Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 6 Sep 2006 23:08 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > 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. But where is the proof I asked for? It is a rather unique claim that was made after all - one that seems to defy, not only logic, but all other claims as well as physics. Phil where are you, why are you running away from your claims?
From: Phil Hays on 6 Sep 2006 23:59 kdthrge wrote: > Diamond is a non- conductor idiot. At any normal temperature. Really. "The Hope Diamond -- the world's largest deep blue diamond -- is more than a billion years old. It is a doped semiconductor, formed deep within the Earth and carried by a volcanic eruption to the surface in what is now Golconda, India." http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/11.html And room temperature is normal, unless we are talking IQ. Diamonds in many ways are ideal semiconductors. It is relatively easy to make diamond pure enough to to be made into transistors. It is relatively easy to "dope" diamonds to be p-type, to the point of some natural diamonds are p-type. For example, the Hope diamond. N-type is a bit harder, but see this: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6110276.html Diamond has a very high thermal conductivity, so getting rid of heat is easy. Diamond has a very high electron and hole mobilities. If your computer was based on diamond rather than silicon, the transistors would switch roughly 40 times faster. Also, diamond stays a semiconductor to higher temperatures than silicon, allowing much higher power operation for applications like radio transmitters. -- Phil Hays
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 01:08 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <64uLg.24148$rP1.18372(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <fa6jf21pjqsghdh3nqhh9mag085t8qaoot(a)4ax.com>, >>> Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:49:57 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>.... >> >>>>What about that incoming IR that is absorbed, and then re-radiated >>>>back into space, Lloyd? >>> >>> >>>A small fraction. Consider a CO2 molecule as a sphere; only one narrow >>>angle leads back into space. >> >>Yes it is such a "narrow angle" and "small fraction" that only some 53% >>of the surface area radiates out to space. >> > > > Huh? A CO2 molecule at ground level? You're joking. Did I say "ground level"? No I didn't. Did my post contain "ground level" in it anywhere? No it didn't, it is a figment of your imagination. Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? >>..... >> >>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". >> >>We certainly do :-)
From: mmeron on 7 Sep 2006 01:03 In article <%2MLg.24573$rP1.13958(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> 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. > >But where is the proof I asked for? I wasn't answering you. I made a specific comment regarding the increment of kinetic energy due to photon absorption. You find it inaccurate? Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 01:16
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <RWuLg.24200$rP1.5307(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>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. >> > > > Most molecules do release their energy in collisions. I note you do not disagree that you have claimed an event that does not follow the laws of physics, ands you stand by that. Isn't that what creationists resort to? Ignore the laws of physics in their "intelligent design" (ID) dogma? > >>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. > > > Bond vibrations. That's how molecules absorb IR in the first place. Please answer the question without bogus nonsense like that. > You deleted this and ran away from it. What are you afraid of? Is it too hard for you to answer this: 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. |