Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 21:55 Phil. wrote: > 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. > Surely you are not serious! First of all we had better note this: (del) (cur) 09:24, 19 June 2006 . . Dragons flight (Why not a real name?) has deleted an original file and placed what exists there. It is an ongoing debate and hardly "settled" by the look of the history. It is not an "authority", but a debate featuring a certain "Dragons flight" in the driving seat. The oldest reference goes back to 3 August 2003 (hist) (diff) Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science, and that was for spelling corrections only. That supports what I have been saying for a long time. There is a "BALANCE", what comes in, goes out. Note the incoming "radiation" is 235 - the outgoing radiation is 195+40=235! NO NET GAIN. However that article/graph is bogus to the extent it effectively claims perpetual motion. A perpetual motion that is cumulative and suggests an accumulation of heat on a daily basis that has the effect of rendering the planet uninhabitable. It is something that would have already occurred billions of years ago. I also notice that it is Global Cooling they talk about there as their ISA has dropped by 1 whole degree to only 14 C! BTW according to Lloyd, it is useless because it dates back to 1997. He has declared a 1998 study to be "out of date, we know better now". Why should that be any
From: Orator on 7 Sep 2006 21:56 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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... It is clear you don't comprehend the question nor the responses. You haven't answered if you are the janitor or gardener at the *.edu you post from.
From: Retief on 7 Sep 2006 23:42 On Wed, 06 Sep 06 10:58:26 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. Really Lloyd? Wow, that was an impressive, "scientifically based" rebuttal... So let's ask Lloyd again: upon what data do you defend the claim that the 1990s was the hottest decade in the last 1000 years? Be SPECIFIC and to the point. Retief
From: kdthrge on 8 Sep 2006 00:34 Phil Hays wrote: > 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 Well so what if diamond has electrons that are free and it is a semi-conductor. Some day if I'm working on this topic I'll keep that in mind. The question is what is the distiguishing factor between semi-conductors and non-conductors. My theory of the ratio's of atoms that develops when the like atoms of the elements form crystals is correct. The like atoms have exactly the same electronegativity. At least one atom of a ratio must relinquish an electron. These monomers form strands and determine crystal structure. Evidence of this is the limited number of crystal forms that actually appear compared with those that are possible theoretically. The actual structure of the diamond crystal is a monomer of three, two at 104 degres to the third atom, at this angle of the tetrahydron. The next monomer is rolled over 90 degrees, and then a strand is formed of these alternating triads. A layer in the same plane of these strands connects at the horizontal triads. Layers laid upon this form the crystal. The third layer connects with the first layer directly. At some point there are carbon atoms with 5 bonds. In aluminum tri-methyl, some of the carbon atoms have 5 bonds, so this is not unknown for carbon. Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge/sub2.htm
From: Lloyd Parker on 8 Sep 2006 07:00
In article <8H2Mg.25056$rP1.5589(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> 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. > Only CO2 at the top of the atmosphere can re-radiate IR out into space. >> 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. No, imagine a sphere. It's surrounded on all sides by the atmosphere; only the top leads directly out of the atmosphere. And even IR radiated upwards is going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at the top of the atmosphere. >That means you have a cumulative effect of ever greater >portion being radiated OUT from the planet. How do you visualize a sphere in which every direction leads away from the atmosphere? >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. No it is not. Visualize a sphere surrounded by atmosphere. How can the majority of directions lead away from the atmosphere? >Oh, just in case you >wonder, no it doesn't radiate "inward". >> It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. >> >>>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? You're claiming a sphere embedded in the atmosphere has most of its surface exposed not to atmosphere but space? >>>>>..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". >>>>> >>>>>We certainly do :-) |