Impossible For CO2 to Heat Oceans
in [Physics]
|
From: kdthrge on 5 Aug 2006 07:42 > > Global warming is about *average* global temps over time, not > individual temps at a specific time! Some areas may gradually become > hotter while others (like the UK) may become cooler. You could measure > the temps at night and they'd really be cool! :-) > > So argue all you want if global warming is occuring or not, it is absolutely impossible that it is caused by CO2. The density of the water in the ocean or molar quantity per square centimeter at the surface where the liquid meets the gas is prohibitive to the exchange of heat from the gas into the liquid which also has 4 times greater heat capacity. Only if the air can be maintained at a much higher temperature will eventually the radiation field of the gas be absorbed into the liquid. The time it would take to heat the ocean is very great. Evidence of oceanic warming proves that in the 100 years or so of man made CO2, there must be another cause. Laboratory evidence cannot show any causual link and instead proves that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. Kent Deatherage
From: Hoggle on 5 Aug 2006 07:59 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > So argue all you want if global warming is occuring or not, it is absolutely impossible > that it is caused by CO2. The density of the water in the ocean or molar quantity per > square centimeter at the surface where the liquid meets the gas is prohibitive to the > exchange of heat from the gas into the liquid which also has 4 times greater heat > capacity. Only if the air can be maintained at a much higher temperature will > eventually the radiation field of the gas be absorbed into the liquid. The time it would > take to heat the ocean is very great. Evidence of oceanic warming proves that in the > 100 years or so of man made CO2, there must be another cause. Laboratory evidence > cannot show any causual link and instead proves that CO2 is not the cause of global > warming. ahahahahahahahahahahaha! What a load of ignorant twaddle. What moronic source told you that the heat flux from atmosphere to ocean was a transfer of heat from CO2 to the water? You clearly are totally new to the subject and haven't looked into it at all. In the hopes that you can still be educated a little: Greenhouse gases cause warming because they alter the rate at which energy (in the form of infra-red radiation from the earth and ocean surface) leaves the planet. They absorb the radiation and then re-emit it in all directions. This heat energy remains in the system and therefore increases the total energy within the system. Energy is, eventually, expressed as heat. The transfer of atmospheric heat to the oceans is not even relevant (a warmer atmosphere reduces the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, and the ocean heats up because it cannot cool down - the energy input is solar radiation on the ocean surface), but the largest vector for such a flow would be rainfall.
From: kdthrge on 5 Aug 2006 17:37 > In the hopes that you can still be educated a little: > > Greenhouse gases cause warming because they alter the rate at which > energy (in the form of infra-red radiation from the earth and ocean > surface) leaves the planet. They absorb the radiation and then re-emit > it in all directions. This heat energy remains in the system and > therefore increases the total energy within the system. Energy is, > eventually, expressed as heat. The absorption spectra of molecules is what is used to stipulate the claim that greenhouse gases absorb radiation. The truth is that wavelengths longer than one micron do not pass though the atmosphere. Look it up. THE ATMOSPHERE IS OPAQUE FROM ONE MICRON/ That is a totally cute idea that Co2 absorbs 'the infrared that would otherwise escape but there is no science to establish this. In fact you ignore any valid labratory data. I know you can't read a Planck curve but if you could or understood Planck's distrubution law you would know that even at high temperatures the main distrubution is in between the limiting points of,, hv is much less than Kt,, and hv is much greater than Kt. This means that the sun radiates in all the same frequencies as the much lower temperature earth but in MUCH GREATER INTENSITY. The atmosphere already blocks almost all infrared beyond the visible light.. If greater CO2 blocks more, that would otherwise pass through, it would block radiation from reaching the ocean. The ocean has higher albedo than land mass and considering the land mass that is covered in snow and ice, the ocean accounts for more than 9/10 of heat absorbed. CO2 would cause cooling. Maybe we need CO2 to prevent a global warming disaster from another cause. ALL RARIFIED GASES HAVE THE SAME HEAT CAPACITY REGARDLESS OF MASS OR ABSORPTION SPECTRA. If it were true that "greenhouse gases absorb radiation" in any greater equivelance than other gases, it would be apparent in labratory tests. It is absolutely not. Look up 'heat capacity of rarified gases'. If they absorbed radiation into a latent form they would demonstrate higher heat capacity. If they trapped radiation, they would register a lower heat capacity, or it would take fewer joules inducted to reach temperature. Deviation from the perfect gas law in gases is due to different diameter which only becomes apparent at higher pressure, although some gase are abnormal. CO2 is a normal gas. Atomic gases demonstrate emmision spectra and absorption spectra. Molecules demonstrate band emmisions and absorption spectra/ There is a big difference. The absorption spectra of atomic gases are only the lines that match the emmision spectra of the principle series. In the rarified gas, continous spectra, which is produced from atomic gases under presure, passing through the gas are absorbed at the very specific frequencies that match the principle series of the gas. When absorbed the energy is absorbed and converted to other wavelengths. The other frequencies of the continous spectra ARE NOT ABSORBED. Their energy and their direction of travel is not changed. Not so with molecules and the much lower frequencies with which they are involved. Absorption bands of moleculer gases are studied by the introduction of a continous spectra ino a gas. Then it is registered which frequencies are not present in the continous spectra that is produced. The gas is absorbing all the continous spectra and radiating in all frequencies except the 'absorption frequencies' Non of these frequencies pass through the gas non-absorbed like the much higher energy frequencies do (generally below one micron). For whatever reason the molecule does not emit these frequencies. It is radiating in continous spectra however and this does not in any way cause the gas to retain heat and there is no labratory data to corroborate your assumption. But who needs lab data when you just know that that damned CO2 is makin' it hot. > > The transfer of atmospheric heat to the oceans is not even relevant then the proponents should not bring it up as proof of global warming (a> warmer atmosphere reduces the heat flux from the ocean to the > atmosphere, and the ocean heats up because it cannot cool down This is your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Don't feel bad, it is very common for poor or uneducated students of chemistry or physics. Heat flux is in one direction. Heat flux does not register the heat flux ahead of it. A heated body loses heat as it radiates. If a heated body next to it also produces a radiation field that is absorbed by the first body the temperature will be the difference of the influx to the outflux. Any gas has and produces a radiation field for it's temperature. Warmer air will slow the cooling of water. But only by the flux of radiation it produces into the water. The outgoing flux of radiation is in no way diminished or affected by level of the influx of radiation. - the > energy input is solar radiation on the ocean surface), but the largest > vector for such a flow would be rainfall. Any way you look at it the heat capacity of air is much less than water and its relevant density. Next lets formulate in the total molar quantity of the ocean as compared to the atmosphere. But your computer model will not like those numbers. Just ignore it then. You tell me how CO2 is causing warming if it doesn't trap detectable heat or detectable radiation. Your theory predicts a massive heat engine that is caused by CO2, that can inject massive amount of calories into the ocean or air. BUT IT IS UNDECTABLE BY ANY SCIENCE AVAILABLE. At some point the term FRAUD becomes the critical definition. Kent Deatherage
From: Thomas Lee Elifritz on 5 Aug 2006 17:40 kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > At some point the term FRAUD becomes the critical definition. Dumbfuck suffices. http://cosmic.lifeform.org
From: Educated Republican on 5 Aug 2006 19:34
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Global warming is about *average* global temps over time, not > > individual temps at a specific time! Some areas may gradually become > > hotter while others (like the UK) may become cooler. You could measure > > the temps at night and they'd really be cool! :-) > > > > So argue all you want if global warming is occuring or not, it is absolutely impossible that it is caused by CO2. The density of the water in the ocean or molar quantity per square centimeter at the surface where the liquid meets the gas is prohibitive to the exchange of heat from the gas into the liquid which also has 4 times greater heat capacity. Only if the air can be maintained at a much higher temperature will eventually the radiation field of the gas be absorbed into the liquid. The time it would take to heat the ocean is very great. Evidence of oceanic warming proves that in the 100 years or so of man made CO2, there must be another cause. Laboratory evidence cannot show any causual link and instead proves that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. > > Kent Deatherage I think you're on to something here! When will you be published in a science journal so I can read the whole thing with peer review? I like how you take on those quantum physics geeks, too: http://home.earthlink.net/~kdthrge/ Steve |