Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 4 Sep 2006 00:40 Phil. wrote: > 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. .....Radiant energy from the sun is absorbed by the earth. The atmosphere is also to a degree warmed by absorbed light. However, the transference of heat through the air (while slowed because the thermal frequencies do not pass through without being absorbed and reemmited), is relatively quick. One mole of air occupies much greater area than a mole of water. So at a relevant common temperature,, there is much greater energy in volume area in the water than the air. The fact that the air is mostly trasparent to the high energy visible light while the ocean is not, means that the temperature of the air is determined by the temperature of the ocean. The heat is transfering from the ocean to the air, and through the air mainly be convection. This is called weather. The energy of the wind air currents are due to the differences in weight of warm or cold air. The force of gravity induces movement of the different weights of air masses..... The atmosphere is always attempting to reach equalization between the warm air masses of the equator and the cold air masses of the poles. The energy of the convection can be formulated by obtaining the differences in weight and the effect of gravity. For the air masses to retain their heat, it is clear that the thermal frequencies are not passing through directly but are trapped. If most of the energy passed through except what is trapped by GHG's., there would not be enough trapped energy to cause the change of density. due to the expansion caused by heating, to formulate the weather. ""which doesn't stop CO2 & H20 recycling IR lower down in the > atmosphere and causing heating of the lower troposphere.""" This is false dynamics. In deserts temperature's are higher without the water vapor. In any climate in the summer, high humidity keeps the temperature down. On days with low humidity or dew point, the temperaure climbs higher in the afternoon. Wher is the greenhouse effect of water vapor? A made up dynamic. No science at all to back up your dynamics there buddy. Maybe it sounds all good to you. But the fact is, heat is a quantity.. If you cannot quantify your energy, you are not doing physics. Show me the calories from the CO2, to the air, to the ocean and land mass, or else it is correct to say because proper physics proves this to be true that; "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CO2 TO CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING" Kent Deatherge http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
From: Phil. on 4 Sep 2006 02:38 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Phil. wrote: > > 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. > > ....Radiant energy from the sun is absorbed by the earth. The > atmosphere is also to a degree warmed by absorbed light. However, the > transference of heat through the air (while slowed because the thermal > frequencies do not pass through without being absorbed and reemmited), > is relatively quick. One mole of air occupies much greater area than a > mole of water. So at a relevant common temperature,, there is much > greater energy in volume area in the water than the air. The fact that > the air is mostly trasparent to the high energy visible light while the > ocean is not, means that the temperature of the air is determined by > the temperature of the ocean. The heat is transfering from the ocean to > the air, and through the air mainly be convection. This is called > weather. The energy of the wind air currents are due to the differences > in weight of warm or cold air. The force of gravity induces movement of > the different weights of air masses..... > > The atmosphere is always attempting to reach equalization between the > warm air masses of the equator and the cold air masses of the poles. > The energy of the convection can be formulated by obtaining the > differences in weight and the effect of gravity. For the air masses to > retain their heat, it is clear that the thermal frequencies are not > passing through directly but are trapped. If most of the energy passed > through except what is trapped by GHG's., there would not be enough > trapped energy to cause the change of density. due to the expansion > caused by heating, to formulate the weather. Most of it is absorbed by the ghgs (350W/m^2) which is what causes the heating near the surface and hence convection. Some does pass directly through the atmosphere by virtue of the IR window region (~40 W/m^2 out of 492 W/m^2 from the surface). > > ""which doesn't stop CO2 & H20 recycling IR lower down in the > > atmosphere and causing heating of the lower troposphere.""" > > This is false dynamics. In deserts temperature's are higher without the > water vapor. In any climate in the summer, high humidity keeps the > temperature down. On days with low humidity or dew point, the > temperaure climbs higher in the afternoon. Wher is the greenhouse > effect of water vapor? Perhaps you are unaware that it gets very cold at night in those deserts, in fact you can freeze water in a bowl overnight by raditional cooling (due to the absence of the gh effect of H2O)! A diurnal range of 30ºC is quite normal. > A made up dynamic. No science at all to back up > your dynamics there buddy. Maybe it sounds all good to you. But the > fact is, heat is a quantity.. If you cannot quantify your energy, you > are not doing physics. Show me the calories from the CO2, to the air, > to the ocean and land mass, or
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Sep 2006 06:34 In article <276jf2t8h9813puibnqr7vvmsjmta7o39h(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> 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. > "Block" is a common term in science, but it does not mean "reflected." >BTW, you forgot to mention that absorbed IR energy is subsequently >re-emitted -- After a new, higher equil. temp. is reached. >otherwise you have effectively claimed "it is blocked". >As I explained previously, it's an energy balance - and not "blocked". > >Retief
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Sep 2006 06:57 In article <1157290244.576837.181550(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >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 Only a fool cites his one web site as proof of his assertions.
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Sep 2006 07:04
In article <1157305288.790272.19240(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > >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, Retief is repeating the same mantra. Hey, maybe they are the same person, Retief the angry persona and Orator the nice clueless one. |