Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Sep 2006 07:07 In article <XzOMg.26528$rP1.1438(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <8H2Mg.25056$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 one is definitely going into my collection of bloopers :-) >> >>>>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. > >Are you honestly that bloody slow up top? What part of the above did you >fail to understand? > >> It's surrounded on all sides by the atmosphere; > >No bloody kidding! I would never have guessed! And pray tell what >exactly is "atmosphere"? > > > only the top leads directly out of the atmosphere. > >Is that so.... and where exactly is "the top" eh? Where is that last >little CO2 molecule that radiates into space? More importantly do we >even need to know that? Of course not, it doesn't matter a hoot! > >> And even IR radiated upwards is >> going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at the >> top of the atmosphere. >> >BRAVO! Now that you have figured that out that above the molecule >radiation "upward" there is another molecule. Then it is bleeding >obvious that it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >encountered and it too radiates "upward", and then another molecule is >encountered....... Only a small portion of the surface area of a sphere points "upward." Most point sideways or downwards. > >Get the picture yet? Each and every one of them radiates more out into >space than they do to earth. That is totally false. Even spheres at the top of the atmosphere don't have the majority of their area pointing out to space. >As there are massive amounts of these (but >an amount nobody can agree on) each radiates on average 6% more out into >space than back to earth, then there has to be a cumulative effect of >more being radiated OUT than IN. The 6% is made up and totally false. > >This effect is magnified with an increase of CO2 (and other GH gases). >> >>>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? > >I don't and have never ever suggested anything as foolish as that! It is >another figment of your imagination. That's exactly what you've been arguing for. > >>>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. > >Yes it is, and it is quite silly to argue otherwise, it is most >unintelligent. > >> Visualize a sphere surrounded by atmosphere. How can the >> majority of directions lead away from the atmosphere? > >There should be a law against being allowed to be that dense! That >"sphere" IS the "atmosphere"! No, the sphere is a CO2 molecule. >> >> >>>Oh, just in case you wonder, no it doesn't radiate "inward". >>> >> >> It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. > >How the hell do you even manage to get a job as a janitor or gardener at >an .edu with such a serious handicap? >> >> >>>>>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? >> >You are not answering the question put! Can't answer it can you. You >are restoring to that imagination of your again. >> >>>>>>>..... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Here we see another classic example Lloyd Parker's "scientific proof". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We certainly do :-)
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Sep 2006 07:24 In article <6c49g214r1ruglih2sjsoua5f6hskefso6(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> 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). Can you prove the CO2 absorption bands are saturated? >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... Even if pigs had wings... Can you prove "all the energy ... [is] completely absorbed by the CO2"? > >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 water vapor positive feedback wouldn't be increasing. The CO2 effect (and its feedbacks) is. > >>> "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... > As irrelevant as a discussion of New Orleans' elevation starting at the earth's core. >>>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: Lloyd Parker on 11 Sep 2006 07:40 In article <dls9g2ta210n281crnnaddgjt0c8uptt5u(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Sep 06 11:00:14 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>>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. > >Lloyd again answers in his usual erroneous absolutes... > >Absorption is a probabilistic process. While you may wish to claim >that the number of photons directly exiting the atmosphere become >vanishingly small, as the last emission location goes deeper and >deeper into the atmosphere, to claim that it "doesn't happen" and >"cannot happen" is false. > The probability of a photon emitted at ground level not encountering a molecule which can absorb it before it leaves the atmosphere is quite small, would you not agree? >However, I have noticed that you didn't post your mathematical >algorithm for calculating this process... > >>No, imagine a sphere. It's surrounded on all sides by the atmosphere; only >>the top leads directly out of the atmosphere. > >And that solid angle which is not impeded by the disk of the Earth >becomes quite large, as the altitude increases (though the path length >through the atmosphere will be quite long in certain directions). > Yes, it will be through the atmosphere, where other CO2 molecules are. >I believe that Lloyd promised us a mathematical model, by which we >could calculate this behavior and response. > >> And even IR radiated upwards is >>going to encounter other CO2 molecules unless the molecule emitting is at the > >But in Lloyd's World (tm), they won't encounter H2O... Sure they will. They'll encounter lots of molecules which can absorb them. > >>It radiates in all directions, most of which consist of more atmosphere. > >But also much of it heads towards less atmosphere. Not "much" until you get higher in the atmosphere. But even then, the path seldom leads out of the atmosphere. >And the opacity of >the atmosphere decreases with altitude (for obvious reasons). > >Retief
From: Phil. on 11 Sep 2006 13:59 Retief wrote: > 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). > Indeed, which is why I said that the probability of a photon being re-emitted is small when the radiative lifetime is long compared with the mean time between collisions (such as is the case with CO2 at STP). I did not say it was zero. Collisional deactivation by surrounding molecules will be the predominant mode of energy exchange at STP.
From: kdthrge on 11 Sep 2006 15:46
Orator wrote: > 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! There are many experiments that could be designed with the proper controls that would show that the ' grenhouse freaks of science' attribution of CO2 absorption of thermal frequencies is invalid. A simple one would be a chamber, with one wall blackened and cooled, so that the heat from radiation upon it would be removed instead of reradiated into the chamber. On the opposite wall should be the heat source for thermal frequencies. With different concentrations of CO2 to air, it should be very apparent if the CO2 is stopping frequencies and their energy by the final temperature of the gas. Different densities of the gases could be investigated. The gases should be cooled somewhat to start, to show that the heating of the gases is caused by absorbed radiation. The humidity of the air must be constant. Simply introducing CO2 which is not humidified, reduces humidity of the chamber. Water vapor is an abnormal gas, and differences in humidity will give different results. Such a test as this does not interest the faithful following of the grenhouse superstition. Because it will reveal, as all such experiments do, that the final temperature will be exactly the same at any proportion of CO2 to air. At any normal temperatures, CO2 and air will absorb exactly the same energy of radiation and will emit exactly the same energy of radiation. If in the condition of normal temperatures and condition that the gas is allowed to expand as it is heated, instead of increasing it's pressure in a constant volume condition, the time of attaining final temperature will be the same for all concentrations of CO2 to air. Kent Deatherage |