Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Retief on 30 Aug 2006 20:49 On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:32:55 GMT, "Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms" <Exxon_Serial_Killers(a)RacketeersR.US> wrote: >CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to >happen to make Global Warming. If it _blocks_ "some outgoing IR radiation", then the Earth will eventually heat until all hell breaks loose (i.e. molten brimstone, as that energy was "blocked"). Thus, as usual, you are wrong. One notes that any heating in the atmosphere will also increase the rate at which heat is radiated out into space (as that rate depends on the temperature difference). It is not a simple linear equation... Retief
From: Hoggle on 31 Aug 2006 05:00 Lloyd Parker wrote: > >Hoggle wrote: > >....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.... er, no I didn't - the escaped nutter did Please be careful with attribution - it was clear enough on Kent's post.
From: Hoggle on 31 Aug 2006 05:05 Retief wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:32:55 GMT, "Weather From Hell, CO2 Storms" > <Exxon_Serial_Killers(a)RacketeersR.US> wrote: > > >CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to > >happen to make Global Warming. > > If it _blocks_ "some outgoing IR radiation", then the Earth will > eventually heat until all hell breaks loose (i.e. molten brimstone, as > that energy was "blocked"). Thus, as usual, you are wrong. > > One notes that any heating in the atmosphere will also increase the > rate at which heat is radiated out into space (as that rate depends on > the temperature difference). It is not a simple linear equation... Excellent example of a straw man argument. Well done. You are attributing a false argument to your opponent that he did not make in order to score points. Blocking _some_ radiation will not cause runaway heating and nothing in WFHCS's post suggests that it will.
From: kdthrge on 31 Aug 2006 05:47 Heat Capacity of CO2 and diatoms of one element such as O2 and N2. So let's break this down. CO2 has the molar weight of 44.The diatomic molecules, N2and O2 have the molar weight of 28 and 32 respectively. Nitrogen gas, N2 composes approx. 80% of air. Oxegen gas ,O2 composes aprox. 19 % of the air. The average molar weight of air is about 29. The vapor pressure of water vapor is not affected by CO2 at the pressures in the atmosphere. ALL diatomic molecules, of one element, have common heat capacity. Their heat capacity increases with temperature. Unlike the monatomic gases such as the inert elements, in which the molar heat capacity remains constant and which they share exactly the same value of molar heat capacity. The important point is that the diatoms of one element, all have the same molar heat capacity, including hydrogen gas (H2). Other diatoms, which are not of the same element have varying heat capacities. Some molecules which are not diatoms of the same element, share the exact increasing heat capacity of the mono-element diatoms at low pressure and temperature. CO2 is one of these molecules. CO2 has exactly the same molar heat capacity of N2 and O2 in temperature and pressure ranges of our atmosphere, and especially in the atmopheric environment in which as temperature increases, pressure does not increase as the gas can expand. In considering the heat capacity of CO2 in the air, you are not calculating the heat capacity of all the CO2 in the whole atmosphere, as this is irrelevant in this situation. Therfore the molar heat capacity is the relevant notation. CO2 and the principle components of air, which are N2 and O2 share the exact same increasing heat capacity. Therfore any proportion of CO2 in the air, including 100% CO2, has exactly the same heat capacity.This gives absolutely no evidence of CO2 having any pecular properties of heat retention. Variations in proportions of CO2 in the air, in no way affect the heat properties of the air, or it's relevance to the vapor pressure of water vapor. Kent Deatherage
From: Retief on 31 Aug 2006 20:16
On 31 Aug 2006 02:05:26 -0700, "Hoggle" <admin(a)co2emissions.org.uk> wrote: >> >CO2 & H2O will block some outgoing IR radiation. That's all that needs to >> >happen to make Global Warming. >> >> If it _blocks_ "some outgoing IR radiation", then the Earth will >> eventually heat until all hell breaks loose (i.e. molten brimstone, as >> that energy was "blocked"). Thus, as usual, you are wrong. >> >> One notes that any heating in the atmosphere will also increase the >> rate at which heat is radiated out into space (as that rate depends on >> the temperature difference). It is not a simple linear equation... > >Excellent example of a straw man argument. Well done. Not a straw man at all. When you tell me that you've blocked a pipe, then nothing passes through it. When you tell me that CO2 will _block_ the photons leaving the Earth, then you're claiming they are diverted and permanently captured somewhere... A "blocked" process that is considerably different than the absorption and re-emission process that actually occurs. And quite dissimilar to the actual radiation process. >You are attributing a false argument to your opponent that he did not >make in order to score points. Blocking _some_ radiation will not cause >runaway heating and nothing in WFHCS's post suggests that it will. Blocking means those photons (and thus energy) are removed from the emitted energy (and yes, stored somewhere else). That means the energy in question did not exit the system (as it actually does, through absorption and re-emission) -- if energy is being absorbed, and not re-emitted (i.e. "blocked"), then there is no other solution ultimately, and the Earth will become "hotter than hell"... I do find it amusing that you find it necessary to defend WFHCS's erroneous claim, however. Or are you just another WFHCS sockpuppet? That is, yet another troll... Retief |