Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 20:09 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <%2MLg.24573$rP1.13958(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> writes: > >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ididnXpXKuMNG2PZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>>Orator wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Please establish with proof, be it evidence, citation to a reputable >>>>>study or sound logic, that radiation is actually blocked/absorbed, in >>>>>other words retained by the molecule. It requires the mechanism for it >>>>>to hold that radiation and prevent it leaking out. >>>> >>>>Mechanism: until it boinks off a neighbor it moves faster after >>>>absorption than before it. >>>> >>> >>>The extra kinetic energy a molecule acquires following the absorption >>>of a visible (or less) photon is quite negligible. The energy is >>>absorbed into vibrational or rotational degrees of freedom. >> >>But where is the proof I asked for? > > > I wasn't answering you. So why did you respond to me then? > I made a specific comment regarding the > increment of kinetic energy due to photon absorption. You find it > inaccurate? I asked for proof, specifically for the allegation of "absorb". That is to say, not re-emitting the energy from the molecule. Is that too much to ask?
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 20:20 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <cPNLg.24627$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. Did I say "the top of the atmosphere"? No I didn't. Did my post contain "the top of the atmosphere" in it anywhere? No it didn't! It is another piece of fiction on your part. > That means they radiate to other > parts of the atmosphere, where there are other CO2 molecules. ....and each and every one radiates more out from the planet than toward the planet. That means you have a cumulative effect of ever greater portion being radiated OUT from the planet. That is why there is no need to consider that part. It is detrimental to your "religion" in any event. > Take a sphere and examine all those places we call "interior." Why should I need to do that when the re-radiation is omni-directional, and it is known that the majority is out to space. Oh, just in case you wonder, no it doesn't radiate "inward". > > >>Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the >>surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? Was that question too hard for you as well? >>>>..... >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". >>>> >>>>We certainly do :-)
From: mmeron on 7 Sep 2006 20:32 In article <Rw2Mg.25052$rP1.21885(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> writes: >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> In article <%2MLg.24573$rP1.13958(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> writes: >> >>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <ididnXpXKuMNG2PZnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Orator wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Please establish with proof, be it evidence, citation to a reputable >>>>>>study or sound logic, that radiation is actually blocked/absorbed, in >>>>>>other words retained by the molecule. It requires the mechanism for it >>>>>>to hold that radiation and prevent it leaking out. >>>>> >>>>>Mechanism: until it boinks off a neighbor it moves faster after >>>>>absorption than before it. >>>>> >>>> >>>>The extra kinetic energy a molecule acquires following the absorption >>>>of a visible (or less) photon is quite negligible. The energy is >>>>absorbed into vibrational or rotational degrees of freedom. >>> >>>But where is the proof I asked for? >> >> >> I wasn't answering you. > >So why did you respond to me then? I didn't, I responded to Bob Cain. > >> I made a specific comment regarding the >> increment of kinetic energy due to photon absorption. You find it >> inaccurate? > >I asked for proof, specifically for the allegation of "absorb". That is >to say, not re-emitting the energy from the molecule. Is that too much >to ask? > If you want me to respond, then ask the question. As I said, I was responding to Bob's statement. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 20:57 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <gjLLg.24553$rP1.17689(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> >>>In article <OjgLg.23874$rP1.9502(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, >>> Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>Here is an interesting claim. Lloyd (&Co) claims 36% increase in CO2 and >>>>it is 100%, man made. >>>> >>>>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html >>> >>> >>>What makes you think a site that also lets you send Halloween cards is in >>>any sense a scientific site? >> >>You mean it doesn't support your Religious views - so what? It is vastly >>more scientific than anything you have produced. >> >>> >>>>"Meanwhile perhaps up to 9% of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere >>>>today may be attributable to human-related activities like agriculture, >>>>industry, and transportation." >>> >>> >>>The _increase_ is man-made. >>> >>> Just in the news today: >>> >>>"Air from the oldest ice core confirms human activity has increased the >>>greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to levels not seen >>>for hundreds of thousands of years, scientists said on Monday. >> >>UHU and "news papers", you know those things with cartoons and comics in >>them are "scientific", according to you? >> > > Dr Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey and the leader of the science > team for the 10-nation European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica reported > at British Association Festival of Science in Norwich. > I want to see the paper he has published. Cite that paper, news papers stuff things up badly and can make a silk purse look like a sow's ear. > >>..... >> >> >>You missed the point totally. The point being that 4400 ppm CO2 didn't >>alter the temperature much from that of today. See lower. > > OK, real idiot alert here. I know, but hey, you are allowed to be an idiot, as long as you keep taking your medication. > > >>>>So it is only 9% CO2 that people contribute...... >>>> >>> >>>It isn't. >> >>Why should I believe your raw assertion? I would rather believe an >>actual study! > > > That site did none! Answer the question! > > >>>>"Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our >>>>atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically >>>>measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the >>>>Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm >>>>while temperatures then were about the same as they are today." >>>> >>>>Temperatures "about the same as today", how do they explain that away? >>> >>> >>>How do you explain "carbon has 10 protons"? >> >>You can't answer that, can you and resort to being totally ridiculous. > > You're using a site with no science behind it. You are evading the topic once again. Answer the question put, not resort to ad hominem attacks on people. If you don't have a clue, just say so, it is bleeding obvious you don't have a clue as it is. > Why do you idiots persist in > finding this wacko sites? We keep referring you to NASA and IPCC, but you > keep finding "We don't need no stinking science" sites. It is vastly more scientific than your screeching "idiots", "wacko sites" etc. You clearly object to the study that is backed up with sources and references, unlike your "We don't need no stinking science", and rely on chanting dogma instead. > > >>>>Oh, and what's more it has real fair dinkum scientific references at the >>>>bottom. >>> >>> >>>Yeah, sure. He quotes someone about models in 1998. >> >>If you have managed to change something that occurred 460 million years >>ago, how come you haven't patented the time machine you must have? > > And how do you know what it was like then? How so you know it wasn't? Where is your study on that issue? >>>They've gotten a lot better. >> >>And the creationists have invented "Intelligent Design". They too have >>"gotten a lot better"! >> >> >>>He cites Lindzen and Michaels. >> >>Bravo, so you can cite a couple on names, but nothing of relevance from >>the article. > > > The article is wrong from top to bottom. Another bit of assertion without even the faintest bit of justification. >>> He cites junkscience. >> >>Yes, any "creationist" worth their salt would definitely make a claim >>like that! > Huh? That's a notorious industry-shill site. Yes, that is the language of creationists, evade and avoid dealing with issues, chuck in a barrow load of red herrings instead! > > >>>His site is lies. >> >>And that statement is a lie. It is the very best he can do in response, >>presumably. >> > > > OK, idiot^2. You claim to be an idiot twice over - you are starting to get a good mental picture of yourself :-) > >>>And you're gullible enough to swallow it. >> >>I have seen you provide nothing at all to refute it with >> > > IPCC. NAS. NASA. So? Anyone can string a few letters together, they refute nothing. Where is your citation, specific and to the point. If you don't have one, don't be shy, admit it! > > >>>I dare you to go to NASA or IPCC. >> >>So? Anyone can string a few letters together they refute nothing. >> > Idiot^3. Now you don't even need a mirror to know yourself :-) You know, you most definitely qualify as an "idiot" as you claim, 3 times over at that. You have nothing to back up your claims with, not a skerrick of evidence. I doubt you could find you bum with both hands! > > >>BTW, I note you post from an .edu, are you the janitor or the gardener >>there? >> > > I doubt you even know what edu stands for. Was the question too embarrassing to answer :-)
From: kdthrge on 7 Sep 2006 21:31
Orator wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > 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. > > Did I say "the top of the atmosphere"? No I didn't. Did my post contain > "the top of the atmosphere" in it anywhere? No it didn't! It is another > piece of fiction on your part. > > > That means they radiate to other > > parts of the atmosphere, where there are other CO2 molecules. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ...and each and every one radiates more out from the planet than toward > the planet. That means you have a cumulative effect of ever greater > portion being radiated OUT from the planet. That is why there is no need > to consider that part. It is detrimental to your "religion" in any event. Also, the temperature of the atmosphere diminishes very quickly with increasing altitude. In thermodynamics it is clear that heat does not travel from a cooler body to a warmer one. This is mainly because of Stefan's Law. The energy of the radiation field increases as a square ot absolute temperature. With very many degrees diference in temperature, the radiation from the lower temperature body is of much less energy than the higher temperature body and will not affect it's temperature. There is only a very small portion of even the troposphere that is near the temperature of the surface of the earth. If CO2 were in any way capable of reducing the heat loss from the earth, it could be very well detected and must occur very close to the surface. The number of calories it must be producing to warm the air next to the ocean and therefore to affect the ocean's tenperature must be immense This is not even considering all the other factors such as convection. These Green house nuts just make stuff up as they go along. Notice they always refer to events whcih cannot be checked and verified with direct controlled experiments. Their claims to evidence are directed at those who have no education in physics, chemistry or even science. Kent Deatherage > > > Take a sphere and examine all those places we call "interior." > > Why should I need to do that when the re-radiation is omni-directional, > and it is known that the majority is out to space. Oh, just in case you > wonder, no it doesn't radiate "inward". > > > > > >>Please explain why you claim "narrow angle" for the major portion of the > >>surface. What would you call the 6% smaller or minor portion? > > Was that question too hard for you as well? > > >>>>..... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". > >>>> > >>>>We certainly do :-) |