Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Sep 2006 07:23 In article <1157344839.901450.183720(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, 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. That's a bunch of hooey. It means no such thing. If the two stayed in contact for a long time, to reach equilibrium, maybe, but both are moving! > 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. That's not the only reason. And there are cold deserts -- the Gobi, for example. >In any climate in the summer, high humidity keeps the >temperature down. Guess that's why Houston is cooler than Minneapolis most of the time. >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" It is impossible for you to have a brain. > >Kent Deatherge
From: Retief on 3 Sep 2006 23:27 On Mon, 04 Sep 06 10:34:54 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>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." Yes, I would block a pipe by sealing the end. Your AGW friend (and Usenet troll), "WFHCS" asserted that it was "blocked". That is a highly inaccurate description of the process occurring. Incidentally, none of the text which you quoted says "reflected". But Lloyd Parker is famous for his red-herrings, non-sequiturs, and strawmen. But since you bring it up, any gas which will absorb energy, will also "reflect" some of that energy, as re-emission is a geometrically uniform process (statistically speaking). And then there are the effects of water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere... >>BTW, you forgot to mention that absorbed IR energy is subsequently >>re-emitted -- > >After a new, higher equil. temp. is reached. The atmosphere does not reach _equilibrium_ (i.e. the gases and various regions of the atmosphere are not at the same temperature). The radiative process will occur regardless. Retief
From: Orator on 5 Sep 2006 09:26 Phil. wrote: > Orator wrote: > >>Hoggle wrote: >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>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. > Mincing about using different words do not alter anything. Call it "blocked" or "absorbed" doesn't matter, the result of the claim is cumulative.
From: Orator on 5 Sep 2006 10:13 Phil. 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, > his claim that incoming IR wasn't considered has been refuted many > times, in detail, he just prefers to continue lying about it! I remind you of what Retief stated "you forgot to mention that absorbed IR energy is subsequently re-emitted". So using the term "absorbed" or "blocked" makes no difference as the effect is the same. Without that re-emission, the heat becomes cumulative. > 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. Once again we see an argument that would result in the planet being cooked and being uninhabitable! Yes, I still say you people are not considering the incoming side of the equation. >
From: Phil. on 5 Sep 2006 10:32
Orator wrote: > Phil. 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, > > his claim that incoming IR wasn't considered has been refuted many > > times, in detail, he just prefers to continue lying about it! > > I remind you of what Retief stated "you forgot to mention that absorbed > IR energy is subsequently re-emitted". So using the term "absorbed" or > "blocked" makes no difference as the effect is the same. Without that > re-emission, the heat becomes cumulative. As I pointed out to Retief it's much more likely to lose that energy by collision in the lower troposphere. Either way it contributes to the heating of the atmosphere just as if it was absorbed at the surface and re-emitted as IR and subsequently absorbed. Apart from the small fraction (~40W/m^2) which leaves the atmosphere directly, the energy is distributed via convection & radiation until molecules high enough in the atmosphere are able to lose energy to space via radiation. > > > 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. > > Once again we see an argument that would result in the planet being > cooked and being uninhabitable! > > Yes, I still say you people are not considering the incoming side of the > equation. > > And you're still wrong! |