Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 23 Sep 2006 08:29 Phil. wrote: > Retief wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2006 21:33:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > >Of course you will prevent the emission, if the excess energy has been > > > > Nonsense. > > Inconveniently for you it's the truth! > > > > > >energy will end up as translational energy, also the vast majority of > > >the collisional recipient molecules will be nitrogen and oxygen which > > >aren't able to radiate. > > > > As I have already explained to both you and Lloyd Parker (on different > > occassions, I might add), that this is false. Look up N2-N2 > > Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, > > aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to > > N2-N2 collisions, don't you? > > Yes and Yes, I also know it's a rather weak effect and also know that > the wavelengths included in the paper you referred to are between 1 and > 6 microns and therefore not in a particularly significant region of the > spectrum for the radiation balance of the earth's atmosphere. They may > be more important on Titan. > > > > This is only one of the poorly understood interactions that occur in > > the atmosphere. (if you thought that the atmosphere was well > > understood, you are mistaken) > > > > >> But this was the same sort of error you made when you claimed that a > > >> ten fold decrease in water would result in effectively no atmospheric > > >> IR absorption due to water (IIRC, you claimed a factor of 10E6 > > >> decrease in IR absorption -- though you didn't respond to my > > >> counter-example...). > > > > > >No it was a load of garbage and I was too busy. > > >No CO2 would result in a snowball earth and negligible GH effect. > > > > Yes, I understand... Your dogma ate your homework... > > > > What you were going to find was that the opacity of atmospheric H2O is > > sufficiently high, that a factor of 10 decrease in the atmosphere > > would have much less effect than needed to support your agenda. And > > you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the > > temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that > > 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not > > support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. > > I have no agenda, even a factor of ten reduction in the absorption by > H2O would almost completely wipe out the gh effect due to water. > > > > > >> I notice that you focus in on the 380 ppm of CO2, but ignore the > > >> 999,620 ppm of the atmosphere that is not CO2... > > > > > >Because that's the reality, the 380ppm is the part of the atmosphere > > >that absorbs the IR and the surrounding 999,620 ppm share out that > > >energy via collisions. > > > > That must be why the folks at JPL and elsewhere, make the effort to > > fold in effect of N2-N2 collision induced absorption, because _only_ > > CO2 absorbs IR (not H2O, not Methane, certainly not anything else in > > the atmosphere...at least in "Phil's World") > > > > No the real world, please point to the lines in the measured spectrum > of either the incoming solar radiation or the outgoing IR due to N2-N2 > or O2-O2 CIA? A scientist would give us results of labratory experiment. You must give us data on experiments in which a certain quantity of air, (with humidity closley monitored), with specific concentration of CO2 in the air, and the exact readings of the FINAL TEMPERATURE the gases reach. The time it takes to reach final temperature and any other pertinent dat such as pressure. These experiments can involve general heating, or induction of specific frequencies that you claim cause "warming" if CO2 is present. Scientific method is definition of a hypothesis and definition of a method and controls by which this hypothesis can be tested. What you put online is speculation and theoretical conjecture. If you are ashamed of the results of such experiments because they do not support your conlusion that CO2 can cause environmental warming, then you cannot call yourself a scientist if you continue your prattle and pseudo scientific discusion. Kent Deatherage
From: Retief on 23 Sep 2006 12:19 On 22 Sep 2006 20:35:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >> Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, >> aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to >> N2-N2 collisions, don't you? > >Yes and Yes, I also know it's a rather weak effect and also know that >the wavelengths included in the paper you referred to are between 1 and >6 microns and therefore not in a particularly significant region of the >spectrum for the radiation balance of the earth's atmosphere. They may >be more important on Titan. http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia "They contain pseudolines for O2 and N2. In the mid-infrared they cover the fundamental O2 band around 1550 cm-1, the fundamental N2 band around 2330 cm-1, and the first overtone band of N2 around 4630 cm-1. In near-infrared pseudo-lines are given for the O2 bands around 7900, 9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each linelist consist of 5909 pseudolines with a spacing of 1 cm-1." At least of those specifically listed bands overlaps quite nicely with the blackbody temperature centered at about 10 um (i.e. the fundamental N2 at 2330 cm-1, which picks up the short wavelength edge of the blackbody curve) >> you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the >> temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that >> 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not >> support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. > >I have no agenda, Really? Is that why you claim that a you can get a 10-fold decrease in atmospheric water? And claim that CO2 causes all of the warming? > even a factor of ten reduction in the absorption by >H2O would almost completely wipe out the gh effect due to water. Nonsense. http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif The measurement was performed at 15C, 46% RH, 1013 MB pressure. That's a dew point of 3.5C. Atmospheric water: 5.89 g/m^3 Dropping the average Earth temperature (14 C) by 33 C (i.e. -19C), assuming 100% RH (i.e. the ability of the atmosphere to hold water, AKA a dewpoint of -19 C): Atmospheric water: 0.97 g/m^3 That's at best 6-fold decrease, ASSUMING you can get the entire surface to drop by 33 C. We note that you didn't show your math, to prove that the tropics would drop by 33 C... (hint, they won't) The troposphere is about 10 km thick. A 1 km path effectively absorbs all available IR (e.g. 5.5-7.5 um) in those opaque atmospheric water bands (at atmospheric water load of 5.89 g/m^3). Do the math. Scale the absorption for 1 km, to the full atmosphere, then reduce the path length to 0.1 of that. And you'll get a transmission spectrum that looks very similar to that 1 km path length. Thus that greenhouse warming, resulting from water (e.g. 5.5-7.5 um), will _still_ occur -- that will make it very difficult for you to cause a 33 C decrease in temperature. And failing to produce a decrease pf 33 C will result in an even larger moisture capacity in the atmosphere (hence even less temperature decrease). Retief
From: Phil. on 23 Sep 2006 16:45 Retief wrote: > On 22 Sep 2006 20:35:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > >> Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, > >> aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to > >> N2-N2 collisions, don't you? > > > >Yes and Yes, I also know it's a rather weak effect and also know that > >the wavelengths included in the paper you referred to are between 1 and > >6 microns and therefore not in a particularly significant region of the > >spectrum for the radiation balance of the earth's atmosphere. They may > >be more important on Titan. > > http://mark4sun.jpl.nasa.gov/data/spec/Pseudo/Readme.cia > "They contain pseudolines for O2 and N2. In the mid-infrared they > cover the fundamental O2 band around 1550 cm-1, the fundamental N2 > band around 2330 cm-1, and the first overtone band of N2 around 4630 > cm-1. In near-infrared pseudo-lines are given for the O2 bands around > 7900, 9400 cm-1, and 13250 cm-1. Each linelist consist of 5909 > pseudolines with a spacing of 1 cm-1." > > At least of those specifically listed bands overlaps quite nicely with > the blackbody temperature centered at about 10 um (i.e. the > fundamental N2 at 2330 cm-1, which picks up the short wavelength edge > of the blackbody curve) Like hell it does, there's virtually no IR emission down there and in any case it's right under the much stronger C=O stretching absorption of CO2. As I said those bands are in an unimportant part of the spectrum. > > >> you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the > >> temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that > >> 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not > >> support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. > > > >I have no agenda, > > Really? Is that why you claim that a you can get a 10-fold decrease > in atmospheric water? And claim that CO2 causes all of the warming? > > > even a factor of ten reduction in the absorption by > >H2O would almost completely wipe out the gh effect due to water. > > Nonsense. > > http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif > > The measurement was performed at 15C, 46% RH, 1013 MB pressure. That's > a dew point of 3.5C. Atmospheric water: 5.89 g/m^3 5.9mm PWV A 'minor' detail you managed to omit was that was through 1km 'horizontally'! So at the top of a 1km vertical path the pressure will be ~90kPa and the temperature ~8ºC. > > Dropping the average Earth temperature (14 C) by 33 C (i.e. -19C), > assuming 100% RH (i.e. the ability of the atmosphere to hold water, > AKA a dewpoint of -19 C): Atmospheric water: 0.97 g/m^3 And at the top -27ºC, water 0.4g/kg (~0.3 g/m^3), by comparison with the antarctic atmosphere we would expect the relative humidity to be less than 70% so probably more like 0.2 g/m^3. (<0.5mm PWV) > > That's at best 6-fold decrease, ASSUMING you can get the entire > surface to drop by 33 C. We note that you didn't show your math, to > prove that the tropics would drop by 33 C... (hint, they won't) > > The troposphere is about 10 km thick. A 1 km path effectively absorbs > all available IR (e.g. 5.5-7.5 um) in those opaque atmospheric water > bands (at atmospheric water load of 5.89 g/m^3). > > Do the math. Scale the absorption for 1 km, to the full atmosphere, > then reduce the path length to 0.1 of that. And you'll get a > transmission spectrum that looks very similar to that 1 km path > length. Thus that greenhouse warming, resulting from water (e.g. > 5.5-7.5 um), will _still_ occur -- that will make it very difficult > for you to cause a 33 C decrease in temperature. And failing to > produce a decrease pf 33 C will result in an even larger moisture > capacity in the atmosphere (hence even less temperature decrease). As before you forget about the change in the albedo when the 'temperate' zone ices over and the equilibrium temperature drops below 255 K. What does 5.5-7.5 micron have to do with GH?
From: Phil. on 24 Sep 2006 00:16 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Phil. wrote: > > Retief wrote: > > > On 21 Sep 2006 21:33:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >Of course you will prevent the emission, if the excess energy has been > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > Inconveniently for you it's the truth! > > > > > > > > >energy will end up as translational energy, also the vast majority of > > > >the collisional recipient molecules will be nitrogen and oxygen which > > > >aren't able to radiate. > > > > > > As I have already explained to both you and Lloyd Parker (on different > > > occassions, I might add), that this is false. Look up N2-N2 > > > Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, > > > aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to > > > N2-N2 collisions, don't you? > > > > Yes and Yes, I also know it's a rather weak effect and also know that > > the wavelengths included in the paper you referred to are between 1 and > > 6 microns and therefore not in a particularly significant region of the > > spectrum for the radiation balance of the earth's atmosphere. They may > > be more important on Titan. > > > > > > This is only one of the poorly understood interactions that occur in > > > the atmosphere. (if you thought that the atmosphere was well > > > understood, you are mistaken) > > > > > > >> But this was the same sort of error you made when you claimed that a > > > >> ten fold decrease in water would result in effectively no atmospheric > > > >> IR absorption due to water (IIRC, you claimed a factor of 10E6 > > > >> decrease in IR absorption -- though you didn't respond to my > > > >> counter-example...). > > > > > > > >No it was a load of garbage and I was too busy. > > > >No CO2 would result in a snowball earth and negligible GH effect. > > > > > > Yes, I understand... Your dogma ate your homework... > > > > > > What you were going to find was that the opacity of atmospheric H2O is > > > sufficiently high, that a factor of 10 decrease in the atmosphere > > > would have much less effect than needed to support your agenda. And > > > you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the > > > temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that > > > 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not > > > support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. > > > > I have no agenda, even a factor of ten reduction in the absorption by > > H2O would almost completely wipe out the gh effect due to water. > > > > > > > > >> I notice that you focus in on the 380 ppm of CO2, but ignore the > > > >> 999,620 ppm of the atmosphere that is not CO2... > > > > > > > >Because that's the reality, the 380ppm is the part of the atmosphere > > > >that absorbs the IR and the surrounding 999,620 ppm share out that > > > >energy via collisions. > > > > > > That must be why the folks at JPL and elsewhere, make the effort to > > > fold in effect of N2-N2 collision induced absorption, because _only_ > > > CO2 absorbs IR (not H2O, not Methane, certainly not anything else in > > > the atmosphere...at least in "Phil's World") > > > > > > > No the real world, please point to the lines in the measured spectrum > > of either the incoming solar radiation or the outgoing IR due to N2-N2 > > or O2-O2 CIA? > > A scientist would give us results of labratory experiment. You must > give us data on experiments in which a certain quantity of air, (with > humidity closley monitored), with specific concentration of CO2 in the > air, and the exact readings of the FINAL TEMPERATURE the gases reach. > The time it takes to reach final temperature and any other pertinent > dat such as pressure. These experiments can involve general heating, or > induction of specific frequencies that you claim cause "warming" if CO2 > is present. You're the one making extraordinary claims so the onus is on you to do these experiments! > > Scientific method is definition of a hypothesis and definition of a > method and controls by which this hypothesis can be tested. What you > put online is speculation and theoretical conjecture. Actually it's based on published data not speculation, what you've been spouting contradicts published data. > > If you are ashamed of the results of such experiments because they do > not support your conlusion that CO2 can cause environmental warming, > then you cannot call yourself a scientist if you continue your prattle > and pseudo scientific discusion. Such experiments verify everything I've said, nothing to be ashamed of.
From: kdthrge on 24 Sep 2006 05:45
Phil. wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Phil. wrote: > > > Retief wrote: > > > > On 21 Sep 2006 21:33:49 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Of course you will prevent the emission, if the excess energy has been > > > > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > > > Inconveniently for you it's the truth! > > > > > > > > > > > >energy will end up as translational energy, also the vast majority of > > > > >the collisional recipient molecules will be nitrogen and oxygen which > > > > >aren't able to radiate. > > > > > > > > As I have already explained to both you and Lloyd Parker (on different > > > > occassions, I might add), that this is false. Look up N2-N2 > > > > Collision-induced absorption. You are familiar with this phenomena, > > > > aren't you? You also understand that this phenomena isn't limited to > > > > N2-N2 collisions, don't you? > > > > > > Yes and Yes, I also know it's a rather weak effect and also know that > > > the wavelengths included in the paper you referred to are between 1 and > > > 6 microns and therefore not in a particularly significant region of the > > > spectrum for the radiation balance of the earth's atmosphere. They may > > > be more important on Titan. > > > > > > > > This is only one of the poorly understood interactions that occur in > > > > the atmosphere. (if you thought that the atmosphere was well > > > > understood, you are mistaken) > > > > > > > > >> But this was the same sort of error you made when you claimed that a > > > > >> ten fold decrease in water would result in effectively no atmospheric > > > > >> IR absorption due to water (IIRC, you claimed a factor of 10E6 > > > > >> decrease in IR absorption -- though you didn't respond to my > > > > >> counter-example...). > > > > > > > > > >No it was a load of garbage and I was too busy. > > > > >No CO2 would result in a snowball earth and negligible GH effect. > > > > > > > > Yes, I understand... Your dogma ate your homework... > > > > > > > > What you were going to find was that the opacity of atmospheric H2O is > > > > sufficiently high, that a factor of 10 decrease in the atmosphere > > > > would have much less effect than needed to support your agenda. And > > > > you would also find that the elimination of CO2 would not cause the > > > > temperature to drop low enough, to reduce the atmospheric H2O to that > > > > 10% level (especially in the tropics). But those answers would not > > > > support your agenda, and your claim that all warming is due to CO2. > > > > > > I have no agenda, even a factor of ten reduction in the absorption by > > > H2O would almost completely wipe out the gh effect due to water. > > > > > > > > > > > >> I notice that you focus in on the 380 ppm of CO2, but ignore the > > > > >> 999,620 ppm of the atmosphere that is not CO2... > > > > > > > > > >Because that's the reality, the 380ppm is the part of the atmosphere > > > > >that absorbs the IR and the surrounding 999,620 ppm share out that > > > > >energy via collisions. > > > > > > > > That must be why the folks at JPL and elsewhere, make the effort to > > > > fold in effect of N2-N2 collision induced absorption, because _only_ > > > > CO2 absorbs IR (not H2O, not Methane, certainly not anything else in > > > > the atmosphere...at least in "Phil's World") > > > > > > > > > > No the real world, please point to the lines in the measured spectrum > > > of either the incoming solar radiation or the outgoing IR due to N2-N2 > > > or O2-O2 CIA? > > > > A scientist would give us results of labratory experiment. You must > > give us data on experiments in which a certain quantity of air, (with > > humidity closley monitored), with specific concentration of CO2 in the > > air, and the exact readings of the FINAL TEMPERATURE the gases reach. > > The time it takes to reach final temperature and any other pertinent > > dat such as pressure. These experiments can involve general heating, or > > induction of specific frequencies that you claim cause "warming" if CO2 > > is present. > > You're the one making extraordinary claims so the onus is on you to do > these experiments! > > > > > Scientific method is definition of a hypothesis and definition of a > > method and controls by which this hypothesis can be tested. What you > > put online is speculation and theoretical conjecture. > > Actually it's based on published data not speculation, what you've been > spouting contradicts published data. > > > > > If you are ashamed of the results of such experiments because they do > > not support your conlusion that CO2 can cause environmental warming, > > then you cannot call yourself a scientist if you continue your prattle > > and pseudo scientific discusion. > > Such experiments verify everything I've said, nothing to be ashamed of. Fact: The only pecular aspects of the CO2 molecule are it's radius, it's weight, and the characteristics of it's spin. CO2 is a gas at normal temperatures because it has an electron molecular shell at these temperatures. This electron shell absorbs and radiates energy in continous spectra. In continous spectra all values of hv are present. The intensity of v increases as a square for each frequency. The energy of each photon increases as direct proportion of h to v. Therefore, there is never a problem with CO2 radiating it's absorbed energy. Higher frequencies are easily divided into multiples of lower freqeuncies. Measured deficiencies in the continous spectra of CO2 do not indicate particular absorption of radiation. These are only deficiencies of radiation at these points in the continous spectra. These are simply caused by the radius of the molecule or caused by the spin of the molecule within it's electron shell, not neccasarily absorption of energy into this spin. The energy absorbed by the spin is not great (part of heat capacity) and is lost as quickly as kinetic energy of the velocity, in molecular collisions. Fact: Your little theortics about CO2 which are designed to have the result that CO2 causes warming, are garbage and made up bullshit that has no relevance to science. Kent Deatherage |