Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Hoggle on 16 Aug 2006 05:21 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Why do you want to redefine thermodynamicsic with some bullshit link. I apologise for refuting your faith with accepted scientific wisdom. Please convey my apologies to your priest. I live in continued hope that you will abandon your mysteries and accept the tenets of mainstream science. > The atmosphere of the earth is opaque to radiaiton from > about 1 micron in the infrared and not far into the ultraviolets beyond > visible frequencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MODIS_ATM_solar_irradiance.jpg The sun does not emit significant radiation outside the 200nm-2700nm range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg The opacity of the atmosphere is virtually zero between 3cm and 10m wavelenths (radio waves) and around 15% between 8-15 microns (infra red). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_transmittance_infrared.gif The importance of CO to absorption of outgoing Infra-red is in this window, between 8 and 15 microns. As can be seen, CO2 has lesser* absorption lines at about 9.4 and 10.6 microns which fall into this window. Thus any radiation at these wavelengths will be absorbed by it sooner on its way out. If there is more CO2, more radiation will be absorbed in the lower atmosphere. Since the radiation does not leave the system, it does not have a cooling effect, and the balance between incoming and outgoing energy is shifted, raising the overall energy within the system, which is generally expressed as heat and/or weather. http://entropy.brneurosci.org/spectra.png (this from a sceptic who has concluded that runaway warming is impossible because the absorbtion is logarithmic rather than exponential or linear.) * the main CO2 absorbtion bands are at 4.26 µm and 14.99
From: Ben Newsam on 16 Aug 2006 05:46 On 15 Aug 2006 23:44:07 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >It's impossible for CO2 to cause global warming Put your money where your mouth is, and invest in property in New Orleans. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: richard schumacher on 16 Aug 2006 10:54 In article <1155692288.133893.80870(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com typed some stuff. Do you sleep under a blanket on a cold night? If so, why? By your argument, it's impossible for a blanket to increase your temperature because your body's heat capacity is so much larger than that of the blanket. For discussion of the facts of global warming by scientists see http://realclimate.org
From: David on 16 Aug 2006 13:25 Actually, the equation can be and is used with "gray bodies". The factor that corrects for gray bodies is the emissivity. For a column of CO2 at 380 ppm the emissivity is quite high. It is closer to 1 than 0. The Stephan-Boltzmann equation therefore tends to SUPPORT the "warmists" argument. "Hoggle" <admin(a)co2emissions.org.uk> wrote in message news:1155707577.672905.116590(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> You little greenhouse boys need to understand Stefan's Law. > > "The law is valid only for ideal black objects, the perfect radiators, > called black bodies" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law > > Now shut the f*** up you ignorant imbecile. >
From: David on 16 Aug 2006 13:35
What part of your last post is relavent? I have a good recipe for making yogurt. Mybe I'll use that to clearify my views on global warming. |