| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 8 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:52 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
•• So far nothing of that is proved. No proof that
H2O, CO2, NO2 or any other gas can absorb
and re-emit anything.
•• As for 'shelf' life of CO2 in the atmosphere, it
is only a matter of days, because whenever it
rains (or snows), all of the CO2 in that
location is carried to the earth to enter the
photosynthetic process. The turnover is
phenomenal
[/quote]
First you need to learn about infrared radiation sounders. Next what
about the "shelf life" of co2 in the upper tropospher/lower
stratosphere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:58 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 9:45 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
You should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, like
facts.
see my previous reply when you stated the same thing, meanwhile show
the known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
[/quote]
I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
right and so completely unable to say how or why. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 10:23 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:"I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure
you are right and so completely unable to say how or why."
your limitations in attention span etc. really dont interest me, so
take your time and show the known properties of "green house gasses"
or gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities etc...), no excuse show the information... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Last Post wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 12:01 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I never said I would."
your lazy, and you are calling me delusional to excuse your laziness,
so how about you quit the temper tantrum, and do some work. Show the
known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that transmit
visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that includes
and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat capacities
etc...), no excuse show the information...
•• So far nothing of that is proved. No proof that
H2O, CO2, NO2 or any other gas can absorb
and re-emit anything.
[/quote]
I take it you have never seen a CO2 laser then. And OH masers occur
naturally in star forming regions like W3(OH).
[quote]•• As for 'shelf' life of CO2 in the atmosphere, it
is only a matter of days, because whenever it
rains (or snows), all of the CO2 in that
location is carried to the earth to enter the
photosynthetic process. The turnover is
phenomenal
[/quote]
Is the US educational system really this bad?
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alastair... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:57 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda.
[/quote]
The facts about greenhouse gases has been known about for more
than 200 years, and carbon dioxide's effect for more than one hundred.
See
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article3
Cheers, Alastair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alastair... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:53 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 3:57 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda.
The facts about greenhouse gases has been known about for more
than 200 years, and carbon dioxide's effect for more than one hundred.
Seehttp://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Art....
Cheers, Alastair.
[/quote]
The actual paper that article describes is here:
http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:16571/n3.Tyndall_1861corrected.pdf
The experiments were performed before 1861 which is nearly 150 years
ago. On page 279 (18th of PDF) there is a table of the relative
absorption
of gases. Translated to use modern names it would be:
0 Air
0 Oxygen O2
0 Nitrogen N2
0 Hydrogen H2
12 Carbon monoxide CO
18 Carbon dioxide CO2
29 Nitrous Oxide NO
53 Methane CH4
Note that diatomic molecules DO act as greenhouse gases if they are
heterogeneous. It is only homogeneous diatomic molecules (where both
atoms are composed of the same chemical element) which do not absorb
radiation.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"JohnM" <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d69884e1-6711-4a1f-8dff-a8169e46c0c0 at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[...Correct non-compliant indentation]
..
[quote]Except your conclusion is based on a non-sequitur. Because you ask
for, but don't receive, an equation to describe a piece of science
does not falsify the hypothesis.
[...][/quote]
Yes, lack of evidence DOES falsify a hypothesis and your lack of
measurements in a field directly underpinning the greenhouse effect is
enough to falsify the greenhouse effect and everything that stands on it.
..
[quote]This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
.
Science is based on no such thing.
[...][/quote]
..
Science is based on the requirement for falsifiability - if you can't devise
an experiment to test it, it's not science.
..
[quote]Science is based on the strength and integrity of its entire
foundation.
..[/quote]
No, the other thing science is based on is hard evidence - such as dip and
strike measurements or facies morphology. Popper went out of his way to
exclude interpretations from his definition of science. We scientists call
an interpretation that lacks independent evidentiary underpinning an ad hoc
argument.
..
[quote]Creationists are currently finding this out the hard way,
as each of their attempts to find an explanation for 'Biology' always
fails to interlock at some point with the vast body of interdependent
knowledge in that discipline.
..[/quote]
Creationism has no evidentiary underpinning to begin with. Their foundation,
the global flood, is falsified by numerous unconformities and shallow water
sedimentary structures throughout the strata that prove there is no period
of global inundation at any point in geological history.
..
Evolution on the other hand is underpinned physical evidence that anyone can
test. Faunal progression is a testable fact of the geological record. What
testable fact underpins the assertion that global warming is anthropogenic
or that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"?
..
I reiterate:
[quote]Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and
the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator,
surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
..[/quote]
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q%RHm.8723$Cc6.830 at (no spam) newsfe07.iad...
[quote]Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
..[/quote]
Thank you. However, bulk emissivity is the most direct route to predicting
mean body temperature response to compositional variation. That also makes
it the more reliable method as it speaks directly to global temperature
mean, which is a feature of global generalisations that are by definition in
LTE as everything is averaged.
..
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
..[/quote]
Thanks just the same - This doesn't address the problem of compositional
variation and the effect on temperature via changes to overall gas
emissivity - or how gas mixture emissivity is calculated.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:52:38 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
<sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]
"richp" <travelingman95667 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f87eb621-e840-411f-9600-bc1d03126dd0 at (no spam) m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
.
[...]
.
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).
.
Thank you, but that is just for CO2 - and what laboratory work did this come
from?
.
[/quote]
Didn't you know, CO2 is all there is, what effect
could water vapor possibly have, with only 30 or 40
times as many molecules. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:08:42 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
<sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q%RHm.8723$Cc6.830 at (no spam) newsfe07.iad...
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
.
Thank you. However, bulk emissivity is the most direct route to predicting
mean body temperature response to compositional variation. That also makes
it the more reliable method as it speaks directly to global temperature
mean, which is a feature of global generalisations that are by definition in
LTE as everything is averaged.
.
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
.
Thanks just the same - This doesn't address the problem of compositional
variation and the effect on temperature via changes to overall gas
emissivity - or how gas mixture emissivity is calculated.
.
[/quote]
My opinion is that while the sun and any surface
must follow a strict time restricted emissive flux, the
atmosphere can emit from every point in every direction
at the same time, so it can actually radiate to space
at a greater rate than it receives solar energy at times.
If not, there would not be a self regulating balance,
which must be powerful with a fourth power relationship
of temperature. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:53 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 3:57 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[/quote]
You snipped without referencing your snip.
[quote]Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda.
The facts about greenhouse gases has been known about for more
than 200 years,
[/quote]
How is this comment relevant to our conversation?
[quote]and carbon dioxide's effect for more than one hundred.
Seehttp://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Art....
[/quote]
Propaganda. Answer my questions you evasive, oversnipping, jackass. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:19 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:53 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:57 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lastly, hurry up about it. You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. In the meantime,
stop the propaganda.
The facts about greenhouse gases has been known about for more
than 200 years, and carbon dioxide's effect for more than one hundred.
Seehttp://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Art...
Cheers, Alastair.
The actual paper that article describes is here:http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:16571/n3.Tyndall_1861corrected.pdf
The experiments were performed before 1861 which is nearly 150 years
ago. On page 279 (18th of PDF) there is a table of the relative
absorption
of gases. Translated to use modern names it would be:
0 Air
0 Oxygen O2
0 Nitrogen N2
0 Hydrogen H2
12 Carbon monoxide CO
18 Carbon dioxide CO2
29 Nitrous Oxide NO
53 Methane CH4
Note that diatomic molecules DO act as greenhouse gases
[/quote]
Absurd. You could only have a very active imagination to come to this
conclusion. (Also, the term "greenhouse gas" is never defined.
[quote]if they are
heterogeneous. It is only homogeneous diatomic molecules (where both
atoms are composed of the same chemical element) which do not absorb
radiation.
[/quote]
If you were to actually read the article you would note that the
absorptive properties of these molecules are matched perfectly by
their radiative properties. You AGW whackos just gloss over these
implications because they don't fit your agenda. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alastair... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote] 0 Air
0 Oxygen O2
0 Nitrogen N2
0 Hydrogen H2
12 Carbon monoxide CO
18 Carbon dioxide CO2
29 Nitrous Oxide NO
53 Methane CH4
Note that diatomic molecules DO act as greenhouse gases
Absurd. You could only have a very active imagination to come to this
conclusion. (Also, the term "greenhouse gas" is never defined.
if they are
heterogeneous. It is only homogeneous diatomic molecules (where both
atoms are composed of the same chemical element) which do not absorb
radiation.
[/quote]
I am not going to get into a flame war with someone who is incapable
of reading to the end of a sentence. But I will rephrase what I wrote.
It can be seen from the table above that although they are diatomic
molecules, CO and NO both absorb radiation. It is only homogeneous
diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 which are transparent. Argon (Ar)
being a monatomic gas is also transparent, thus dry air which is
almost entirely 99.9% N2, O2 & Ar would be transparent but for the
presence of CO2 and water vapour.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 12:04 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[quote] 0 Air
0 Oxygen O2
0 Nitrogen N2
0 Hydrogen H2
12 Carbon monoxide CO
18 Carbon dioxide CO2
29 Nitrous Oxide NO
53 Methane CH4
Note that diatomic molecules DO act as greenhouse gases
Absurd. You could only have a very active imagination to come to this
conclusion. (Also, the term "greenhouse gas" is never defined.
if they are
heterogeneous. It is only homogeneous diatomic molecules (where both
atoms are composed of the same chemical element) which do not absorb
radiation.
I am not going to get into a flame war with someone who is incapable
of reading to the end of a sentence. But I will rephrase what I wrote.
[/quote]
You AGW whackos take a few baby steps in the direction of real science
and declare you are done.
[quote]It can be seen from the table above that although they are diatomic
molecules, CO and NO both absorb radiation. It is only homogeneous
diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 which are transparent. Argon (Ar)
being a monatomic gas is also transparent, thus dry air which is
almost entirely 99.9% N2, O2 & Ar would be transparent but for the
presence of CO2 and water vapour.
[/quote]
If you were to actually read the article you would note that the
absorptive properties of these molecules are matched perfectly by
their radiative properties. You AGW whackos just gloss over these
implications because they don't fit your agenda. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:45 pm
|
|