Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 7 Sep 2006 05:41 In article <e_LLg.24569$rP1.21167(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Bob Cain wrote: > >> Orator wrote: >> >> >>>Please establish with proof, be it evidence, citation to a reputable >>>study or sound logic, that radiation is actually blocked/absorbed, in >>>other words retained by the molecule. It requires the mechanism for it >>>to hold that radiation and prevent it leaking out. >> >> >> Mechanism: until it boinks off a neighbor it moves faster after >> absorption than before it. > >Sorry, that is far, far from any proof. It doesn't even address the issue. Did he use too big words for poor little you? Maybe if you had ever been near an "edu" place...
From: Lloyd Parker on 7 Sep 2006 05:43 In article <cPNLg.24627$rP1.18457(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <64uLg.24148$rP1.18372(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <fa6jf21pjqsghdh3nqhh9mag085t8qaoot(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 06 11:49:57 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>.... >>> >>>>>What about that incoming IR that is absorbed, and then re-radiated >>>>>back into space, Lloyd? >>>> >>>> >>>>A small fraction. Consider a CO2 molecule as a sphere; only one narrow >>>>angle leads back into space. >>> >>>Yes it is such a "narrow angle" and "small fraction" that only some 53% >>>of the surface area radiates out to space. >>> >> >> >> Huh? A CO2 molecule at ground level? You're joking. > >Did I say "ground level"? No I didn't. Did my post contain "ground >level" in it anywhere? No it didn't, it is a figment of your imagination. > Most CO2 is below the top of the atmosphere. That means they radiate to other parts of the atmosphere, where there are other CO2 molecules. Take a sphere and examine all those places we call "interior." >Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the >surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? > >>>..... >>> >>>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". >>> >>>We certainly do :-)
From: Lloyd Parker on 7 Sep 2006 05:44 In article <3XNLg.24631$rP1.9796(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >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. You don't know jack about physics, you idiot. Take a basic science class. > >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. > >
From: Phil. on 7 Sep 2006 11:39 Orator 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. > > 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. It appears from subsequent posts that you are addressing this question to me, for 'proof' that a molecule absorbs light and will not re-emit it on a timescale that is short compared with the mean time between collisions at STP, see any decent college level textbook on spectroscopy, for a bit more advanced treatment see Alan Eckbreth's text on optical diagnostics. > > 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. That is your assertion not mine! > > 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. Done many times before but since you have such a short attention span: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Effect.png Please note the arrow next to 67 showing how much energy is being absorbed by the atmosphere from 'incoming' solar radiation. The figure is taken from the original paper: Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E. (1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association 78: 197-208.
From: Robert Grumbine on 7 Sep 2006 13:21
In article <SJidnWr9R9UCqWLZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >Many thanks for explaining these things. Some questions remain if you >don't mind. > >Robert Grumbine wrote: > [trim] >> 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? Let's work it out. An EE should have no problem with this: dT/dt = Q/(rho*Cp*H) Q = 4 W/m^2 rho = 1000 kg/m^3 H = 100 m Cp = 4000 J/kg/K So dT/dt = 4 / (4e8) K/sec, 1e-8 K/sec 1 yr ~= 1e7.5 sec, so the temperature change would be order 1e-(0.5) K/year, or 0.3 K/year for the upper mixed layer, 0.03 for the above the thermocline. This is the ballpark sort of figure to think with -- tenths of a degree per year. We don't yet have the full CO2 doubling, for instance, so we'd expect a smaller rate than the above. What it does serve to remind us of, however, is that the equilibration time of the system to the new radiative regime is going to take some time. For a 3 K change in the equilibrium temperature, for instance, it'll take ca. a decade for the uppermost ocean to equilibrate, and more like a century for the upper ocean. These tenths to hundredths of a degree are in accord with observations, though this is obviously a difficult thing to observe directly. >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? Not sure how you mean the question. Ocean reflects little of the incoming solar energy, but also spreads the absorbed energy through a greater depth than land does. Outcome of this is that the diurnal cycle of surface temperature is much greater over land than ocean. >I'm still having trouble understanding how this redirected long wave >radiation will increase air conditioning costs. :-) C'mon, you know this. More energy in = more work to spit it back out. More longwave being directed into your house (by the greenhouse gases) makes you pay more to cool back down. To present Phil's figures in a different way: Top of atmosphere solar constant is about 1367 W/m^2. Since the earth isn't a disk with only one side, we divide by 4 (area of sphere vs. the one side of disk) and arrive at 342 W/m^2 global average incoming at the top of the atmosphere. 30% (roughly) of that is reflected right back out, so we're down to 239 W/m^2 getting involved in the earth's climate system. That would only, without greenhouse gases, support a surface temperature of about 255 K. We actually average about 288 K globally. The difference is due to the greenhouse gases. The average energy down to the surface is lifted to 390 W/m^2 (an addition of 150 W/m^2) by the greenhouse gases. As I mentioned before, the gases are efficient at capturing and re-radiating longwave radiation to the surface. Note, too, that the 4 W/m^2 for CO2 doubling is a small increase over the already present greenhouse effect. The thing is, the climate system, and we, are rather sensitive to small changes. -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences |