Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Retief on 6 Sep 2006 01:44 On Tue, 05 Sep 06 11:20:25 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>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. Exactly, Lloyd. And if you claim that you prevent photons (energy) from escaping, the obvious consequence is "hotter than hell". >Sigh. Yes, and the effects of tides and magnetic fields. Water vapor is >taken into account. Apparently not by you... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/e0119015a5db69e9?dmode=source Lloyd Parker: "Without CO2, that IR emitted by the earth would escape into space." >>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 atmosphere does not reach equilibrium. Retief
From: Orator on 6 Sep 2006 02:41 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <fa6jf21pjqsghdh3nqhh9mag085t8qaoot(a)4ax.com>, > Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:49:57 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>wrote: >> >> .... >>What about that incoming IR that is absorbed, and then re-radiated >>back into space, Lloyd? > > > A small fraction. Consider a CO2 molecule as a sphere; only one narrow angle > leads back into space. Yes it is such a "narrow angle" and "small fraction" that only some 53% of the surface area radiates out to space. ..... >> >>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". We certainly do :-)
From: Orator on 6 Sep 2006 02:55 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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, You would end up with $0 in that case. > Retief is repeating the same mantra. Hey, maybe they are the same person, > Retief the angry persona and Orator the nice clueless one. The only "clueless one" here appears to be you. That is why you have a need to resort to ad hominem. Nor does it matter how many times you or Phil attempt to claim 2+2 makes five, it doesn't make it so!
From: Orator on 6 Sep 2006 03:39 Phil. wrote: > 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. Really :-) Lets make this clear. You say a CO2 molecule blocks/absorb heat (to use short hand). Then it hangs on to this heat till it travels down the atmosphere against all laws of physics, until bad driving caused it to have an accident and it collides, releasing the heat. Of course this interesting chain of events needs a full explanation from you regarding these points. Please establish with proof, be it evidence, citation to a reputable study or sound logic, that radiation is actually blocked/absorbed, in other words retained by the molecule. It requires the mechanism for it to hold that radiation and prevent it leaking out. The second aspect is even more interesting. How does part of the atmosphere that gets hotter by "retaining" heat, not rise in the air as convection requires it to do? Provide the mechanism/fuel driving this molecule down to the "lower troposphere" from the upper stratosphere. I'd like to see that {:-) > 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! Why don't you actually ever prove me wrong, if you claim it to be wrong. Assertions will get you nowhere. Nor will any assertions as "logical" as 2+2 = 5 get you anywhere.
From: Bob Cain on 6 Sep 2006 04:27
Orator wrote: > Please establish with proof, be it evidence, citation to a reputable > study or sound logic, that radiation is actually blocked/absorbed, in > other words retained by the molecule. It requires the mechanism for it > to hold that radiation and prevent it leaking out. Mechanism: until it boinks off a neighbor it moves faster after absorption than before it. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |