Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 14 Sep 2006 18:50 ). > > > > > Because 4pir^2/pir^2 = 4. But this does not give the mean temperature. > > And it certainly doesn't make it possible to ignore the 400 or so > > watts/sq meter of thermal frequencies in the sun's radiation. > > Who's ignoring it? If you want to base it on the earth's projected > area then 1370 W/m^2 comes in, 411 W/m^2 reflected into space leaving > 959 W/m^2 of which 268 W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and 671 > W/m^2 absorbed by the surface. So where's the missing 400W/m^2? > > The Sun's radiation is about half in visible light, approx. 685 W/M-2 of solar constant. If the reflectivity of the earth is .30 for visible light. This gives 205 W/M-2 of reflected visible light energy. Thermal frequencies are not reflected. Your number of 411W/M-2 - 205W = 206 W/M-2 of thermal frequencies that are either absorbed in the upper atmosphere and reradiated, or actually absorbed in the stratosphere. About 1 % of total solar energy is absorbed as ultraviolet in the upper atmosphere. This leaves 479 W of visible light that reaches the surface. For the number of about half of solar constant energy reaching surface, means 192 W/M-2 of energy in the near infrared and thermal frequencies .70 to 1, 1 to about 2.8 microns reaches the surface by absorption and reemision from molecule to molecule, Added to the 479 W/M-2 of visible light that is not reflected. The total visible 685W/M-2, The total near infrared to 3 microns that reaches the surface 195 W/M-2 + visible 685W = 880 W/M-2. 1370 - 880 = 490 W/M-2 of absorbed radiation other than visible light that does not rach the surface. Subtract the energy of the ultra-violets, and you have roughly { 400 W/M-2 } of thermal frequencies from the sun that do not reach the surface. AT the equator at solar noon, 1000 W/M-2 reaches the surface. This is the visible light (none reflected), and the near infrared to about 2.8 microns and some ultraviolet. The thermal frequencies longer that 3 microns are almost non-existent in this radiation that reaches the ground, And if they are present it is from absorbed frequencies that have been reemited. I do not mind criticism of this analyses. This is not strict dogma. Kent Deatherage
From: Phil. on 14 Sep 2006 21:17 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > ). > > > > > > > Because 4pir^2/pir^2 = 4. But this does not give the mean temperature. > > > And it certainly doesn't make it possible to ignore the 400 or so > > > watts/sq meter of thermal frequencies in the sun's radiation. > > > > Who's ignoring it? If you want to base it on the earth's projected > > area then 1370 W/m^2 comes in, 411 W/m^2 reflected into space leaving > > 959 W/m^2 of which 268 W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and 671 > > W/m^2 absorbed by the surface. So where's the missing 400W/m^2? > > > > > The Sun's radiation is about half in visible light, approx. 685 W/M-2 > of solar constant. If the reflectivity of the earth is .30 for visible > light. This gives 205 W/M-2 of reflected visible light energy. Thermal > frequencies are not reflected. Where do you get this from? The CERES project measured the albedo using the wavelength band 0.3-5 microns, this covers all the solar wavelengths. The analysis I gave is correct. > Your number of 411W/M-2 - 205W = 206 > W/M-2 of thermal frequencies that are either absorbed in the upper > atmosphere and reradiated, or actually absorbed in the stratosphere. > About 1 % of total solar energy is absorbed as ultraviolet in the upper > atmosphere. > This leaves 479 W of visible light that reaches the surface. For the > number of about half of solar constant energy reaching surface, means > 192 W/M-2 of energy in the near infrared and thermal frequencies .70 to > 1, 1 to about 2.8 microns reaches the surface by absorption and > reemision from molecule to molecule, Added to the 479 W/M-2 of visible > light that is not reflected. > > The total visible 685W/M-2, The total near infrared to 3 microns that > reaches the surface 195 W/M-2 + visible 685W = 880 W/M-2. 1370 - 880 = > 490 W/M-2 of absorbed radiation other than visible light that does not > rach the surface. Subtract the energy of the ultra-violets, and you > have roughly { 400 W/M-2 } of thermal frequencies from the sun that > do not reach the surface. > > AT the equator at solar noon, 1000 W/M-2 reaches the surface. This is > the visible light (none reflected), and the near infrared to about 2.8 > microns and some ultraviolet. The measured albedo in the tropics is about 0.3. http://www-misr.jpl.nasa.gov/ > The thermal frequencies longer that 3 > microns are almost non-existent in this radiation that reaches the > ground, And if they are present it is from absorbed frequencies that > have been reemited. > > I do not mind criticism of this analyses. This is not strict dogma. Good it's based on a false premise about the albedo.
From: kdthrge on 15 Sep 2006 17:11 Phil. wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > ). > > > > > > > > > Because 4pir^2/pir^2 = 4. But this does not give the mean temperature. > > > > And it certainly doesn't make it possible to ignore the 400 or so > > > > watts/sq meter of thermal frequencies in the sun's radiation. > > > > > > Who's ignoring it? If you want to base it on the earth's projected > > > area then 1370 W/m^2 comes in, 411 W/m^2 reflected into space leaving > > > 959 W/m^2 of which 268 W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and 671 > > > W/m^2 absorbed by the surface. So where's the missing 400W/m^2? > > > > > > > > The Sun's radiation is about half in visible light, approx. 685 W/M-2 > > of solar constant. If the reflectivity of the earth is .30 for visible > > light. This gives 205 W/M-2 of reflected visible light energy. Thermal > > frequencies are not reflected. > > Where do you get this from? The CERES project measured the albedo > using the wavelength band 0.3-5 microns, this covers all the solar > wavelengths. The analysis I gave is correct. There you go, pointing to some data which you can't or don't break down into basic terms, and then insist that your postulations are correct and expect others to believe you have any credible scientific approach to achieving conclusions. Let us please go over the basic physics of your reference and your scientific corroboration. I'm really getting tired of this psuedo science on such a serious topic as this. I've seen a lot of bullshit at sites supposedly sponsered by NASA. It's just proof of the decadence of higher learning. One of these, and a basic principle of grenhouse gas theory, is that the distribution curves of the radiation of the sun and the earth are offset so that the minimums of the sun are advanced beyond the whole curve for the earth. This is blatantly false. The minimum does not advance for the high temperature like the sun and all the frequencies that the earth radiates, are in the lower end of the Sun's spectrum at higher inensity. But it is true that the hibiscus for the two curves must be changed to get them on the same page. This allows grenhouse theory to IGNORE THE 41% OF INCOMING IR and thermal RADIATION OF THE SUN'S SPECTRUM. That is totally ignorant to say that the "albedo" applies to the wavelength's 3-5 microns. Any basic labratory analyses can prove these frequencies do not reflect and pass through air unabsorbed. These are at the range that they are radiated at earth's temperature. These frequencies do not reflect off of solids but are absorbed and re-emmited. The intensity of their re-emision is mainly dependent upon the general temperature and the statistics for the probabilities. Another thing is the attribution of the absorption to certain molecules. These assertions are not proved in the laboratory, but are conjecture from the observation of dark spectral bands. The theory that some gases are grenhouse gases and that this maintains the temperature of the earth is false and can be proved to be so. It is more important to analyse the actual energy in a sq. meter at the equator, than to define the averages that ultimately determine temperatures. 700, visible 220 near infrared, 90 ultraviolet, and 370 thermal frequencies blocked out. Any absorbed frequencies are converted to the thermal frequencies also. The top of the stratosphere is at -3C,270K which is 301 W/M-2 of energy radiation field. The air in the stratosphere is very thin, temperature drops with decreasing pressure. Only 1% of Sun's energy is absorbed in ultravilolet in the whole stratosphere. Which would be 13.7 W/M-2. Despite these facts, the top of the stratosphere is almost the same temperature as the surface of the earth Here are the absorbed thermal frequencies. If these frequencies passed through air, just the radiation field from these gas molecules would add at least 100 watts to the surface temperature. I would very much appreciate that you break down into basic terms your assertions and the supposed direct coroboration you imply to refer to have besides saying "look at this Nasa link" that seems to support my assertions, and anyone is stupid that doesn't agree. Kent Deatherage > > > Your number of 411W/M-2 - 205W = 206 > > W/M-2 of thermal frequencies that are either absorbed in the upper > > atmosphere and reradiated, or actually absorbed in the stratosphere. > > About 1 % of total solar energy is absorbed as ultraviolet in the upper > > atmosphere. > > This leaves 479 W of visible light that reaches the surface. For the > > number of about half of solar constant energy reaching surface, means > > 192 W/M-2 of energy in the near infrared and thermal frequencies .70 to > > 1, 1 to about 2.8 microns reaches the surface by absorption and > > reemision from molecule to molecule, Added to the 479 W/M-2 of visible > > light that is not reflected. > > > > The total visible 685W/M-2, The total near infrared to 3 microns that > > reaches the surface 195 W/M-2 + visible 685W = 880 W/M-2. 1370 - 880 = > > 490 W/M-2 of absorbed radiation other than visible light that does not > > rach the surface. Subtract the energy of the ultra-violets, and you > > have roughly { 400 W/M-2 } of thermal frequencies from the sun that > > do not reach the surface. > > > > AT the equator at solar noon, 1000 W/M-2 reaches the surface. This is > > the visible light (none reflected), and the near infrared to about 2.8 > > microns and some ultraviolet. > > The measured albedo in the tropics is about 0.3. > http://www-misr.jpl.nasa.gov/ > > > The thermal frequencies longer that 3 > > microns are almost non-existent in this radiation that reaches the > > ground, And if they are present it is from absorbed frequencies that > > have been reemited. > > > > I do not mind criticism of this analyses. This is not strict dogma. > > Good it's based on a false premise about the albedo.
From: kdthrge on 16 Sep 2006 07:48 > The pseudo science is all yours, I presented data derived from the > literature which I have referenced previously in the thread: > Kiehl, J.T., and Trenberth, K. (1997). Earth's annual mean global > energy budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2), > 197-208. Albedo has very little to do with the amount of energy recieved in 1 sq meter at the equator at solar noon. This is 1000 W m-2. The solar constant is 1370 W m-2. This leaves 370 W m-2 that doesn't make it through the atmosphere. In the solar constant, visible light is 50 % or 685 W m-2...,, infrared is 41% or 562 W m-2....., and ultraviolet is 9% or 123 W m-2. This is absolutely an elementary question to your 'science'. You can attack me all you want. I am not the one making at living at this, or trying to impose the most severe form of socialism upon our free country for the abatement of CO2 upon FALSE PREMISE which is a criminal matter. You sure find ways to avoid the issues. So how much energy does the sun radiate in the thermal frequencies. At the surface of the sun, the radiation is 73,483,200 W m-2 One of your compatriots said and quoted sources early in this discusion that the sun emits no appreciable radiation beyond 2800 nm. This is a very great incorrect statement for someone in your position. So you don't get confused the question is, 'what is the distribution of frequencies in the 1000 W m-2 collected in a solar collector at the equator at solar noon.' You can't answer this because you have no science. Just a bunch of sigh-un-trific drivel. Kent Deatherage
From: kdthrge on 16 Sep 2006 10:06
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Phil. wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Phil. wrote: > > > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > ). > So come up with some proof, these measurements are done in the lab > routinely, I must have done them 100s of times with a FTIR spectrometer > with a 10m pathlength. NDIR monitors are routinely used to measure > environmental CO2 and are sold by many instrument companies, based on a > useless technology according to you. A link to a manufacturer follows: > > www.vaisala.com/businessareas/instruments/ > products/carbondioxide/vaisala%20carbocap®%20brochure.pdf > > These absorption bands are not the result of conjecture but careful > experimental measurements! ......................................... And you should be held liable for stating this false science here, that is done without analyses of the overall heat or energy of the gas. Any proportion of air to CO2 at temperatures and the pressures of the atmosphere, will achieve EXACTLY THE SAME TEMPERATURE.. This is scientific fact. Diference in heat capacity would change the time of achieving final temperature. The fact is there is virtually no difference in heat capacity of CO2 to molecular nitrogen and oxygen at these temperatures and pressure conditions either. You have no statistics to support your superstition that CO2 has any capability to cause any kind of warming. To fascinate on what you to percieve to be absorption bands with absolutely no evidence that the temperature is in any way affected is pure bullshit. So what if you detect 'absorption bands. At these temperatures energy is conveyed in continous spectra (meaning each frequency, hv, is present). Overall quantity of hv is not affected by these 'absorption bands'. You little pricks witn your overblown associate degree of Enviro,, need to learn some science. And your dynamics that put the Earth at 30C cooler without the effect of particular gases to retain heat is completely made up nonsense. At every point, it's like closing your eyes and throwing a dart at a wall completely filled with ballons to hit a point where your dynamics do not match valid science. The problem is you do not have the mental capability to inorporate information in a reasoning process. All of you idiots just quote what the others have made up in your collective invalid thesis. .. Kent Deatherage |