Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Phil. on 27 Sep 2006 10:07 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. This is terminology and has nothing to do with laboratory tests, regarding absorption and emission I suggest you read up on Kirchoff's Law. > > 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. For a black body, but N2, O2 and CO2 molecules are not black bodies. > 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. You haven't even got this right, an ensemble of gas molecules at room temperature on average has kinetic energy of 3kT/2, if it is a polyatomic molecule it will have additional energy in the rotational and vibrational modes. Depending on temperature each rotational mode can have up to kT/2 and each vibrational mode kT. > > 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 27 Sep 2006 07:05 In article <1159305201.548955.6930(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >Quantum mechanics is invalid. > >> Well, gee, guess we're all hallucinating the sun up there and our computers >> really don't work. > >> You really are a grade-A fool, you know. > >The basic precip of Quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principle >which leads to the uncertainty relation. Within the uncertainty >relation interval of time, it is allowed to devise mechanics which do >not obey the law of conservation of matter and energy. This is quantum >mechanics and why you believe in your superstition of grenhouse gases >which is not scientifically based within the fundamental laws of >physics or experimental data. Your little brain is composed of all the >little things you learned by rote memorization that do not have >underlying mechanics to integrate You idiots certainly cannot account >for the energy that must be radiated by the earth to increase it's >temperature. Stefan-Boltzman equation x 4pir^2 (roughly). You are so >hung up on your idea that slight temperature fluctuation means an >equilibrium that is going to go haywire, you don't bother to calculate You don't believe in QM and you're calling US idiots? I've heard it said the insane think they're the only sane ones. Proof positive.
From: kdthrge on 27 Sep 2006 18:48 Phil. wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > 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. xxxxxxxxx Ph This is terminology and has nothing to do with laboratory tests, regarding absorption and emission I suggest you read up on Kirchoff's Law. KD The final temperature of air and any proportion of CO2 is the same. This means that the rate of outgoing energy is the same. No evidence of CO2 causing retention of radiation at all. This is the basic Kirchoff theorem, that the emmissivity is a product of the radiation field and not the substance. kd 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. Ph For a black body, but N2, O2 and CO2 molecules are not black bodies. KD This is a point that your theory redefines a term incorrectly. Because of this you don't understand this perfectly true statement. And therefore do not understand the energy of the gas. Blackbody refers only to an object that absorbs all incident radiation. Gases are blackbodies for thermal frequencies to the near infrared. A gas at any temperature will have a radiation field equivelent to Boltzman-Stefan equation. This energy density of the radiation field determines exactly the average energy of the molecule kT. When the influx of energy is removed, the kinetic energy of the molecules is immediately lost and radiated. The molecular collisions are elastic, meaning in translated energy of the collisions, some is always lost into the elastic shell of the molecules which is also the electromagntic oscillator. The Sun is completely gaseous. The Sun obeys the blackbody radiaton law perfectly in it's emmision spectra according to it's temperature and has no reflected radiation. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm kd 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. Ph You haven't even got this right, an ensemble of gas molecules at room temperature on average has kinetic energy of 3kT/2, if it is a polyatomic molecule it will have additional energy in the rotational and vibrational modes. Depending on temperature each rotational mode can have up to kT/2 and each vibrational mode kT. KD 3/2 kT is considered average kinetic energy and 3/2R then is the molar heat capacity of monatomic gas at constant volume 5/2R is the heat capacity of monatomic gas at constant pressure. Diatomic molecules have heat capacity 5/2R for constant volume, 7/2R for constant pressure, (basically) The point is that the average velocity increases inverse to the square of the average kinetic energy which increases as a direct proportion to temperature This average energy of the molecules determines the pressure. All energy of the velocities of the molecules is accounted for. There is no allowance in any of this for your little theoretics that CO2 'hands off' energy to O2 and N2 molecules and such. And to differentiate the absorption of IR frequencies like you do between CO2 and N2 and O2 molecules is utter nonsense and can be demonstrated to be by the simplest labpratory anaylses or theoretical analyses. The energy of the radiation field is Boltzman-Stefan equation especially for gases. A gas at constant temperature, loses it's energy by radiation equivelent to it's influx. And in
From: kdthrge on 27 Sep 2006 19:05 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <1159305201.548955.6930(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >Quantum mechanics is invalid. > > > >> Well, gee, guess we're all hallucinating the sun up there and our computers > >> really don't work. > > > >> You really are a grade-A fool, you know. > > > >The basic precip of Quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principle > >which leads to the uncertainty relation. Within the uncertainty > >relation interval of time, it is allowed to devise mechanics which do > >not obey the law of conservation of matter and energy. This is quantum > >mechanics and why you believe in your superstition of grenhouse gases > >which is not scientifically based within the fundamental laws of > >physics or experimental data. Your little brain is composed of all the > >little things you learned by rote memorization that do not have > >underlying mechanics to integrate You idiots certainly cannot account > >for the energy that must be radiated by the earth to increase it's > >temperature. Stefan-Boltzman equation x 4pir^2 (roughly). You are so > >hung up on your idea that slight temperature fluctuation means an > >equilibrium that is going to go haywire, you don't bother to calculate > You don't believe in QM and you're calling US idiots? I've heard it said the > insane think they're the only sane ones. Proof positive. Here's a link to my website. I have an essay here on the first page about quantum mechanics. When I began this essay, I was only trying to list as many completely ridiculous things as I could about QM. It became a very long essay. Any one of these points is enough to show an invalid theory. Points which cannot be overcome by the theory and which therefore mean failure of the theory. But your uncertainty principle frees the faithful of this neo-religion from logic and science and physics. Therefore you all go trundling along down your invalid road of theoretics, and pay no attention and do not care that you are completely invalid. http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge You should of stayed in your theoretical world at the college where direct science cannot prove you wrong. To apply this bullshit to our lives and expect to control our lives to the point of destroying our economy and society on your unbased paranoia that CO2 causes global warming is CRIMINALLY INSANE, and you chumps will be held responsible for your actions. Kent Deatherage
From: kdthrge on 27 Sep 2006 22:33
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Phil. wrote: > > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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. theoretical determination of heat capacity R = 1.986 cal mol-1, deg-1.... R = 8.31 Joule mol-1, deg-1 monatomic gas constant volume 3/2R = 12.5 Jdeg-1,mol-1 monatomic gas constant pressure 5/2R = 20.8 Jdeg-1,mol-1 diatomic gas constant volume 5/2R = 20.8 Jdeg-1,mol-1 diatomic gas constant pressure 7/2R = 29.1 Jdeg-1,mol-1 This is a quote from post 168 of this discussion. For heat capacity of air... The specific heat capacity of dry air at sea level (i.e. one atmosphere of pressure), at 0°C is 1.0035 J g-1 K-1 or 29.07 J mol-1 K-1. Kent Deatherage |