Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: hanson on 30 Sep 2006 16:02 In total vain, Kent, the incessant loud mouthed nemesis of the little green idiots that infest these NGs like web lice and net fleas, whines in total desperation: > Perhaps this can be discussed rationally, without the constant > rejoinder always added by the greenhouse believers, "you're stupid > if you don't agree with what all the reasonable people agree to." > [hanson] Fat chance KD, but you could terminate YOUR endless discussions win your debate and make your point successfully if you were to follow any these steps in these links which the enviros are deadly afraid of: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/803aa85567789eb2 http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/23618cb86bde9ad6 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/24f0a92030b41cef .... but it appears by now, that you don't have the balls for any of it but that you prefer to lament just like the greenies do.... ahahaha... Maybe... just like you said above: "you're stupid" after all... ahahaha.. But, thanks for the laughs!.... ahahahahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson > > Kent Deatherage <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1159639776.321863.284500(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > 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 >
From: kdthrge on 30 Sep 2006 19:56 Retief wrote: On 23 Sep 2006 13:45:24 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: http://www.wmo.ch/web/sat/en/im2-12.htm The graphs depicted here are not correct in the sense that the sun radiates in all the lower frequencies. At the equator under ideal conditons, about 400 Wm-2 do not make it to the ground. This is all of the far infrared and about half of nearer infrared. Also the irradiance from the sun changes considerably with angle of the sun. The closer infrared (3 microns or shorter) partially make it to the lower atmosphere before being absorbed. At angles of about 30 degrees or more, almost none of the frequencies of the infrared make it to the ground, Ultraviolets also drop off considerably. Leaving only energy from the visible frequencies. The air is warmed considerably from this absorbed radiation. Virtually none of the energy of the radiation from the earth travel into space unabsorbed. Kent Deatherage
From: z on 17 Oct 2006 11:03 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-10950.html > > Here is a site that discuses the fact that the analyses of the heat > system of the earth is not an exact science. The fact is established > however, that there is a heat source that is not determined within the > earth. Are you actually suggesting that heat from the INSIDE of the earth is a significant factor in the climate at the surface and in the atmosphere? On my planet, the only times the ground isn't COOLER than the atmosphere is when it's obviously being heated by the sun.
From: z on 17 Oct 2006 11:07 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > I don't understand what you mean. The real test is of the earth's > radiation, not the visible light and near infrareds of the sun, and in > this test, volume is constant so pressure increases with increasing > temperature. CO2 weighs 44, air is average weight 29. I would not be > surprised if CO2 deflects frequencies around .8 -.9 microns more than > air. In a carefully controlled experiment like this in sunlight, the > CO2 may achieve a higher temperature. But not in earth's radiation. > This would mean that higher CO2 would block radiation from reaching the > ocean from the sun and actually cause a cooling of the earth's > temperature. absorption spectrum of CO2. Look into it.
From: BlithelyAcceptTheDominantParadigm on 20 Oct 2006 12:08
z wrote: > kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-10950.html >> >>Here is a site that discuses the fact that the analyses of the heat >>system of the earth is not an exact science. The fact is established >>however, that there is a heat source that is not determined within the >>earth. > > > Are you actually suggesting that heat from the INSIDE of the earth is a > significant factor in the climate at the surface and in the atmosphere? > On my planet, the only times the ground isn't COOLER than the > atmosphere is when it's obviously being heated by the sun. This is a reflection that the net longwave still leads to pretty good cooling at the surface at most times at most places. That is not however a measure of the significance or insignificance of terrestrial heat. Better are models and measurments which put the flux at relatively low ( around 0.05 W/m^2 ) levels. |