Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 5 Sep 2006 07:20 In article <pv3nf2t0vkrciit7jt3a8vcjnac4535ge4(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >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. > Block means prevent from escaping. >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... Sigh. Yes, and the effects of tides and magnetic fields. Water vapor is taken into account. > >>>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 atmosphere will warm until it reaches a new equil. and then radiate as much energy as it receives. >The radiative process will occur regardless. > >Retief
From: kdthrge on 5 Sep 2006 22:51 > > 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. > These are really some bullshit dynamics, dude. If you not concerned about the ongoing attempt to socialize our economy and the drastic effects this would have upon the people because of these poor dynamics, your human consiousness must be questioned. Any molecule radiates equivelent to it's radiative environment. In considering normal temperatures, the electron oscillator (Placnk's Hypothesis) has a constant rate at which it can radiate (for it's quantity of mass and surface area) in the volume area around it. In an increased level of energy of incoming radiation field, the volume rate of radiaiton loss does not change, so the outgoing energy level increases for unit area (photons of greater energy).. A molecule has no ability to retain energy in it's electron oscillator longer than the time for a vibration at c to travel the very small distance of it's diameter. The energy of an absorbed photon is quickly radiated in the form of many photons of lesser energy. Co2 has no ability to reflect or hold radiation. The heat capacity is the kinetic energy absorbed because of velocity of the molecule and spin of the molecule within the electron shell or oscillator. There is no laboratory data to support the claim that Co2 retains heat in the atmosphere. At average earth tmperature, 1 degree K means an increase of about 6 watts/sq, m. No such level of heat retention by any concentration of CO2 to air, has ever been observed in the laboratory. Your dynamics are fiction. Another fact that can be directly confirmed by the proper up close laboratory expertiments; thermal frequencies from 1 micron and longer are absorbed and re-emmited by all gases. H2 and O2 are not transparent to thermal frequncies. I can see you have no interest in careful laboratory experiments. You enjoy more your made up dynamics that support your superstition. You ignore my website which, by proving a simple point, disproves a considerable amount of theoretical science. You accept and allow public money to be exchanged under false pretenses. Your deliberate ignorance of scientific facts amounts to fraud-grand larceny It is no defense that this is common at publically funded universities. You should be held responsible for your conduct with public money. Grand larceny is a felony punishable by time in the penitentary. Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
From: kdthrge on 5 Sep 2006 22:56 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. You are operating with some really some bullshit dynamics, dude. If you not concerned about the ongoing attempt to socialize our economy and the drastic effects this would have upon the people because of these poor dynamics, your human consiousness must be questioned. Any molecule radiates equivelent to it's radiative environment. In considering normal temperatures, the electron oscillator (Placnk's Hypothesis) has a constant rate at which it can radiate (for it's quantity of mass and surface area) in the volume area around it. In an increased level of energy of incoming radiation field, the volume rate of radiaiton loss does not change, so the outgoing energy level increases for unit area. A molecule has no ability to retain energy in it's electron oscillator longer than the time for a vibration at c to travel the very small distance of it's diameter. The energy of an absorbed photon is quickly radiated in the form of many photons of lesser energy. Co2 has no ability to reflect or hold radiation. The heat capacity is the kinetic energy absorbed because of velocity of the molecule and spin of the molecule within the electron shell or oscillator. There is no laboratory data to support the claim that Co2 retains heat in the atmosphere. At average earth tmperature, 1 degree K means an increase of about 6 watts/sq, m. No such level of heat retention by any concentration of CO2 to air, has ever been observed in the laboratory. Your dynamics are fiction. Another fact that can be directly confirmed by the proper up close laboratory expertiments; thermal frequencies from 1 micron and longer are absorbed and re-emmited by all gases. H2 and O2 are not transparent to thermal frequncies. I can see you have no interest in careful laboratory experiments. You enjoy more your made up dynamics that support your superstition. You ignore my website which, by proving a simple point, disproves a considerable amount of theoretical science. You accept and allow public money to be exchanged under false pretenses. Your deliberate ignorance of scientific facts amounts to fraud-grand larceny It is no defense that this is common at publically funded universities. You should be held responsible for your conduct with public money. Grand larceny is a felony punishable by time in the penitentary. Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
From: Phil Hays on 6 Sep 2006 01:06 kdthrge wrote: > Phil Hays wrote: >> A free hint, ever hear of semiconductors? > Non-conductors have no electrons freed within > the strucure. Such as diamond. Also 1:2 ratio, but with relinquished > electrons absorbed into other atom. Graphite the other allotrope of carbon > forms a hexagonal crystal with several electrons that orbit bonds. It is a > very good conductor of electricity although diamond is a non-conductor. So you predict that diamond is a non-conductor. Physics predicts that it would be a semiconductor. Wonder who is right? Let us see. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=Japanese+craft+novel+diamond -- Phil Hays
From: Phil. on 6 Sep 2006 01:35
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > 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. > > You are operating with some really some bullshit dynamics, dude. If you > not concerned about the ongoing attempt to socialize our economy and > the drastic effects this would have upon the people because of these > poor dynamics, your human consiousness must be questioned. > > Any molecule radiates equivelent to it's radiative environment. In > considering normal temperatures, the electron oscillator (Placnk's > Hypothesis) has a constant rate at which it can radiate (for it's > quantity of mass and surface area) in the volume area around it. In an > increased level of energy of incoming radiation field, the volume rate > of radiaiton loss does not change, so the outgoing energy level > increases for unit area. A molecule has no ability to retain energy in > it's electron oscillator longer than the time for a vibration at c to > travel the very small distance of it's diameter. The energy of an > absorbed photon is quickly radiated in the form of many photons of > lesser energy. If by c you mean the speed of light you're way wrong excited state lifetimes are much greater than this! For CO2 the radiative lifetimes of vibrationally excited states are order miiliseconds, however since collisional timescales are of nanosecond order deactivation is primarily collisional (particularly with N2 which has some fortuitious energy level matches). If what you say were to be true the CO2 laser would be impossible. > > Co2 has no ability to reflect or hold radiation. The heat capacity is > the kinetic energy absorbed because of velocity of the molecule and > spin of the molecule within the electron shell or oscillator. There is > no laboratory data to support the claim that Co2 retains heat in the > atmosphere. At average earth tmperature, 1 degree K means an increase > of about 6 watts/sq, m. No such level of heat retention by any > concentration of CO2 to air, has ever been observed in the laboratory. > Your dynamics are fiction. > > Another fact that can be directly confirmed by the proper up close > laboratory expertiments; thermal frequencies from 1 micron and longer > are absorbed and re-emmited by all gases. H2 and O2 are not transparent > to thermal frequncies. Not true, homonuclear diatomics do not absorb in the IR (thermal), N2 and O2 are transparent at these wavelengths. H2O and CO2 do absorb however in various bands above 1 micron but there are many transparent windows between 1-14 microns. > > I can see you have no interest in careful laboratory experiments. > You enjoy more your made up dynamics that support your superstition. > You ignore my website which, by proving a simple point, disproves a > considerable amount of theoretical science. > You accept and allow public money to be exchanged under false > pretenses. > Your deliberate ignorance of scientific facts amounts to fraud-grand > larceny > It is no defense that this is common at publically funded universities. > > You should be held responsible for your conduct with public money. > Grand larceny is a felony punishable by time in the penitentary. > > Kent Deatherage > http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge |