Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Phil. on 6 Sep 2006 18:21 Bob Cain wrote: > Many thanks for explaining these things. Some questions remain if you > don't mind. > > Robert Grumbine wrote: > > > By Kirchoff's law, anything which absorbs at a frequency, emits > > at it as well (equally well), hence my absorb/emit above. > > So the energy absorbed is re-emitted in random directions rather than > being shared with neighbors by kinetic processes. Right? Depends where the molecule is, left to its own devices it will emit a photon after a lifetime of microsec-millisec, however at the surface it will undergo a collision every few nanosec which will limit the possibility of a photon being emitted (particularly as N2 has energy levels that match well with the CO2 excited states). At altitudes around 100km the collision frequency drops to millisec so by then re-emission of a photon is far more likely > > At what point, then, is this captured energy converted to the kinetic > form that determines atmospheric temperature? See above. > > > What happens instead is that the greenhouse gases add a long wave > > (same bands as the earth's radiation) component downwards to the ocean. > > (In addition to the solar (shortwave) and latent and sensible heat > > fluxes). The radiative change from doubled CO2 (a reference sort of > > figure) is about 4 W/m^2. Given that the heat capacity of the ocean > > is enormous, this leads to only slow changes in ocean temperature. For > > reference, specific heat of sea water is about 4000 J/kg/K and density > > is about 1000 kg/m^3. A ballpark wind-mixed layer depth is 100 m, while > > the thickness above the permanent thermocline is about 1000 m. Figure > > up how long it would take to get a 1 K warming with 4 W/m^2. > > With a 40 year old EE degree I'm too far removed from even that basic > stuff to take any calculation on. :-) > > You seem to imply that it's a long time. Yet it is fast enough to > account for the ocean warming has been observed and predicted? > > If the ocean temperature remains fairly constant over short time > periods is the atmosphere that is above the oceans subject to the same > radiative forcing as that over land? > > I'm still having trouble understanding how this redirected long wave > radiation will increase air conditioning costs. :-) > Insolation from the sun reaching the surface 168W/m^2, recycled IR due to GH effect 324 W/m^2.
From: kdthrge on 6 Sep 2006 20:22 Like most of you devotees to the superstition you have attention deficit disorder. I'm not interested in argueing with a dishonest prick like you, theoretical chemistry. Diamond is a non- conductor idiot. At any normal temperature. Come back on a specific criticism of this study then, twit. Pick any three elements at random. You want to make me look bad, hit me on the "Fundamental Proof of Static Nuclear Structure". I apolagize for putting any theory at my website, since it confuses you so much to the issue. .. This is a study of elementary structures composed of uniform particles which have a common minimum distance to which they can exist. The structural stability is based upon this mininum distance. With any particular number of particles, there is a limit to how many symmetrical, of any symmetry, structures that can be derived. These particles represent the protons in a nucleus. In the initial study only the protons need to be considered. Recreate my study through calcium, or structures of 20 particles. And then try to disprove it. The force holding these structures together is towards the center of the structure, more than it is between individual particles, as it is in chemistry. Then, check to see if placement of the neutrons within these proton structures can be done symmetrically also. You will find that there are very few structures that are symmetrical that are not represented in my models. Of these, with each one, you can identify the inherent structural fallibility which means that it does not exist as a stable isotope. Placement of the neutrons is perfect and makes the proof complete. http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge This study exactly recreates a chart of the stable nucliedes (isotopes). It is a 100% proof of the hypothesis. It is a 100% proof that the teaching's sanctioned by Harvard, which knows of the validity of my study, is felonious fraud. Kent Deatherage
From: Bob Cain on 6 Sep 2006 22:35 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <7qCdnUcL05SEsGLZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> writes: >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> 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. >> Oh. Thanks. >> >> How is that energy shared with the molecule's neighbors? >> > It can be transferred during collisions, or emitted as a photon. In collision is the CO2's increased rotational and vibrational energy transferred to it's neighbor molecules as the translational kinetic energy which is required for an increase in their temperature? Even though some long wave photons are re-emitted, eventually a large fraction of them excite CO2 molecules which, rather than radiating, run into neighbors and make those neighbors go faster. Have I got it yet? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
From: Orator on 6 Sep 2006 23:03 Bob Cain wrote: > 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. Sorry, that is far, far from any proof. It doesn't even address the issue.
From: mmeron on 6 Sep 2006 23:01
In article <fIydnThQM5AXGGLZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <7qCdnUcL05SEsGLZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> writes: >>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> Oh. Thanks. >>> >>> How is that energy shared with the molecule's neighbors? >>> >> It can be transferred during collisions, or emitted as a photon. > >In collision is the CO2's increased rotational and vibrational energy >transferred to it's neighbor molecules as the translational kinetic >energy which is required for an increase in their temperature? > With some probability, yes. Given enoguh processes, sooner or later energy is transferred to all the available degrees of freedom. >Even though some long wave photons are re-emitted, eventually a large >fraction of them excite CO2 molecules which, rather than radiating, >run into neighbors and make those neighbors go faster. Have I got it yet? > Yes, you did. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |