me and > nit pick every little mistake I may make, so I will accept your > acknowlegment that I am correct. You know as well as I do that you > checked your figures. I least we got that fact out of you Mr. > scientist.... The heat capacity of air or CO2 is possible to bake bread in ovens at 400 degrees. The Heat Capacity of air or CO2 is possible to melt rocks into lava under the right conditions. The HEAT CAPACITY of AIR or CO2 in an electric arc furnace can get hot enough to melt steel into puddles. So what's your point? That air can't get hot if heat energy is added to it? Good luck trying to find suckers to believe you. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > ...Your next paragraph is the usual non-scientific bullshit that has NO > laboratory data at all to support it. In fact it is impossible because > data from careful experiments of the opacity of the atmophere > absolutely preclude this postulate. The atmophere is opaque, TO ALL > WAVELENGTHS THAT ARE EMMITED IN THE THERMAL OR INFRA-RED AT THE > TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH.... YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE OR ABILITY TO > UNDERSTAND FACTS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO YOUR SUPERSTITION ABOUT CO2. .. The atmosphere is made up of individual gases mixed together. When we seperate out the parts we find that some of those gases are completely transparent to infrared HEAT energy and some are opaque. O2, N2 and Ar are mostly transparent. CO2 and H2O are opague in some bands and transparent in some. They have some overlaps where they are both opague to certain bands and others where they are both transparant to certain bands. Your argument cedes the fact that together CO2 and H2O can be opaque to Infrared Radiation. You fraudulently deny that O2, N2 and Ar are clear and transparant to most IR wavelengths. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > You know that's really funny your statement, " There is no part of the > global warming theory that requires CO2 to warm up as a result of IR > absorbtion". > Obviously there's no part of 'CO2 as a greenhouse gas' theory that > needs to be confirmed by science or math either. The confirmations have been done to exactitude over 100 years ago and repeated in every generation since. Too bad you didn't get to go to college with decent equipment where they teach each new class the truth of the matter. Once you have seen it, nobody can lie it away later. Your arguments are doomed -- hundreds of thousands of college kids around the world have seen the truth and can never be bluffed by your lies. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > You have no understanding of light or heat. You have no facts to support your tirades. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > Only reflected radiation > remains unchanged. Nobody said any different. You can't quote where anybody said any different. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > Any absorbed radiation is reemited at different > wavelength and causes warming of the gas in whcih it is aborbed and > reemited. That's what you were told. You concede that it is true now. Bent Death-RAGE Spewed: > I know laboratory data means nothing to a theorist like you, > but the rest of us are concered with facts. Supposition, assumption, > and made up dynamics, are not science. But of course you can redefine > English to fit your needs and always avoid the truth. > > Kent Deatherage You sanity hearing and commitment to a mental institution is assured.
From: Orator on 29 Aug 2006 23:12 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. Horses for courses, hell you don't even have a horse, and are on the wrong track anyway! > >>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. I prefer real measurements, as in Celsius. It would would amount to about 40 degrees, little babies and children often run temperatures up to 42C. It is not till 44C you are in serious trouble, or perhaps dead. > > >>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? It is utter bullshit and has absolutely no bearing on anything in the discussion. It belongs in the realm of second hand car salesmen, confidence tricksters, and conjurers. > >>>>>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. You have no need to fess up to it, it is blatantly obvious already. >>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. The LIA ended at the end about the 1890's. You are again wrong claiming "local". Where is your proof of that allegation? >>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! > > Yes it is. It's known. Wrong, it is impossible to know. You do not have the data to work with. But let us test this claim of yours. This is your opportunity to shine and show off your knowledge! IF you have the data, you can tell me how much fuel was burned in per head of population in India. Know how many people there were in India at the time. Know the type fuels they burned. You need only give an annual figures for the decades 1870 to 1890. If you can't answer those questions, you are admitting to having resorted to fiction once again.
From: Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms on 29 Aug 2006 23:32
Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote in news:WN6Jg.20116$rP1.356(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: > 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. > > And again we see the total ignoring of 50% of the story. It affect > radiation likewise on the way IN, preventing radiation reaching the > globe, that will be in balance with the amount it prevents radiation > leaving. Gases can only "block" radiation that they have absorption bands to block. If the radiation comes in through transparant forms as light and ultraviolet, the gases cannot block that. When the light energy hits a black car parked in the sunshine, or hits rocks or dirt or water or tarmac, it gets absorbed, transformed into heat and radiated out at a different wavelength. Then gases which have absorption to the heat IT wavelenges will absorb it and slow it's release offworld. The heat energy builds up and is called "Global Warming". The top five gases do not block the incoming radiation: N2, O2, Ar, CO2 & H2O. CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to happen to make Global Warming. 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? |