Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Phil. on 25 Sep 2006 01:34 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Apparently you're unaware of quantum theory! The absorption and radiation spectra of CO2 is not continuous, see for example: http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif > 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 molecul
From: Orator on 25 Sep 2006 04:12 Lloyd Parker wrote: > 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. Why do I need to lie? *I* don't write your text you know - I merely examine the meaning of it, and they are not "lies" but the nonsense in them exposed for all to see. > > I also note you had no answer to that little conundrum below. Why was that? Was it too hard for you? >>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?
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Sep 2006 07:09 In article <1159091147.776394.254660(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Phil. wrote: >> kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> 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. Compared to N2 and O2, it has more vibrational and rotational modes. >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. No it doesn't. Like all substances, CO2 will show line spectra at low pressures. >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, What? Spin of the molecule? >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 >
From: kdthrge on 25 Sep 2006 18:05 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <1159091147.776394.254660(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > >Phil. wrote: > >> kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> 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. > > Compared to N2 and O2, it has more vibrational and rotational modes. > > >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. > > No it doesn't. Like all substances, CO2 will show line spectra at low > pressures. > > >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, xxxxxxxxxxxxx > What? Spin of the molecule? What you refer to as absorption spectra are actually non emmision spectra at these bands of the continous spectra. Proper laboratory tests will show as they have shown that the infrared are broken into near infrared .7 to 1 micron, mid-infrared 1-2 or so microns and far infrared or thermal 2 or 3 - 30 microns. When one refers to any frequency, one is refering to a quantity of ENERGY. I know you have trouble uncerstanding this concept. The best way is to understand Boltzman-Stefan equation. At any given temperature, radiated energy per square centemeter is according to this equaiton, 5.67E-10 x T^4. This is the actual energy. In real life one understands that this energy is valuable and expensive and useful. It doesn't matter what frequencies this energy is in. AT any particular temperature the energy is of this density. You cannot raise the temperature without increasing the density of the radiation field by this equaiton. Either by restricting the outgoing aperature to restrict and increase the density of the radiation field, or increasing the influx into the system. The energy of the molecules in a gas is kT. This is the average energy of a molecule, directly propotional to temperature. As the energy in the gas increases the average velocity of the molecules in a gas increases inverse to the square of the energy. or temperature. The pressure of the gas is average velocity x number of collisions. Number of collisions increases directly proportional to average velocity. So pressure (velocity x #of collisions) increases directly proportional to temperature with average energy of kT. This is the application of 1/2mv^2, the average kinetic energy of the average velocity. kT times avargardo's number gives molar energy, and gas constant R, for energy and pressure of the gas at specific volume. This is energy. None of which is lost or gained. Which is a quantity. All the kinetic energy of the gas molecules including spin must come from the energy of the radiation field. The absorbed energy by the gas molecules as their kinetic energy is the heat capacity. All of your references to IR frequencies must refer to a quantity of energy. Energy is never lost or gained, only transfered. And all energy has mass and associated momentum according to Einstein E=mc^2. All electromagnetic energy has mass according to this equation. This is a very well established fact. Established most exactly by the Germans who were trying their very best to disprove Einstein in the 20's. Heat particulary, is q quantity of energy and density of radiation field according to Boltzman-Stefan. Your attempt to dissacociate the motion of the O2 and N2 molecules from the radiation field is nonsense. Kent Deatherage > >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 > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Sep 2006 05:18
In article <1159215950.866409.43970(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Phil. wrote: >> kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Apparently you're unaware of quantum theory! The absorption and >> radiation spectra of CO2 is not continuous, see for example: >> >> http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif >> >> >> >> > 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 |