Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Retief on 1 Sep 2006 23:13 On Thu, 31 Aug 06 09:29:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>Retief wrote: >>> On Tue, 29 Aug 06 09:13:00 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>> wrote: Retief wrote none of the text which Lloyd Parker quoted. But Parker is apparently quite inexperienced on Usenet, and has considerable difficulties with things, such as trimming text... Retief
From: Phil. on 3 Sep 2006 01:40 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Proper laboratory experiments would prove you to be insane. O2 and N2 > have the same opacity as CO2, CO2 also has the exact same heat > capacity as O2 and N2. It is one of few molecules that has the same > heat capacity as air. I think you must be confusing CO with CO2 > You cannot be trusted to give us honest > evaluation as a scientist that you portend to be. You culture your > data, distort your data, hide data that is inconvenient for you and at > all points, try to make something which is false seem to be true. In > arguing with you, avoid the truth, continually refer to things as facts > which you cannot give direct evidence of and always try to confuse the > issue in your deliberate pursuit of your fraud.
From: kdthrge on 3 Sep 2006 09:30 Hoogle and company I don't want to SCARE you, but I want to point something out. At my website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge There is a simple study outlined. This is a study of elementary structures composed of uniform particles which have a common minimum distance to which they can exist. The structural stability is based upon this mininum distance. With any particular number of particles, there is a limit to how many symmetrical, of any symmetry, structures that can be derived. These particles represent the protons in a nucleus. In the initial study only the protons need to be considered. Recreate my study through calcium, or structures of 20 particles. Amd then try to disprove it. The force holding these structures together is towards the center of the structure, more than it is between individual particles, as it is in chemistry. Then, check to see if placement of the neutrons within these proton structures can be done symmetrically also. You will find that there are very few structures that are symmetrical that are not represented in my models. Of these, with each one, you can identify the inherent structural fallibility which means that it does not exist as a stable isotope. Placement of the neutrons is perfect and makes the proof complete. This study exactly recreates a chart of the stable nucliedes (isotopes). It is a 100% proof of the hypothesis. It is a 100% proof that the teaching's sanctioned by Harvard, which knows of the validity of my study, is felonious fraud. You are awfull quick with your little computer for the book I mentioned and my name. Show me engineering proof that I am a charlatan like I have proven you to be a charlatan, and I'll take my website down and quit accuseing you of deiberate, intentional, felonious fraud and conspiracy. Kent Deatherage
From: Eli Rabett on 3 Sep 2006 10:49 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: SNIp.... > Hey little theoretical idiots. You talk and talk , but it is a fact. > CO2 is one gas which has exactly the same heat capacity as the diatoms > of air. You don't like this fact so you hide it by refering to heat > capacity in units for mass. Obviously you don't understand it either. > Then you are faced with the question; from laboratory data: > 'As carbon dioxide is heated in normal temperature ranges, it's heat > capacity is exactly the same as air. Actually not, because of the low frequency vibrational bend. N2 28.87 J/(mol K) CO2 37.12 J/(mol K) You could look it up at webbook.nist.gov Now, since the assumption is wrong.....SNIP
From: Retief on 2 Sep 2006 11:22
On 1 Sep 2006 19:06:15 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >Orator wrote: >> Fact is if any radiation is blocked at all (no allowed to escape), it >> will eventually result in that effect as they claim a cumulative effect. >> It is not "strawman", it is the inevitable consequence of the claim made. >> >> Why that is so is that the effect on incoming radiation is never >> considered by the GW religion - it brings things back to a balance, when >> it IS considered. > >Except as you've been told many times before it is considered, incoming >IR is not blocked it is absorbed. Orator did not make the claim that IR was _blocked_, but rather that claim was from the AGW supporter and Usenet troll "WFHCS" did. Orator simply explained the consequences of _blocking_ this radiation. BTW, you forgot to mention that absorbed IR energy is subsequently re-emitted -- otherwise you have effectively claimed "it is blocked". As I explained previously, it's an energy balance - and not "blocked". Retief |