Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: mmeron on 6 Sep 2006 04:43 In article <ididnXpXKuMNG2PZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> writes: >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. > The extra kinetic energy a molecule acquires following the absorption of a visible (or less) photon is quite negligible. The energy is absorbed into vibrational or rotational degrees of freedom. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Sep 2006 06:56 In article <1tksf2h4r1vq918q2lqrrekev6mn0om8um(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Sep 06 14:34:32 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>So the rest is back into the atmosphere. Do you fail to understand your own >>explanation? Without CO2, that IR emitted by the earth would escape into >>space. > >What the hell are you smoking, Lloyd? "Without CO2, that IR emitted >by the earth would escape into space"!!?? You're kidding, right? > The ir now absorbed by the increased CO2 would. I'm sorry; I thought intelligent people could follow the discussion.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Sep 2006 06:58 In article <vlksf2ppvv4ui18afhnq052bcotb7i4tmf(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Sep 06 11:18:33 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>Yeah, me and IPCC, NAS, EPA, NOAA, NASA, AGU, ACS, Science, Nature... > >Lloyd Parker once again confuses name dropping with true scientific >citations... > > You confuse your anger for signs of intelligence.
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Sep 2006 07:06 In article <64uLg.24148$rP1.18372(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <fa6jf21pjqsghdh3nqhh9mag085t8qaoot(a)4ax.com>, >> Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:49:57 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>wrote: >>> >>> >.... >>>What about that incoming IR that is absorbed, and then re-radiated >>>back into space, Lloyd? >> >> >> A small fraction. Consider a CO2 molecule as a sphere; only one narrow angle >> leads back into space. > >Yes it is such a "narrow angle" and "small fraction" that only some 53% >of the surface area radiates out to space. > Huh? A CO2 molecule at ground level? You're joking. >..... >>> >>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". > >We certainly do :-)
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Sep 2006 07:06
In article <9huLg.24155$rP1.19832(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >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. > Yeah, sure. >Nor does it matter how many times you or Phil attempt to claim 2+2 makes >five, it doesn't make it so! > How many times do we have to tell you -- right-wing clap trap ain't science? |