Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Sep 2006 06:46 In article <1158421342.693823.326780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <1158415619.735054.97590(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, >> kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, >> >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. > >............................. >> Sigh. For the umpteenth time, it's not heat capacity; it's absorption of IR >> radiation. CO2 can do it; N2 cannot. > >And for the umpteenth time, where is the energy of this IR absorption. >Energy = hv x(intensity). The energy goes into increased amplitude of bond vibration -- internal energy. This can then be transferred to another molecule and becomes kinetic energy. >You have no connection for absorption of IR >and measurement of relevant energy or heat. Heat is energy. Yes, but not all energy is heat. >Energy is a >real thing. Conservation of Energy is a valid law of physics. Is there a law of conservation of heat? >If CO2 >could retain energy, there would be many important applications for >this fundamental property. You only deal in abstract theoretics. Real >theoretical science must be based on Laws of Physics established in the >laboratory. Otherwise you are only dealing in speculation. > >Kent Deatherge > >> > >> > >> >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 >> > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Sep 2006 06:48 In article <1158426725.581027.246490(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <1158415619.735054.97590(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, >............. >> Sigh. For the umpteenth time, it's not heat capacity; it's absorption of IR >> radiation. CO2 can do it; N2 cannot. >> >.................................. >You are also quite annoying in the way you use the term "IR radiation". How about "vibrating waves of electromagnetic radiation" then? >Any breakdown of the frequencies of less energy beyond the visible >breaks these into near infrared (,7 to 1 or so microns).... >mid-infrared (1 to 2 or 3 microns)...... and far-ijnfrared (2-3 to >about 30 or so microns) beyond this are the microwaves and radio waves. >The far-infrared are much better termed 'thermal frequencies'. > >The radiation from the earth is highest intensity about 10 microns, >well into the thermal frequencies. It warms the air to these >frequencies near 10 microns. So the actual radiation transversing from >the Earth into and through the air is centered around 10 microns in >more of a band than a general distribution curve, The result is that >the intensity of radiation in frequencies falls off very quickly above >and below this intensity maximum wavelength. The intensity is also a >direct measure of the actual energy being transmitted in the >radiaiton......hv x (intensity) = Energy > >It is easier to refer to wavelengths instead of frequencies because >frequencies are to the order of 10 ^ 12 power, cycles per second. >Velocity of light, (cm per second) divided by frequency (cycles per >second) equals wavelength. > > >Kent Deatherage >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Sep 2006 06:50 In article <1158432930.610972.60280(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <1158415619.735054.97590(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, >> kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, >Here are some quotes from you as an indoctrinie of the great grenhouse >superstition... > >> Sigh. For the umpteenth time, it's not heat capacity; it's absorption of IR >> radiation. CO2 can do it; N2 cannot. >> >Heat capacity does not change final temperature. It is the quantity of >energy absorbed as a substance warms, therefore it appears as a greater >amount of time to reach final temperature, since greater quantity of >energy must be absorbed from the energy present in the radiation field, >for a higher heat capacity. Any abnormal properties of CO2 would appear >in it's heat capacity. If it were absorbing and keeping "IR" radiation, >this could be measured in the defenciency from the input heat. 'Higher >heat capacity'. If it were trapping radiation (pong effect) it wouuld >register lower heat capacity since it would be letting less energy >leave the system and energy within the system would be higher at less >input of heat energy. > >KD >>"So what! The intensity of thermal and infrared coming from the sun is >>much greater than that from the earth regardless of the intensity peak." > >LP >Again, irrelevant. What matters is how the total energy received by >the earth compares with the total energy emitted. The sun doesn't fill >the >space around the earth; we receive less IR from the sun than we emit. > >kd >There's one of those critical points that can be disproven by acurate >data but this data is not sought by the frenzied devotees to the >superstition. >............................ >LP >If the earth was at equilibrium for millions of years (energy from sun >= >energy re-radiated) and now you reduce one side of the equilibrium >(energy >re-radiated due to more CO2), the equilibrium will eventually shift to >get >back to equilibrium, but that can take quite a while (especially if you >keep >disturbing the equilibrium by adding more CO2). > >KD >Quantify...the strictest imposition of CO2 controls could not affect >CO2 concentrations by more than .000001.... Up 36% at last count. >This is disturbed mechanics. If you quantify the energy required to >raise the temperature of the earth, quantify the proportions of CO2 >change, then surely somewhere in laboratory data you could find some >trace of CO2 causing any effect on temperature at all, You could not, if you use real science and real data. If you make up things and copy things from industry sites, you could find the earth is flat. >if the mechanics >of grenhouse superstition had any validity at all. > >It's just those brilliant minds of the Enviros that can see beyond what >ordinary people, science and physics can see. What a deal. They've >offered to lead us away from our doom if we just pit them in charge of >our use of energy and our economy. According to their advice, we must >socialize and make containing CO2 our primary activity of our lives to >avoid the impending doom of our animalistic behavior. > >Kent Deatherage >
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Sep 2006 07:22 In article <klipg2h4m78knnccns6n8bdojtiic8kep7(a)4ax.com>, Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Sep 06 11:21:30 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >> >>No, I said without the added CO2, IR (not all of it) emitted by the earth >> >>would escape into space. >> > >> >And WITH the added CO2, IR emitted by the Earth will escape into >> >space. So what's your point? Oh, I see... It was a non sequitur... >> >> The IR which is absorbed by the added CO2 would be lost without the >> added CO2, unless you think a big bird comes along and swallows it. > >Only if Lloyd Parker believes that chemistry is linear. > >For example, Lloyd would assert that if you double the CO2, you'll >double the energy absorbed from a given IR band, even if the IR band >in question is already fully absorbed by the existing CO2. And if pigs had wings, they could fly. > >> >It is certainly added, as the surface warms -- this can be due to any >> >number of causes (including solar variations, changes in surface >> >albedo, etc) >> >> But none of these have been changing recently. > >There are solar variations that occur regularly. > The sun has not increased its output in the last 15 years. >> >>Then what's causing the warming? >> > >> >You are the one who has asserted that there is an anomalous warming >> >occurring, you provide the proof. (or conversely, disprove all other >> >hypotheses and "sources of warming") >> >> No, we (meaning science) have provided an answer with proof. Since >> you reject the scientific explanation, provide one of your own. > >No, you have made claims such as "Since the early 1990s we have had >the hottest years on record. Fact.", but will not provide data that >supports your claim. IPCC report data. > >You have provided NO PROOF (we've been through this issue before, >Lloyd). You provided the flimsiest of evidence. You provided studies >whose results depend on erroneous methodologies. And then you demand >that those who reject your weak and false claims "prove that your >wrong"... that's called "shifting the burden of proof". > >> What is causing the current warming? > >You tell me. You are the one who asserted that it was Anthropogenic. >Prove that it is due to something other than natural variations. > There are no natural variations which can account for it. When you eliminate the natural, what is left? >> >>And where is all the CO2 from fossil fuels going? >> > >> >Atmosphere, biosphere, ocean, rocks, soil... >> >> And the part that's going into the atmosphere -- explain why it's >> not causing warming. > >Insignificant heat capacity. Chronitron particles affecting the warp plasma. > Explain why what's going on with the >rocks, soil, biosphere and ocean are not causing the warming. > Huh? >> >Which obvious connection? Oh, you mean the one to sunspots and solar >> >variations? >> >> No changes in the past 15 years and the earth continues to warm. > >You must have missed the last sunspot maximum, huh Lloyd?... The sun's output has not increased. That's in the scientific literature. > >> >(and we note that "solar variation" includes more than a >> >simple minded "the insolation hasn't changed by _that_ much" argument >> >> The truth gets in your way, doesn't it? > >The truth gets in your way. > >Explain how variations in the spectral output of the sun do not affect >the biosphere, and absorption coefficients of the Earth system. The energy output has not increased. > >> >-- there is also the spectrum issue, and its interaction with the >> >biosphere, etc...) >> >> What part of "the sun isn't changing" do you not understand? > >You must have missed the last sunspot maximum, huh Lloyd?... > You missed the part about the sun's output not increasing. Why use an indirect measurement when we have a direct one? >> >>So what's doing the heating? >> > >> >Note: Shifting the burden a proof -- a fallacy of logic. >> >> No, you're claiming the added CO2 -- the explanation accepted by >> science > >Who is "science"? Give me his/her name. > >Lloyd pretends that there is a concensus on the entire issue. Science says there is. > >> -- is not responsible for the warming, so provide your own >> explanation. > >Note: Shifting the burden a proof -- a fallacy of logic. > >Lloyd claims that something anomalous is occurring, the burden to >prove this lies with Lloyd.\ Wouldn't you demand proof from someone who claims the earth is just 6000 years old? > >> >>>Here's Lindzen hypothesis regarding an adaptive iris: >> >>>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf >> >> >> >>Which has been refuted. >> > >> >No it hasn't. >> >> Yes it has. Lindzen has no credibility here except among your ilk. > >That's because Lindzen refutes and disagrees with your religion. Yeah, sure. > >> >You made the same false claim about Wegman's report - >> >but didn't cite the refutation. >> >> Yeah, those Republican politicians may be your standard for science; >> they're not mine. > >Lloyd falsely accuses Wegman, Scott and Said of being Rebublican >politicians. Who commissioned their study? >And yet at the same time, Lloyd will cite a left-wing >web page (realclimate), as a 'standard for science". > OK, dumb and dumber. >> >>How did that just start 150 years ago? >> > >> >The warming started 20,000 years ago, Lloyd. Don't you look at your >> >history? >> >> OK, big fat lie. > >This graph has been posted many times. Lloyd simply desires to waste >my time. > >Retief
From: Lloyd Parker on 18 Sep 2006 07:35
In article <tppPg.30626$rP1.1755(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Orator <Orator(a)troll.bridge.net> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <5ameg2ppdrib5rsqdvt3fboofopde8f42i(a)4ax.com>, >> Retief <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> > >>>You have failed to prove that increasing CO2 is the _cause_ of global >>>warming. How do you know it's not Methane? >> >> Because methane hasn't increased enough to be the cause. > >There is one or more statements embedded in that answer that needs >explaining. > >1 - Methane doesn't cause GW. From the same type of person who reads an article and lies about what it says. >2 - Methane must be at a certain specific (but unstated) amount before >it has any effect. > >These are tm-Lloyd Parker statements. You are a liar. > >I think (1) is rejected out of hand. Then (2) becomes the issue. So an >example will be justified to simplify the issue. > >It there is a nail, hammered 1/2 way into the wall, and tests have shown >that 1 kg of weight acting on the nail to cause it to bend. > >Would it have any effect at all on the nail if one fly sat on that nail? > >Would it take the last fly that makes up 1 kg of flies to sit on the >nail before it bends? |