Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Orator on 10 Sep 2006 03:08 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <D44Mg.25114$rP1.15628(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, > Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: > >>Phil. wrote: First observe that the link provided by Phil has been carefully deleted by Lloyd. The reason will be made clear lower down. > >>Surely you are not serious! >> >>First of all we had better note this: >>(del) (cur) 09:24, 19 June 2006 . . Dragons flight >> >>(Why not a real name?) has deleted an original file and placed what >>exists there. It is an ongoing debate and hardly "settled" by the look >>of the history. It is not an "authority", but a debate featuring a >>certain "Dragons flight" in the driving seat. >> >>The oldest reference goes back to 3 August 2003 (hist) (diff) Texas >>Academy of Mathematics and Science, and that was for spelling >>corrections only. >> >>That supports what I have been saying for a long time. There is a >>"BALANCE", what comes in, goes out. Note the incoming "radiation" is >>235 - the outgoing radiation is 195+40=235! >> > No it is not. Simple math is beyond you as well. This is where the reason to delete the link to the graph becomes obvious. He is claiming the contrary to evidence seen via that link now deleted. However it does still exist in my message: <D44Mg.25114$rP1.15628(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au> Suffice to say, it is verifiable via that message that Lloyd Parker is lying for all it is worthy in the face of evidence. What a SHONK! Of course the alternative is that he is saying 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! > > > I notice you're acting the village idiot again. You ARE the village idiot. To bother responding to you at all, is probably a shortcoming on my part. > >>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has declared a 1998 study to be "out of date, we know better now".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 different, using Lloyd's "logic"? >> >>Further more, that is no better assertions than the "is too" kind we see >>here. I particularly dispute this assertion: "The atmosphere in turn >>transfers the energy it receives both into space (38%) and back to the >>Earth's surface (62%)". I want detailed proof that this is so, it >>certainly defies logic without any. > > > I want proof you're not a vegetable. Do you deny having stated a 1998 study to be too old to be of any value when it went against your religion? > > >>I still don't accept 5 as the answer, I want PROOF! Why is that too hard >>to understand? >> I don't see Phil standing behind his claims either, did he send you in his place? A bloody poor choice if that was the case.
From: Retief on 10 Sep 2006 18:44 On Fri, 08 Sep 06 11:14:48 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: [we'll leave Lloyd's initial assertion:] >>> >>explanation? Without CO2, that IR emitted by the earth would escape into >>> >>space. >>> > >>> >What the hell are you smoking, Lloyd? "Without CO2, that IR emitted >>> >by the earth would escape into space"!!?? You're kidding, right? >>> >>> The ir now absorbed by the increased CO2 would. >> >>The reader will note that this incorrect claim is different than >>Lloyd's previous incorrect claim. Let us examine his latest. >> >>Lloyd claims, with certainty, that the IR now absorbed by the >>increased CO2 would escape into space, without considering any of the >>atmopsheric the IR band interactions. That is, Lloyd apparently >>thinks that this interaction process is _linear_... >> >>http://www.optics.arizona.edu/rsg/menu_items/resources/equip/water-vap.htm >> "Columnar Water Vapor Retrieval" >> >> "Water vapor can not be determined as easily as aerosols and ozone >> for two reasons. The first of these is that the amount of >> absorption by water vapor is not linear with the amount of the >> gas. That is, if we double the amount of water vapor, we do not >> double the absorption. This is because many of the absorption >> lines are saturated to the point where all of the energy is >> absorbed. Thus adding more water vapor can not increase the >> absorption." > >And does that mention CO2? You do know CO2 and H2O are different, right? Now this is funny, Lloyd... You are such a card... What Lloyd is trying to claim that the general rules for optical absorption physics re grossly different for CO2 and H2O (and also that these molecules share no IR bands). That is, according to Lloyd, even if ALL of the energy in a given IR band was completely absorbed by the CO2, if you double the CO2, you will still double the energy absorbed within that IR band... And further, he guarantees that if there were no CO2, none of those IR photons would interact with anything (especially water molecules). Oh look Lloyd, CO2 is mentioned in the very text that Lloyd Parker quoted below: >>Does Lloyd's IR photon fall within one of these bands? These bands >>overlap with CO2. >> >>That is, if the IR photon in question fell in the band where the >>atmosphere already was quite opaque due to water vapor, then Lloyd's >>claim is clearly false. Water vapor accounts for 60% of the >>"greenhouse" effect: >> >>http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/3 > >Irrelevant, as you've been told umpteen times. CO2 is the majority of the >added GH effect. Unless, of course, any warming that occurs causes a positive feedback with water vapor, which could easily swamp any effect from the CO2. >> "The spectroscopic data that are required to model long-wave >> atmospheric absorptions are generally well characterized. When >> these data are put into atmospheric models, water turns out to be >> responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while the >> much-reviled carbon-dioxide molecule accounts for just 26%. ..." > >Again, irrelevant. So, a discussion of relative greenhouse gas contributions is irrelevant to a discussion of relative greenhouse gas contributions... Only in Lloyd's World... >>Here the reader can see that the longwave peaks at about 10 um: >> >>http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 >>"Atmospheric absorption" >> >>And the reader can see the overlapping bands for CO2 and H2O here: >> >>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/ >>"The Atmospheric Spectrum" >> >>CO2 surpasses H2O for optical thickness at approximately 15 um, then >>again falls below H2O at about 18 um. >> >>So, even if there was _absolutely_zero_ CO2 in the atmosphere, the IR >>photons would interact with the remaining gases (e.g. H2O) in the >>atmosphere. We can only assume that Lloyd failed to "get" the signifance of these links, as well. Retief
From: Phil. on 10 Sep 2006 21:48 Retief wrote: > On Fri, 08 Sep 06 11:14:48 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > wrote: > > [we'll leave Lloyd's initial assertion:] > > >>> >>explanation? Without CO2, that IR emitted by the earth would escape into > >>> >>space. > >>> > > >>> >What the hell are you smoking, Lloyd? "Without CO2, that IR emitted > >>> >by the earth would escape into space"!!?? You're kidding, right? > >>> > >>> The ir now absorbed by the increased CO2 would. > >> > >>The reader will note that this incorrect claim is different than > >>Lloyd's previous incorrect claim. Let us examine his latest. > >> > >>Lloyd claims, with certainty, that the IR now absorbed by the > >>increased CO2 would escape into space, without considering any of the > >>atmopsheric the IR band interactions. That is, Lloyd apparently > >>thinks that this interaction process is _linear_... > >> > >>http://www.optics.arizona.edu/rsg/menu_items/resources/equip/water-vap.htm > >> "Columnar Water Vapor Retrieval" > >> > >> "Water vapor can not be determined as easily as aerosols and ozone > >> for two reasons. The first of these is that the amount of > >> absorption by water vapor is not linear with the amount of the > >> gas. That is, if we double the amount of water vapor, we do not > >> double the absorption. This is because many of the absorption > >> lines are saturated to the point where all of the energy is > >> absorbed. Thus adding more water vapor can not increase the > >> absorption." > > > >And does that mention CO2? You do know CO2 and H2O are different, right? > > Now this is funny, Lloyd... You are such a card... What Lloyd is > trying to claim that the general rules for optical absorption physics > re grossly different for CO2 and H2O (and also that these molecules > share no IR bands). That is, according to Lloyd, even if ALL of the > energy in a given IR band was completely absorbed by the CO2, if you > double the CO2, you will still double the energy absorbed within that > IR band... Just because H2O absorption bands are saturated does not mean that CO2 absorption bands will also be saturated. Actually though the band centers are saturated and the response to increased CO2 concentration is ~logarithmic, as the CO2 concentration is increasing exponentially the overall effect is ~linear. > > And further, he guarantees that if there were no CO2, none of those IR > photons would interact with anything (especially water molecules). > > Oh look Lloyd, CO2 is mentioned in the very text that Lloyd Parker > quoted below: > > >>Does Lloyd's IR photon fall within one of these bands? These bands > >>overlap with CO2. > >> > >>That is, if the IR photon in question fell in the band where the > >>atmosphere already was quite opaque due to water vapor, then Lloyd's > >>claim is clearly false. Water vapor accounts for 60% of the > >>"greenhouse" effect: Unlike CO2 the H2O concentration is not homogeneous and in particular decreases with altitude. > >> > >>http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/3 > > > >Irrelevant, as you've been told umpteen times. CO2 is the majority of the > >added GH effect. > > Unless, of course, any warming that occurs causes a positive feedback > with water vapor, which could easily swamp any effect from the CO2. Well if that feedback is due to the temperature increase caused by CO2 then surely the increased CO2 is the ultimate cause? > > >> "The spectroscopic data that are required to model long-wave > >> atmospheric absorptions are generally well characterized. When > >> these data are put into atmospheric models, water turns out to be > >> responsible for about 60% of the greenhouse effect, while the > >> much-reviled carbon-dioxide molecule accounts for just 26%. ..." > > > >Again, irrelevant. > > So, a discussion of relative greenhouse gas contributions is > irrelevant to a discussion of relative greenhouse gas contributions... > Only in Lloyd's World... > > >>Here the reader can see that the longwave peaks at about 10 um: > >> > >>http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1/pwten3%5F05%2D03 > >>"Atmospheric absorption" > >> > >>And the reader can see the overlapping bands for CO2 and H2O here: > >> > >>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/ > >>"The Atmospheric Spectrum" > >> > >>CO2 surpasses H2O for optical thickness at approximately 15 um, then > >>again falls below H2O at about 18 um. That assumes a certain concentration of H2O which as anyone who has seen the water vapor maps on the Weather Channel knows at any given time quite large areas of the earth's surface are covered with relatively dry air! > >> > >>So, even if there was _absolutely_zero_ CO2 in the atmosphere, the IR > >>photons would interact with the remaining gases (e.g. H2O) in the > >>atmosphere. Not true, if that were the case then there would be precious little H2O in the atmosphere and the surface temperature would be ~30ยบ colder! I trust that Retief gets the significance of this! > > We can only assume that Lloyd failed to "get" the signifance of these > links, as well. > > Retief
From: Orator on 11 Sep 2006 01:20 Phil. wrote: > Well if that feedback is due to the temperature increase caused by CO2 > then surely the increased CO2 is the ultimate cause? Talk about a classic circular argument!
From: Retief on 11 Sep 2006 01:23
On 7 Sep 2006 08:39:04 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >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 The emissions from individual molecules are based on probabilities, not absolutes (or ensemble rates). Some of the molecules _will_ re-emit photons before the next collision (regardless of what the ensemble _mean_lifetime_ shows -- the process is all part of the overall statistics). In general, the radiative lifetime of a state decreases, as the energy difference between that state and ground state goes up (and vice-versa). Retief |