Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms on 29 Aug 2006 23:41 Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote in news:hm7Jg.20128$rP1.4962(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: --This Commercial Message paid for by Exxon Corp. > If you can't answer those questions, you are admitting to having > resorted to fiction once again. >
From: Hoggle on 30 Aug 2006 04:26 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > You hate me and nit pick every little mistake I may make No, I'm very fair minded. If you ever get anything right I'll acknowledge it. I am getting a bit bored waiting for that particular miracle to happen though.
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Aug 2006 11:10 In article <CNqdnYgsx9diJGnZnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >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? > CO2 has vibrational modes whose frequencies fall in the IR region; thus, it can absorb IR radiation of the corresponding frequencies. >How can the gas in the trace quantities at which it is present have >such a large impact on atmospheric temperature? How can a tiny amount of, say, ricin kill someone? > >How can the low total heat capacity of the atmosphere relative to that >of the oceans result in significant temperature increase of the >oceans? Heat flows from a warm body to a cold one. Sometimes called the zeroth law of thermodynamics. > In analogy with electrical capacitance, what is the ratio of >that of the oceans to that of the atmosphere? > > >Thanks, > >Bob
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Aug 2006 11:11 In article <1156898658.781949.76020(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >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.... What? If so, the earth would be too hot for life. >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: Lloyd Parker on 30 Aug 2006 11:14
In article <hm7Jg.20128$rP1.4962(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >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. >> Well, a 3 K increase is a 3 C increase. Remember, a K is the same size as a C deg. >> >>>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. Google it; you'll find people do know it. >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. |