Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: Bob Cain on 29 Sep 2006 16:40 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. You miss the point that it doesn't retain it, it mediates it. In the proponent's theory it is the remaining bulk of the atmosphere that retains what the CO2 catches as radiation and hands off as the kinetic energy of heat. The heat capacity of CO2 itself is irrelevant simply because of its trace concentration. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
From: kdthrge on 29 Sep 2006 19:19 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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: > > >> > > >> 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. There is physics. Based initially on Newton and developed until present day in which a law is a principle that is found to be true in all cases. Then there is the quantum theory developed by Einstein. This is based upon the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy for which Einstein developed the formalism which makes the law valid in all cases, also known as the theoreom of the inertia of energy E = mc^2 (all energy has mass and according momentum). Then there is quantum mechanics. This only deals in the very small The point that direct experiment cannot be conducted is where this theory starts. An atom cannot be studied on the interior, because to disrupt it with perhaps an X-ray, disturbs the atom and avails no objective analyses. Einstein to his death rejected quantum mechanics. Einstein was the master of physics. Even after his death, the lenseing effect of distant galaxies was discovered which he predicted. He proposed the atomic mechanics upon which laser beams operate in 1917. This helped those to develop it in 1960. All of nature operates according to E = mc^2. Chemical enthalpy is the transition of energy to matter that occurs with the formation and disassociation of bonds. The mass defect of nuclei conforms to E = mc^2, and it's relative importance in the modern world. Einstein understood that Quantum Mechanics is invalid. All those that believe in QM do so against Einstein's wisdom. Kent Deatherage http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge
From: kdthrge on 29 Sep 2006 19:26 Bob Cain wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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. > > You miss the point that it doesn't retain it, it mediates it. In the > proponent's theory it is the remaining bulk of the atmosphere that > retains what the CO2 catches as radiation and hands off as the kinetic > energy of heat. The heat capacity of CO2 itself is irrelevant simply > because of its trace concentration. > That still adds up to 10Wm-2,which should be noticeable in laboratory experiments with CO2 concentrations much greater than 380 ppm and change of concentrations greater than 10ppm. This perverted analyses of gases and their interaction with thermal frequencies is made up fiction and can be disproved by simple experiments. Kent Deatherage > Bob > -- > > "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." > > A. Einstein
From: kdthrge on 29 Sep 2006 22:00 Retief wrote: > On 23 Sep 2006 13:45:24 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: > > >> 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 > > 2330 cm-1 is 4.3 um, Phil... > > Let's see if that falls in the nonzero portion of the earth > "blackbody": > > http://marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/josh/images/bbes.gif > > Gosh, the radiated power at that wavelength (i.e. 4.3 um) is > approximately 10% of what is found at the peak value (i.e. at 10 um). > > 10% is not negligible. > > >any case it's right under the much stronger C=O stretching absorption > >of CO2. > > So, you now admit that if there was no CO2, there would still be > absorption in this band. Or are you going to try changing your story > again? > > > As I said those bands are in an unimportant part of the > >spectrum. > > Apparently researchers disagree with you: > > http://leo.tech.ing.unipg.it/WISPA/motivations.html > > the weakly interacting species (WIS) involving water molecules > such as H2O-N2, H2O-O2, O2-O2 or N2-N2, may also play a > significant role as radiation absorbers in the Earth's atmosphere" > > Although the involved collision complexes are believed to be > short-lived, the large atmospheric concentration of the parent > molecules is likely to make them very abundant and optically > active." > > http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~abrown/research/resother.html > > The understanding of CIA is important for the study of radiative > transfer in the Earth's atmosphere." > > Gosh, did both of those folks mention the Earth's atmosphere? > > >> >> 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'! > > Oh yes, you must be the clown behind "EXXON blathering <whatever you > call yourself on a given day>" troll. Yes, I surely _concealed_ that > information from Phil, by carefully directing him to a link which > clearly stated the conditions under which the measurement was made. > > But Phil has an agenda, and therefore thinks that pointing him to this > data was an attempt to conceal that data (especially since the data > does not support his agenda). > > >So at the top of a 1km vertical path the pressure will be ~90kPa and > >the temperature ~8ºC. > > So what is the IR absorption for the column? > > I wonder if they meant the whole atmosphere here (figure 2)? > > http://www.wmo.ch/web/sat/en/im2-12.htm > > >> 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) > > What's the IR absorption, Phil? > > http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/oldissues99-2000/2000_0116/sparcle.html > > "In 1985, Warren began examining how sunlight reflecting off snow > affects the energy budget of Antarctica. An significant reason for > the extreme cold of Antarctica is that snow reflects 83 percent of > the incoming solar energy. Warren also looked at the sizes and > shapes of the snow crystals themselves to learn why snow reflects > sunlight the way it does." > > "Walden studied the other half of the energy budget, measuring the > amount of infrared energy emitted by the different gases in the > air, as well as by clouds. He found that even the small amount of > water vapor over the plateau was responsible for two-thirds of the > natural greenhouse effect here, and carbon dioxide was responsible > for most of the rest." > > Wait, did he say "even the small amount of water vapor over the > plateau was responsible for two-thirds of the natural greenhouse > effect here ..."? > > Gosh, maybe we'd better find some actual data... > > http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/kidder/Johnsen_Miao_and_Kidder.pdf > > Estimates that the total annual mean atmospheric water vapor is 1.9E13 > kg (over a surface area of 11.9E6 km^2) for Antarctica. > > So that is a yearly Antarctic average of 1.6 kg/m^2 atmospheric H2O. > Compared to: http://www.coseti.org/images/atmosphe.gif, which is > 5.9 g/m^3, or 5.9 kg/m^2 for the full 1000 meter path length. > > So the Antarctic (whose average temperature is much lower than your > claimed -19 C) has an average water vapor content that is > approximately 1/4 of that shown in the 1 km horizontal path -- and > that very short path does a fine job of absorbing virtually all of > those strong H2O bands. > > So what does this mean? The 1 km horizontal path contains 0.59 g/cm^2 > of H2O. And we find that the Antarctic atmosphere contains an average > of 0.16 g/cm^2 of H2O. > > For the 1 km horizontal path (0.59 g/cm^2 H2O), the transmission will > be less than 10%, if the absorption coefficient is greater than > approximately 5, for a given wavelength. > > For the Antarctic atmosphere (0.16 g/cm^2 H2O), the transmission will > be less than 10%, if the absorption coefficient is greater than > approximately 15, for a given wavelength. > > >> length. Thus that greenhouse warming, resulting from water (e.g. > >> 5.
From: kdthrge on 30 Sep 2006 14:09
Retief wrote: > 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 I'd like to discuss the absorption of radiation by gases. The idea that any gases are grenhouse gases is not valid. I'd like to discuss this objectively, in an effort to define the truth. Evidence from satellites and even measurements from the ground are not really direct evidence. Direct evidence is more with evacuated chambers, etc. This evidence and other evidence combined can lead to good theoretical analyses. My theoretical perspective is that about 1-2 microns the photons are heavily absorbed and deflected uniformly by all gases This energy may not be re-radiated in the same frequencies by all molecules, but the quantity of energy is. In thermal equilibrium, Planck's distribution law is obeyed. The quantity of energy radiated by a molecule is the result of it's received radiation and not some "quantum peculiarities". By 2 microns, the photons are almost all absorbed and in no way pass through unaffected like visible light. If there is a great amount of energy in one frequency at these lower energies, it will traverse from molecule to molecule, being radiated in the common frequency. Radiation coming from the earth, travels through the colder air above which is not saturated in all the frequencies that a higher temperature would be. They pass from molecule to molecule and there is the appearance that some of the thermal frequencies pass through the air. Sun irradiance from about 1-2 micron, begins the troughs of complete absorption and apparent transparency. I say that the energy of the higher frequency trough is being converted and added to the lower peak All absorbed energy must be re-radiated at some frequency although this occurs in random directions for lower energies. Due to harmonics of frequencies and the molecules, some bands are re-radiated more extensively and have more forward progress. The apparent transparency about 11 microns is because of the preponderance of energy at these frequencies. All gases absorb thermal frequencies uniformly from about 2-3 microns. What are termed absorption spectra, are lack of re-radiation at these frequencies and do not indicate greater absorption of energy by individual molecule which is impossible except for heat capacity. If the grenhouse idea was right, (that absorption by CO2 and N2 and O2 are very different), very great final and intermediate temperatures in these gases would be evident in many conditions. There is not. There is absolutely no difference in final temperatures. And very, very minute differences in time of achieving final temperature. Visible light and near infrared is created at energies that are almost at the ionization potential of atomic gases. The lower energy series (sharp and diffuse), may be of lower energy (up to around 2 micron), but they are only produced at the temperatures creating the principle series. The principle series regains the continuum, (each value of hv) at the energy of the ionization potential. Atomic gases under pressure emit in continuos spectra all through their spectrum, and not only in the energy terms of the ionization potential. Through this region of visible light, the distribution of the energy obeys the Planck Radiation Law if gases are in thermal equilibrium and not changing temperature. The total energy of their radiation always obeys Stefan-Boltzman however, for any temperature in fluctuating temperature. The main point is that the premise of grenhouse theory that the atmosphere is transparent to thermal frequencies except for the grenhouse gases is fallacious. Water vapor is not a grenhouse gas. Water vapor clumps, and forms even droplets in the air. Because of the great mass of these clumps, it affects even visible reds much more than other gases, and even causes haze which is the affect of visible light. Perhaps this can be discussed rationally, without the constant rejoinder always added by the grenhouse believers, "and you're stupid if you don't agree with what all the reasonable people agree to." Kent Deatherage |