 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 9 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Alastair... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:19 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 12:04 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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.
You AGW whackos take a few baby steps in the direction of real science
and declare you are done.
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.
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.
[/quote]
The article says "that small amounts of “perfectly colorless and
invisible gases and vapours” were able to absorb and emit amounts of
radiant heat sufficient to control the heat budget of the planet. " It
does not say that absorption and emission are "PERFECTLY MATCHED".
Moreover, Tyndall, in the paper being discussed, never mentions
radiation by these gases.
However, I will grant you this. When it comes to the truth, then you
are getting warm! (Global warming! Get it?)
Cheers, Alastair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 12:31 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:19 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:04 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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..
You AGW whackos take a few baby steps in the direction of real science
and declare you are done.
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.
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.
The article
[/quote]
I was referring to Tyndal's paper.
[quote]says "that small amounts of “perfectly colorless and
invisible gases and vapours” were able to absorb and emit amounts of
radiant heat sufficient to control the heat budget of the planet.
[/quote]
Absurd. Tyndall never even began to address such. This is nothing
but an assertion by some Wiki propagandists.
It's really comical how often you AGW whackos refer to Wiki as your
source.
[quote]" It
does not say that absorption and emission are "PERFECTLY MATCHED".
Moreover, Tyndall, in the paper being discussed, never mentions
radiation by these gases.
[/quote]
See Tyndall's paper pages 280 to 284 where he discusses this.
[quote]
However, I will grant you this. When it comes to the truth, then you
are getting warm! (Global warming! Get it?)
Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alastair... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:03 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 12:31 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:19 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:04 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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.
You AGW whackos take a few baby steps in the direction of real science
and declare you are done.
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.
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.
The article
I was referring to Tyndal's paper.
says "that small amounts of “perfectly colorless and
invisible gases and vapours” were able to absorb and emit amounts of
radiant heat sufficient to control the heat budget of the planet.
Absurd. Tyndall never even began to address such. This is nothing
but an assertion by some Wiki propagandists.
It's really comical how often you AGW whackos refer to Wiki as your
source.
" It
does not say that absorption and emission are "PERFECTLY MATCHED".
Moreover, Tyndall, in the paper being discussed, never mentions
radiation by these gases.
See Tyndall's paper pages 280 to 284 where he discusses this.
[/quote]
True, but he does not say "perfectly matched" either. In fact he is
mainly writing about radiation from solids, and where he does mention
gases it is in the context of electronic emission from atoms in the
visible spectrum.
As you seem to realise, if emissions were perfectly matched to
absorption then there would be no heating, but moreover there would be
no net absorption so Tyndall would have been unable to measure it.
Cheers, Alastair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:20 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:04 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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.
You AGW whackos take a few baby steps in the direction of real science
and declare you are done.
You really are utterly clueless.
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.
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.
How ironic then that "Dittohead Science" is purely agenda driven and
ignores all scientific evidence except for a few cherry picked factoids.
The crucial point here is that blackbody radiation from the warm Earth's
surface is directional upwards towards cold empty space.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah, so?
[quote]Radiation in
the GHG absorbtion bands is absorbed on its way up and is eventually
re-emitted isotropically which means on average roughly half goes up and
half goes down. And some is thermalised by collisions. Unless the photon
mean free path at the relevant wavelength is less than the distance to
the edge of the atmosphere this may happen several times before it
finally escapes.
[/quote]
This kind of vague speculation may be useful for helping you begin to
formulate some kind of a hypothesis that may or may not be testable.
But for you AGW whackos to try to pawn this off as evidence that CO2
is causing any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere (not to
mention an effect that is detrimental) is borderline criminal.
[quote]You can see precisely the same absorbtion and reemission mechanisms
occurring in the solar atmosphere in the visible red line of H-alpha.
The only difference is that we can see the red light with our eyes.
[/quote]
Yeah, so?
It take a vivid imagination to be an AGW whacko. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.
[/quote]
•• Of course, CD, they cannot achieve a valid
equation of greenhouse properties because
there is no such thing. Five minutes after the
rain stops in a location there may be less than
3% of the GHG above that site but overnight
a front moves in with maybe 12,000 ppm
97% H2O + 400-600 ppm CO2.
600 ppm is not even peanuts compared with
100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide
converted to biomass each year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2:19Â am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:53Â am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:57Â pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Lastly, hurry up about it. Â You AGW whackos have had upwards of 50
billion dollars and thirty years to achieve this. Â 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
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.
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.
[/quote]
Why did he make a statement about diatomic
molecules and then feel a need to make another
statement about same element molecules?
Hopefully there will not ever be enough
CO in the atmosphere to even discuss in climate
science, CO is combustible, and poison as hell.
Nitrogen oxides may exist as other than just
NO, in fact, I never saw it mentioned until years
after I jokingly mentioned nitrogen oxide to some
JPL employees and Pasadena City College students
as a joke in 1964.
There is definitely a way to formulate an
experiment that can provide the basis for some
quantitative values assigned to a cubic meter
of any Gas, in any mixture of dry air or dry
nitrogen (which is easy to buy).
I wish somebody would do it, no matter
how little CO2 is able to absorb or radiate,
it is important to know how much per unit
of volume per unit of time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 12:04 pm, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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.
You AGW whackos take a few baby steps in the direction of real science
and declare you are done.
[/quote]
You really are utterly clueless.
[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.
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.
[/quote]
How ironic then that "Dittohead Science" is purely agenda driven and
ignores all scientific evidence except for a few cherry picked factoids.
The crucial point here is that blackbody radiation from the warm Earth's
surface is directional upwards towards cold empty space. Radiation in
the GHG absorbtion bands is absorbed on its way up and is eventually
re-emitted isotropically which means on average roughly half goes up and
half goes down. And some is thermalised by collisions. Unless the photon
mean free path at the relevant wavelength is less than the distance to
the edge of the atmosphere this may happen several times before it
finally escapes.
You can see precisely the same absorbtion and reemission mechanisms
occurring in the solar atmosphere in the visible red line of H-alpha.
The only difference is that we can see the red light with our eyes.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:04:36 -0800 (PST), Alastair
<al at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Â 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. Â You could only have a very active imagination to come to this
conclusion. Â (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.
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.
[/quote]
You mean LWIR, right?
O2 absorbs quite a bit of the UV. There should
be very little CO, but some comes from coal out in the
weather or even a coal fire when banked or the draft
shut too tight, CO2 moving through red hot coal
with a lack of excess air will combine to CO and
absorb 8000 BTU per pound in the process.
H2O is a little different than the others, the
two H atoms are at an angle from a straight line
through the center of the O atom, where CO2
may not be in such an asymmetric configuration.
But all this is just trivia without some real
numbers in energy absorbed or emitted per unit
of volume per unit of time.
Why not have to compartments of one cubic
meter, fill them with a gas, warm one and see if
IR radiation will warm the other, and how fast. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:07:51 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
[quote]There is definitely a way to formulate an
experiment that can provide the basis for some
quantitative values assigned to a cubic meter
of any Gas, in any mixture of dry air or dry
nitrogen (which is easy to buy).
I wish somebody would do it, no matter
how little CO2 is able to absorb or radiate,
it is important to know how much per unit
of volume per unit of time.
That is exactly what infrared spectrometers do to measure the spectrum
of these gasses and also concentrations. Simple intro at:
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/IR+spec
Other devices using the absorbtion of specific IR wavelengths to measure
CO2 by thermally exiciting a gas in a resonant cavity have been
described in this thread (or antoher parallel one).
The scientific evidence is rock solid. You are tilting at windmills.
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
I don't know Martin, either I can't read, or you
don't know what flux means.
And any response with foul-mouthed liberal
language deserves no response. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:19 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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
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.
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.
[/quote]
Ignore drooling Denk. He is a clueless rednecked fuckwit.
[quote]
Why did he make a statement about diatomic
molecules and then feel a need to make another
statement about same element molecules?
[/quote]
Because for homonuclear diatomics like N2 and O2 they do not have any
significant absorbtion lines in the relevant part of the spectrum.
BTW Nitrous oxide is actually N20 a triatomic species.
NO does exist but is unstable in air and rapidly becomes NO2 it tends to
come out of power station chimneys. NOx is usually used for oxides of
nitrogen because there is almost always a mixture. NO2 is red brown in
colour and so obviously absorbs some frequencies of visible light.
HCl is an example of a hetergenous diatomic molecule with a permanent
dipole moment and so lots of allowed transitions in the IR. eg
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html
But once again the other place comes up trumps with a version of the
zenith sky optical thickness and limb radiance spectra along with
spectral details of most of the other atmospheric species.
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
[quote]
Hopefully there will not ever be enough
CO in the atmosphere to even discuss in climate
science, CO is combustible, and poison as hell.
[/quote]
There is a trace of CO in smoke, but it isn't long lived in an oxidising
atmosphere.
[quote]There is definitely a way to formulate an
experiment that can provide the basis for some
quantitative values assigned to a cubic meter
of any Gas, in any mixture of dry air or dry
nitrogen (which is easy to buy).
I wish somebody would do it, no matter
how little CO2 is able to absorb or radiate,
it is important to know how much per unit
of volume per unit of time.
[/quote]
That is exactly what infrared spectrometers do to measure the spectrum
of these gasses and also concentrations. Simple intro at:
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/IR+spec
Other devices using the absorbtion of specific IR wavelengths to measure
CO2 by thermally exiciting a gas in a resonant cavity have been
described in this thread (or antoher parallel one).
The scientific evidence is rock solid. You are tilting at windmills.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:07 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:19 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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
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.
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.
Ignore drooling Denk. He is a clueless rednecked fuckwit.
Why did he make a statement about diatomic
molecules and then feel a need to make another
statement about same element molecules?
Because for homonuclear diatomics like N2 and O2 they do not have any
significant absorbtion lines in the relevant part of the spectrum.
[/quote]
How is this thermodynamically relevant? Please include any peer-
reviewed and/or experimental data that supports this assertion in your
response.
[quote]BTW Nitrous oxide is actually N20 a triatomic species.
[/quote]
How is this thermodynamically relevant? Please include any peer-
reviewed and/or experimental data that supports this assertion in your
response.
[quote]NO does exist but is unstable in air and rapidly becomes NO2 it tends to
come out of power station chimneys. NOx is usually used for oxides of
nitrogen because there is almost always a mixture. NO2 is red brown in
colour and so obviously absorbs some frequencies of visible light.
HCl is an example of a hetergenous diatomic molecule with a permanent
dipole moment and so lots of allowed transitions in the IR. eg
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html
But once again the other place comes up trumps with a version of the
zenith sky optical thickness and limb radiance spectra along with
spectral details of most of the other atmospheric species.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah so? How is this thermodynamically relevant to the issue
under discussion? Please include any peer-reviewed and/or
experimental data that supports your assertion(s) in your response.
[quote]http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
Hopefully there will not ever be enough
CO in the atmosphere to even discuss in climate
science, CO is combustible, and poison as hell.
There is a trace of CO in smoke, but it isn't long lived in an oxidising
atmosphere.
There is definitely a way to formulate an
experiment that can provide the basis for some
quantitative values assigned to a cubic meter
of any Gas, in any mixture of dry air or dry
nitrogen (which is easy to buy).
I wish somebody would do it, no matter
how little CO2 is able to absorb or radiate,
it is important to know how much per unit
of volume per unit of time.
That is exactly what infrared spectrometers do to measure the spectrum
of these gasses and also concentrations. Simple intro at:
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/IR+spec
[/quote]
It's regrettable that you are not able to describe to us if and how
any of this is relevant to the thermodynamic aspect of the AGW
hypothesis.
[quote]Other devices using the absorbtion of specific IR wavelengths to measure
CO2 by thermally exiciting a gas in a resonant cavity have been
described in this thread (or antoher parallel one).
[/quote]
Relevance?
[quote]The scientific evidence is rock solid.
[/quote]
It's regrettable that, it seems, none of it is relevant to the
thermodynamic issues of the AGW conjectures.
[quote]You are tilting at windmills.
[/quote]
You are attempting to obfuscate the issues under discussion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:12 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:07 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:01:41 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:19 am, Alastair <a... at (no spam) abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
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
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.
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.
Ignore drooling Denk. He is a clueless rednecked fuckwit.
Why did he make a statement about diatomic
molecules and then feel a need to make another
statement about same element molecules?
Because for homonuclear diatomics like N2 and O2 they do not have any
significant absorbtion lines in the relevant part of the spectrum.
How is this thermodynamically relevant? Please include any peer-
reviewed and/or experimental data that supports this assertion in your
response.
BTW Nitrous oxide is actually N20 a triatomic species.
How is this thermodynamically relevant? Please include any peer-
reviewed and/or experimental data that supports this assertion in your
response.
NO does exist but is unstable in air and rapidly becomes NO2 it tends to
come out of power station chimneys. NOx is usually used for oxides of
nitrogen because there is almost always a mixture. NO2 is red brown in
colour and so obviously absorbs some frequencies of visible light.
HCl is an example of a hetergenous diatomic molecule with a permanent
dipole moment and so lots of allowed transitions in the IR. eg
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html
But once again the other place comes up trumps with a version of the
zenith sky optical thickness and limb radiance spectra along with
spectral details of most of the other atmospheric species.
Uh, yeah so? How is this thermodynamically relevant to the issue
under discussion? Please include any peer-reviewed and/or
experimental data that supports your assertion(s) in your response.
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/atlas/
Hopefully there will not ever be enough
CO in the atmosphere to even discuss in climate
science, CO is combustible, and poison as hell.
There is a trace of CO in smoke, but it isn't long lived in an oxidising
atmosphere.
There is definitely a way to formulate an
experiment that can provide the basis for some
quantitative values assigned to a cubic meter
of any Gas, in any mixture of dry air or dry
nitrogen (which is easy to buy).
I wish somebody would do it, no matter
how little CO2 is able to absorb or radiate,
it is important to know how much per unit
of volume per unit of time.
That is exactly what infrared spectrometers do to measure the spectrum
of these gasses and also concentrations. Simple intro at:
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/IR+spec
It's regrettable that you are not able to describe to us if and how
any of this is relevant to the thermodynamic aspect of the AGW
hypothesis.
Other devices using the absorbtion of specific IR wavelengths to measure
CO2 by thermally exiciting a gas in a resonant cavity have been
described in this thread (or antoher parallel one).
Relevance?
The scientific evidence is rock solid.
It's regrettable that, it seems, none of it is relevant to the
thermodynamic issues of the AGW conjectures.
You are tilting at windmills.
You are attempting to obfuscate the issues under discussion.
[/quote]
•• When you post to silly fools like Brown, you
give him one more platform from which to
spread his nonsense. You ignore him and
eventually he will find other groups to annoy.
He might even find one of the what-ifs or
alt.usenet.kooks <G>
–– ––
Political correctness is destroying Europe.
America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
now Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:e345f5hc66ocj6hdej8h8m3jvq5ea96c04 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:08:42 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"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.
.
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.
..[/quote]
Watch out for the First Law here.
..
[quote]
If not, there would not be a self regulating balance,
which must be powerful with a fourth power relationship
of temperature.
..[/quote]
Applicable at thermal equilibrium where the temperature is high enough that
emission = absorption.
..
I explain more at:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net
..
--
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 |
|
|
|
| Al Bedo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alastair 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.
See
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article3
[/quote]
Yes.
But Arrhenius was theorizing that CO2 described the
glacial/inter-glacial cycles.
Milankovic showed that orbital variation, not CO2, described glacials.
CO2 is quite emissive, but even at pre-industrial levels,
that emission took place to space from the stratosphere.
Since there are a large number of processes between
the surface ( and the oceans ) and the level at which
CO2 based emissions actually leave the planet ( the
stratosphere ) the theory of AGW, through the faulty models,
remains unvalidated ( unvalidated not necessarily invalidated,
though the low level of warming is very close to INvalidating
the IPCC modeled warming ). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alastair... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 2:46 pm, Al Bedo <alb... at (no spam) the.turn.of.the.century?> wrote:
[quote]Alastair wrote:
See
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Art...
Yes.
But Arrhenius was theorizing that CO2 described the
glacial/inter-glacial cycles.
[/quote]
The article was about John Tyndall, thirty years before Arrhenius.
[quote]Milankovic showed that orbital variation, not CO2, described glacials.
[/quote]
The glacial periods in the ice age correspond with Milankovitch
cycles, but they are not the cause of the ice age. CO2 concentration
has dropped since the time of the Cretaceous hot house world, and that
is the probable reason that we have now entered an ice age where those
astronomial cycles ca affect the clime so obviously.
Moreover, although the Milankovitch cycles are sinusoidal, the changes
into interglacials are sawtoothed, and it is thought that this
abruptness is caused by the positive feedback from CO2.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:07 pm
|
|