Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 3 Sep 2006 12:21 Well I bet, I'm gonna be a big star, Might win an oscar, you can never tell, The movies gonna make me a big star, cause I can play the part, so well Shine on, Charlatan Cub
From: Phil. on 3 Sep 2006 13:41 Retief wrote: > 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". > And I wish I had a buck for every time I've explained that to Orator, his claim that incoming IR wasn't considered has been refuted many times, in detail, he just prefers to continue lying about it! The chance of it being re-emitted is rather slim, it's far more likely to be shared with surrounding N2 molecules via collisions (another fact that has been explained by me ad nauseam). I'm sorry if the umpteenth time around I didn't include all the details but just gave the short hand version.
From: kdthrge on 3 Sep 2006 14:35 "Hey what's up." "Oh, not much. I'm gathering all my money together. There's a bank in town that just hired some brilliant mathematicians from Harvard that were working on the 'Greenhouse Effect'. With their intuitive powers of calculating, they've developed a new kind of banking account. It's called the 'greenhouse money' account. First you deposit your money. Then every day you go down to the bank and deposit a penny. Then you withraw the penny. This is called 'perturbing the balance'. This they borrowed from their term 'perturbing the equilibrium' from greenhouse gas theory. You keep depositing a penny and withdrawing it. This perturbs the money in your account. It get's it shaking around and all perturbed and all. Then after a while when you go down to the bank, you deposit 2 cents. Now your balance really gets perturbed and spits out 5 cents. This keeps on until you get the 'runaway greenhouse acount'. Then you can deposit any small amount of money and withdraw incrementally larger sums. It's all been approved by 'reasonable people that agree'. You know those really smart guys from Harvard and such must know what they're doing". "But what happens if they get some negative numbers on their books at the bank?" "Oh, no problem. They call this 'anti-money'. And it's very potent stuff. If they get negative 20 million. They just divide it in two and multiply it together. -10 million x -10 million equal 100 million." "Brilliant" "Brilliant" "We'll all get rich!!!!" Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
From: kdthrge on 3 Sep 2006 18:56 Retief wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:50:48 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > wrote: > > >Orator believes CO2 is like a giant mirror. > > Lloyd Parker believes that CO2 is like a giant IR vacuum (or perhaps a > 'roach motel' -- "IR checks in, but it doesn't check out"). > > Retief It is important to keep in mind which frequencies are radiated at the temperatures of the earth and atmosphere. The earth radiates in thermal frequencies of much lower energy than the point of 3 microns where the atmosphere is entirely opaque to the thermal energy traveling unabsorbed by gas molecules into space. If CO2 were absorbing thermal frequencies, it would be evident in studying it as a rarified gas. In their theory, radiation only occurs upon collision (the same as in classical physics). If you look at their writings, they deny that there is a radiation field of continous spectra in the thermal frequencies. They attribute heat to being merly the kinetic agitation of the molecules, and radiation occuring as a result of these collisions or vibrations, This is definitely a reversion to classical physics. The fact is in the thermal frequencies, there is a continous spectra. If in analyzing the continous spectra of CO2 gas, there appears dark spectroscopic bands, this does not indicate absorption of these frequencies, like it defintely does with absorption lines in the visible frequencies. These dark bands are in no way capable of causing CO2 to retain heat or radiation. If it cannot radiate at the frequencies of these bands, it radiates in several photons of lesser energy. Or if available, higher frequencies carry more energy. The overall energy, or heat radiation is not affected be these bands. If it were it could be quantifed in laboratory experiments. Their theory is that the greenhous gases build up the amount of radiation that they are stopping. CO2 is just adding to the amount of retained radiation. The rest is passing through unhindered. This is pure rubbish. Careful laboratory analyses will prove this false. As the radiation field exits through the atmosphere, it is converted to lower frequencies but of higher quantity of photons. The energy exiting the atmosphere is in equivalence with the absorbed radiation from the sun. It is impossible for an increase of CO2 in the air to contain exiting radiation and increase the temperature. Physically impossible. This can be much more specifically defined, if need be, to quell the terror of those ardent devotees to the CO2 superstition., that the world is about to end because of an increase of .00003 of CO2 in 150 years. How much is that in ten years? Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
From: Phil. on 3 Sep 2006 22:17
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Retief wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:50:48 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > > wrote: > > > > >Orator believes CO2 is like a giant mirror. > > > > Lloyd Parker believes that CO2 is like a giant IR vacuum (or perhaps a > > 'roach motel' -- "IR checks in, but it doesn't check out"). > > > > Retief > > It is important to keep in mind which frequencies are radiated at the > temperatures of the earth and atmosphere. The earth radiates in thermal > frequencies of much lower energy than the point of 3 microns where the > atmosphere is entirely opaque to the thermal energy traveling > unabsorbed by gas molecules into space. This doesn't make any sense, apart from the fact that the atmosphere is not opaque above 3 microns, you appear to imply that frequencies of lower energy than 3 microns (i.e. longer wavelengths) will pass through unabsorbed! Make your mind up. > If CO2 were absorbing thermal frequencies, it would be evident in > studying it as a rarified gas. In their theory, radiation only occurs > upon collision (the same as in classical physics). > If you look at their writings, they deny that there is a radiation > field of continous spectra in the thermal frequencies. They attribute > heat to being merly the kinetic agitation of the molecules, and > radiation occuring as a result of these collisions or vibrations, This > is definitely a reversion to classical physics. The fact is in the > thermal frequencies, there is a continous spectra. If in analyzing the > continous spectra of CO2 gas, there appears dark spectroscopic bands, > this does not indicate absorption of these frequencies, like it > defintely does with absorption lines in the visible frequencies. These > dark bands are in no way capable of causing CO2 to retain heat or > radiation. If it cannot radiate at the frequencies of these bands, it > radiates in several photons of lesser energy. Or if available, higher > frequencies carry more energy. The overall energy, or heat radiation is > not affected be these bands. If it were it could be quantifed in > laboratory experiments. And indeed it has been, and they are indeed absorption bands. > > Their theory is that the greenhous gases build up the amount of > radiation that they are stopping. CO2 is just adding to the amount of > retained radiation. The rest is passing through unhindered. This is > pure rubbish. Careful laboratory analyses will prove this false. As the > radiation field exits through the atmosphere, it is converted to lower > frequencies but of higher quantity of photons. The energy exiting the > atmosphere is in equivalence with the absorbed radiation from the sun. > It is impossible for an increase of CO2 in the air to contain exiting > radiation and increase the temperature. Physically impossible. This can > be much more specifically defined, if need be, to quell the terror of > those ardent devotees to the CO2 superstition., that the world is about > to end because of an increase of .00003 of CO2 in 150 years. How much > is that in ten years? More nonsense, the energy exiting the top of the atmosphere is indeed in balance, which doesn't stop CO2 & H20 recycling IR lower down in the atmosphere and causing heating of the lower troposphere. |