Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 27 Sep 2006 22:52 > > 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. 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 7/2 = 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 > > > 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. > > > > >
From: Retief on 27 Sep 2006 23:01 On 23 Sep 2006 21:16:18 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >> 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! Actually Phil, you are the one who claimed that the Earth's temperature would drop by 33 C, without CO2 (contrary to all evidence that CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases, water vapor being the largest contributor). Retief
From: Lloyd Parker on 28 Sep 2006 06:21 In article <1159398336.154119.99300(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >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. So insane people can write essays. BFD. >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. So the sun doesn't shine. We've all been fooled. >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. > As I said, the truly insane think they're the only sane ones. >Kent Deatherage >
From: kdthrge on 29 Sep 2006 16:02 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <1159398336.154119.99300(a)d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > >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. > > So insane people can write essays. BFD. > > >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. > > So the sun doesn't shine. We've all been fooled. > > >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. > > xxxxxxxxx > As I said, the truly insane think they're the only sane ones. You call me insane for not repeating by rote what you do. This repetition of things you cannot prove and do not understand is for you 'science', and anyone that doesn't repeat the same things as you is defined as stupid. The high priest of the GW CO2 superstition said the other day that the Earth will warm 2 deg by 2050. There is no possiblity that this can be caused by CO2. This is insane. If the average temperature near the surface of the earth is 287K, 2 degrees equates to about 10 Wm-2. Although this average is not strictly true, it equates to 5.5E15 Watts for the sphere of the Earth. 5.5E15 joules per second of actual energy leaving the Earth at this higher temperature. FROM WHERE? The truth actually is the Earth radiates at 459Wm-2. Explain to me your logic that CO2 has the capability of retaining this quantity of heat to increase the density of the radiation field by this amount, when you can demonstrate no capability of CO2 to retain any heat in the laboratory. However your quantum theory and quantum calculations of the energy that should be retained by what you believe are 'absorption' bands' still leaves you believing your fiction of CO2 caused global warming. This is intelectual detachment from reality or objective rational. Everytime someone points out a valid point of physical law to you, you say 'irrellevant', ignore them and then present your mechanics which are not base on fundamental laws of physics. If the law of conservation of energy could be bypassed, like you do at every point in your theory, there would be no problem to argue about. No problem with the CO2 produced by combustion of carbon based fuels. Energy would be free. Just like the heat energy you postulate from CO2 that comes from nowhere, stays nowhere and goes nowhere. I think your salary out to be paid in your math. But then the bank would send you to jail for insufficient funds. Kent Deatherage
From: Bob Cain on 29 Sep 2006 16:32
hanson heckled: > Take 2 Erlenmeiers, 2 Thermometers, 2 perforated Rubber > stoppers, put a few cc of water into each, flush one with CO2. > Plugg'em and expose'm side by side to the sun. > Record the raise of and equilibrium temperatures. Enough said?... > I have posted this several times (see above links).... but all you > green intellects are afraid to do this experiment. Why? Do you really believe that your little experiment in any way models the process that supposedly leads to global warming? I have no opinion on the validity of that purported process because I don't know nearly enough to evaluate all the factors but I do know enough to smell that your experiment is a red herring rather than the elephant in the living room. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |