 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Earth Without GreenHouse Gases... |
|
Page 8 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Timothy Casey... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news: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]
..
[quote]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.
..[/quote]
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless peole 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.
..
--
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: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:-9ednT8uTslSGELXnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:28:45 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:YYydnW_vtcYESUPXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:46 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[SNIP]
Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have
considered the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a
planet with a non- radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out.
What fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?
.
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material
capable of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will
absorb and reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident
radiation.
Well, it's a gedanken experiment. I think it's legitimate to assume a
gas that is perfectly transparent. It's not as far out as a
relativistic elevator, after all.
.
Not so sure I'd buy into perfect anything in materials - not even
transparency.
I see it as a simplification of the real world. It's like assuming a
"perfect gas".
..[/quote]
The ideal gas is an approximation, not a simplification - and the somewhat
less than ideal behaviour of gases is amplified in other properties such as
emissivity. Notwithstanding this complication, the smaller absorbtivities
having the largest effect, according to the Stefan-Boltzman Equation, makes
the non-grey-body approximation an unrealistic approximation at that.
..
If you want to simplify, look at averages, gradients, and potentials as they
apply to all the peculiarities and complexities of a system. For example, if
you have a control grid that is not behaving as documented, measuring the
voltage across the points of interest will simplify a multitude of
complexities in between. This is valid. However, assuming that a very low
but undocumented resistance somewhere in between is zero will only
contribute to an erroneous calculation.
..
[quote]
The higher the thermal absorbance (= emissivity) the less temperature
builds up over and above what can be expected from from ambient
radiation levels . What gives carbon dioxide a little kick in the
temperature is the lousy emissivity (=lousy absorbance). The latest on
CO2 emissivities I've found to date is in a doctoral thesis by Farag
(1976) - the first to attempt to address binary mixing issues.
.
In the real world, the absorbance depends on frequency. For all
practical purposes, most atmospheric gases don't absorb enough LWIR to
make a significant difference in the surface T.
.
I think it's more the case that more of the heat absorbed is reradiated
before it has a chance to be conducted (via direct contact) into
bodies within the atmospheric mixture.
That would be true at low enough pressures and temperatures. It's a race
between the re-emission and the next collision.
Maximum emissivity of nitrogen is higher than that of CO2.
Where do you find that?
..[/quote]
Never mind, I double-checked, & it's a solids vs gases comparison: apples
and oranges.
..
[quote]
H2O clearly does, the issue is whether CO2 does, and what the heating
mechanism would be.
.
Which leads us back to a huge "yes but". If memory serves, H2O has
better conductivity than CO2 which makes it much better at dumping its
heat at the tropopause.
They're both picayune compared to N2 and O2. All GHGs do is heat or cool
the rest of the air.
..[/quote]
If the rest of the air is not quite so emissive, radiating the heat is not
so effective as conducting it.
..
I think the heat dumping of H20 in the troposphere
[quote]has more to do with forming clouds, plus, of course a much wider
bandwidth than CO2.
..[/quote]
That's how H2O acts as a coolant.
..
[quote]
I don't think the spectra of the gases is seriously in question, it's
the hypothesized mechanism that, AFAIK, has not been adequately
explained.
.
Agreed. But if we don't separate the roles of electromagnetic and
kinetic heat,
That's what "GHGs" do - transduce heat to photons and back.
..[/quote]
Which only serves to dilute the heat available for thermal conduction - and
this is measuring stick of fluid temperature.
..
[quote]
we'll wind up not knowing what to measure, which kind of leaves one
juggling lottery balls.
It's all energy.
[SNIP][/quote]
..
Currency of the Universe - don't leave home without it!
Thanks, I'll put that to use...
..
--
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 |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:33:47 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:-9ednT8uTslSGELXnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:28:45 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:YYydnW_vtcYESUPXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:46 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[SNIP]
Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have
considered the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a
planet with a non- radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out.
What fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?
.
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material
capable of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions)
will absorb and reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident
radiation.
Well, it's a gedanken experiment. I think it's legitimate to assume
a gas that is perfectly transparent. It's not as far out as a
relativistic elevator, after all.
.
Not so sure I'd buy into perfect anything in materials - not even
transparency.
I see it as a simplification of the real world. It's like assuming a
"perfect gas".
.
The ideal gas is an approximation, not a simplification
[/quote]
Nit-picking, but true.
[quote]- and the
somewhat less than ideal behaviour of gases is amplified in other
properties such as emissivity. Notwithstanding this complication, the
smaller absorbtivities having the largest effect, according to the
Stefan-Boltzman Equation, makes the non-grey-body approximation an
unrealistic approximation at that. .
If you want to simplify, look at averages, gradients, and potentials as
they apply to all the peculiarities and complexities of a system. For
example, if you have a control grid that is not behaving as documented,
measuring the voltage across the points of interest will simplify a
multitude of complexities in between. This is valid. However, assuming
that a very low but undocumented resistance somewhere in between is zero
will only contribute to an erroneous calculation.
[/quote]
True enough. Erroneous assumptions are the prime cause of embarrassment.
[quote]The higher the thermal absorbance (= emissivity) the less temperature
builds up over and above what can be expected from from ambient
radiation levels . What gives carbon dioxide a little kick in the
temperature is the lousy emissivity (=lousy absorbance). The latest on
CO2 emissivities I've found to date is in a doctoral thesis by Farag
(1976) - the first to attempt to address binary mixing issues. .
In the real world, the absorbance depends on frequency. For all
practical purposes, most atmospheric gases don't absorb enough LWIR
to make a significant difference in the surface T.
.
I think it's more the case that more of the heat absorbed is
reradiated before it has a chance to be conducted (via direct contact)
into bodies within the atmospheric mixture.
That would be true at low enough pressures and temperatures. It's a
race between the re-emission and the next collision.
Maximum emissivity of nitrogen is higher than that of CO2.
Where do you find that?
.
Never mind, I double-checked, & it's a solids vs gases comparison:
apples and oranges.
.
H2O clearly does, the issue is whether CO2 does, and what the heating
mechanism would be.
.
Which leads us back to a huge "yes but". If memory serves, H2O has
better conductivity than CO2 which makes it much better at dumping its
heat at the tropopause.
They're both picayune compared to N2 and O2. All GHGs do is heat or
cool the rest of the air.
.
If the rest of the air is not quite so emissive, radiating the heat is
not so effective as conducting it.
[/quote]
Exactly. Conduction and convection rule in the troposphere.
[quote]I think the heat dumping of H20 in the troposphere
has more to do with forming clouds, plus, of course a much wider
bandwidth than CO2.
.
That's how H2O acts as a coolant.
[/quote]
Exactly. The main one, in fact.
[quote]
I don't think the spectra of the gases is seriously in question, it's
the hypothesized mechanism that, AFAIK, has not been adequately
explained.
.
Agreed. But if we don't separate the roles of electromagnetic and
kinetic heat,
That's what "GHGs" do - transduce heat to photons and back.
.
Which only serves to dilute the heat available for thermal conduction -
and this is measuring stick of fluid temperature. .
we'll wind up not knowing what to measure, which kind of leaves one
juggling lottery balls.
It's all energy.
[SNIP]
.
Currency of the Universe - don't leave home without it! Thanks, I'll put
that to use...
[/quote]
Thanks for your comments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 12:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:You are never on thin ice by stating a
question, unless peole 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"
thin ice is how you are asking the question, ie somebody needs to
prove you wrong. I would be delighted if you would share what you
have "seen", as that is a function of you, as well as proving you
wrong. So how about you try again, and drop the ego.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 9:46 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4ee701eb-a9e7-44c9-aa15-783fd99c8c49 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...>On Oct 28, 12:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:You are never on thin ice by stating a
question, unless peole 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"
thin ice is how you are asking the question, ie somebody needs to
prove you wrong. I would be delighted if you would share what you
have "seen", as that is a function of you, as well as proving you
wrong.
.
You can't change the message by shooting the messenger.
.>So how about you try again, and drop the ego....
.
So how about you stop projecting and answer the question?
.
If you don't know, just telling the truth
(IE. that you can't answer because you don't know)
may well be tough if you have an ego problem
but evading the unwelcome truth by casting
doubt on someone-else's character means
you have something to hide and that the question
makes you very uncomfortable.
[/quote]
On Oct 21, 7:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:" That's doesn't address the question
of how to quantify the "greenhouse" property of a gas in terms of
real, measurable thermodynamic properties."
So take your own advice, as i told you that your question was on thin
ice, (remember you started with the woods experiment, and i reminded
you of science that has been completed since his experiment). So i
was reminding you #1, nobody has to prove you wrong, science is not
based on your ego, get over it. Next, i asked you to present the
information, as you have made reference to what you had "seen",
something im not privy to unless you expect to be completley truthfull
in your pursuits about what you know, and present it here. Now, one
can ask a question in such a manner that they dont get the answer you
want, but that does not give them the right to challenge the messenger
as if the person responding is hiding something, maybe you should try
being less biased, and more objective. Now since I was simply
attempting to understand what you know, and what you have seen maybe i
was trying to move things forward, and i really dont care about your
ego, about proving you wrong, and dont flatter yourself for your
correctness has nothing to do with my comfort. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:4ee701eb-a9e7-44c9-aa15-783fd99c8c49 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 28, 12:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:You are never on thin ice by stating a
question, unless peole 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"
thin ice is how you are asking the question, ie somebody needs to
prove you wrong. I would be delighted if you would share what you
have "seen", as that is a function of you, as well as proving you
wrong.
..[/quote]
You can't change the message by shooting the messenger.
..
[quote]So how about you try again, and drop the ego....
..[/quote]
So how about you stop projecting and answer the question?
..
If you don't know, just telling the truth
(IE. that you can't answer because you don't know)
may well be tough if you have an ego problem
but evading the unwelcome truth by casting
doubt on someone-else's character means
you have something to hide and that the question
makes you very uncomfortable.
..
--
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: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:025f7ace-56d6-4803-b274-f584cfb054b8 at (no spam) 37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 9:46 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:4ee701eb-a9e7-44c9-aa15-783fd99c8c49 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...>On
Oct 28, 12:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:You are never on thin ice by stating a
question, unless peole 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"
thin ice is how you are asking the question, ie somebody needs to
prove you wrong. I would be delighted if you would share what you
have "seen", as that is a function of you, as well as proving you
wrong.
.
You can't change the message by shooting the messenger.
.>So how about you try again, and drop the ego....
.
So how about you stop projecting and answer the question?
.
If you don't know, just telling the truth
(IE. that you can't answer because you don't know)
may well be tough if you have an ego problem
but evading the unwelcome truth by casting
doubt on someone-else's character means
you have something to hide and that the question
makes you very uncomfortable.
[/quote]
On Oct 21, 7:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:" That's doesn't address the question
of how to quantify the "greenhouse" property of a gas in terms of
real, measurable thermodynamic properties."
[quote]So take your own advice, as i told you that your question was on thin
ice, (remember you started with the woods experiment, and i reminded
you of science that has been completed since his experiment).
..[/quote]
and may I remind you that once an idea is falsified, no amount of subsequent
science can prove it.
..
[quote]So i
was reminding you #1, nobody has to prove you wrong, science is not
based on your ego, get over it.
..[/quote]
Which is irrelevant because because I'm not the one making this personal.
..
--
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 |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 12:48 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:" Which is irrelevant because because
I'm not the one making this personal."
On Oct 28, 12:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote: “None of the science I've seen… If
someone can prove me wrong”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0935dc4686ab3a0b?hl=enOn
Oct 20, 11:26 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:” Until we see some science, I would
suggest”
really, so its not personal, but my actions must prove “you” wrong
because none of the science “you” have seen, counters “your
suggestion”, and your not making it personal, now thats a joke, and no
excuse for your laziness… |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 1:25 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Timothy Casey wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
.
so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
.
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties..
The simplest test is does it have any vibrational modes that can be
excited at prevailing temperatures and pressures.
[/quote]
Pay attention. TC's question has to do with how to quantify the
"greenhouse" property of a gas in terms of real, measurable
thermodynamic properties. Not only did you avoid addressing this
question but your response was nonsensical. Get a dictionary and look
up the meaning of the word, "test," then reconsider your response.
[quote]Diatomic molecules
cannot be GHG on Earth
[/quote]
Why not?
[quote]but polyatomics can have (at least) one low
energy vibrational mode active in the longwave IR.
[/quote]
Why do you state this. Show us the experimental evidence that brought
you to this conclusion.
[quote]
Nice animation for teaching IR spectroscopy online at:
CO2 (a simple triatomic molecule)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
CH4 (more complex polyatomic)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
[/quote]
This is rather obvious science-based propaganda.
[quote]
Then to a first approximation
[/quote]
Approximation? Who was asking for approximations?
[quote]the greenhouse property of a gas is
determined by its absorbtion spectrum in the band that the planet
surface is emitting the most thermal radiation in. For the Earth this
translates as roughly wavelengths in the range 1-10um.
[/quote]
This is a start in that at least you've stated something definitive
enough to be testable. Now you need to support this assertion with
experimental evidence. For example, what you might do at first is
show us experimental evidence that provess that neither Nitrogen or
Oxigen don't fit this definition. Well, how about it?
[quote]
There is also the secondary effect of the gas half life in the
atmosphere. CH4 is a potent short term GHG but is oxidised to CO2 in our
oxygen rich atmosphere with a half life of about a decade. The CO2 hangs
around for a lot longer.
[/quote]
This paragraph is nonsensical. You speak of a "secondary" effect but
then fail to relate it to AGW. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 1:25 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
.
so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
.
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties.
The simplest test is does it have any vibrational modes that can be
excited at prevailing temperatures and pressures.
Pay attention. TC's question has to do with how to quantify the
"greenhouse" property of a gas in terms of real, measurable
thermodynamic properties. Not only did you avoid addressing this
question but your response was nonsensical. Get a dictionary and look
up the meaning of the word, "test," then reconsider your response.
[/quote]
The infrared spectrometer is the simplest method of showing it based on
the absorbtion lines in the spectrum. Or you could simply measure the
atmospheric transparency as a function of wavelength.
Only a third rate fuckwit would attempt to deny this.
[quote]Diatomic molecules
cannot be GHG on Earth
Why not?
[/quote]
The bonds are too strong. No significant modes that can be excited to
make transitions at prevailing temperatures on Earth.
[quote]
but polyatomics can have (at least) one low
energy vibrational mode active in the longwave IR.
Why do you state this. Show us the experimental evidence that brought
you to this conclusion.
[/quote]
I can derive the equations of motion you inbred moronic halfwit. Oh and
again we can measure the IR spectra of the various greenhouse gasses
these days using FTIR spectrometry getting very high resolution.
[quote]
Nice animation for teaching IR spectroscopy online at:
CO2 (a simple triatomic molecule)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
CH4 (more complex polyatomic)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
This is rather obvious science-based propaganda.
[/quote]
Not at all.
This is the *real* science as opposed to pathological dittohead lies.
[quote]
Then to a first approximation
Approximation? Who was asking for approximations?
the greenhouse property of a gas is
determined by its absorbtion spectrum in the band that the planet
surface is emitting the most thermal radiation in. For the Earth this
translates as roughly wavelengths in the range 1-10um.
This is a start in that at least you've stated something definitive
enough to be testable. Now you need to support this assertion with
experimental evidence. For example, what you might do at first is
show us experimental evidence that provess that neither Nitrogen or
Oxigen don't fit this definition. Well, how about it?
[/quote]
Go and look at their absorbtion spectra then. You do some homework.
[quote]
There is also the secondary effect of the gas half life in the
atmosphere. CH4 is a potent short term GHG but is oxidised to CO2 in our
oxygen rich atmosphere with a half life of about a decade. The CO2 hangs
around for a lot longer.
This paragraph is nonsensical. You speak of a "secondary" effect but
then fail to relate it to AGW.
[/quote]
You are choosing to be obtuse. Rednecked fuckwit detected.
Are you really so stupid or do you have to work at it?
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:03 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:25 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
.
so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
.
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties.
The simplest test is does it have any vibrational modes that can be
excited at prevailing temperatures and pressures.
Pay attention. TC's question has to do with how to quantify the
"greenhouse" property of a gas in terms of real, measurable
thermodynamic properties. Not only did you avoid addressing this
question but your response was nonsensical. Get a dictionary and look
up the meaning of the word, "test," then reconsider your response.
The infrared spectrometer is the simplest method of showing it based on
the absorbtion lines in the spectrum. Or you could simply measure the
atmospheric transparency as a function of wavelength.
[/quote]
Oh brother. Here we go again. TC's question had nothing to do with
showing anything. It had to do with testing. More specifically it
has to do with quantifying the "greenhouse" property of a gas in terms
of real, measurable thermodynamic properties. Accordingly the end
result of such would be quantitative. Please make an effort to keep
these factors in mind when responding on this very important subject.
[quote]Only a third rate fuckwit would attempt to deny this.
[/quote]
Deny what? Please make a effort to be specific and explicit in your
response.
[quote]
Diatomic molecules
cannot be GHG on Earth
Why not?
The bonds are too strong. No significant modes that can be excited to
make transitions at prevailing temperatures on Earth.
[/quote]
Really? How, exactly, is this relevant. Keep in mind AGW is a
thermodynamic result. So, at best, your observation here is
incomplete. More specifically, do you have any experimental evidence
that shows that these observations about "bonds" and "significant
modes" is relevant in terms of thermodynamics. Or are we just suppose
to take your word on it?
[quote]but polyatomics can have (at least) one low
energy vibrational mode active in the longwave IR.
Why do you state this. Show us the experimental evidence that brought
you to this conclusion.
I can derive the equations of motion you inbred moronic halfwit. Oh and
again we can measure the IR spectra of the various greenhouse gasses
these days using FTIR spectrometry getting very high resolution.
[/quote]
You are talking tangential to the issue under discussion. You seem to
be assuming that we will all take your word that this has the
thermodynamic outcome that you profess. My suggestion for you is to
show us the experimental evidence that supports your vague worded
conclusion and let the chips fall where they may.
When I ask a question and only get part of the answer it raises a red
flag for me that you have something to hide.
[quote]Nice animation for teaching IR spectroscopy online at:
CO2 (a simple triatomic molecule)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
CH4 (more complex polyatomic)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
This is rather obvious science-based propaganda.
Not at all.
This is the *real* science as opposed to pathological dittohead lies.
[/quote]
At best it's incomplete. At worst it's a deliberate diversion from
the real issue which involve thermodynamics.
[quote]
Then to a first approximation
Approximation? Who was asking for approximations?
[/quote]
No response.
[quote]the greenhouse property of a gas is
determined by its absorbtion spectrum in the band that the planet
surface is emitting the most thermal radiation in. For the Earth this
translates as roughly wavelengths in the range 1-10um.
This is a start in that at least you've stated something definitive
enough to be testable. Now you need to support this assertion with
experimental evidence. For example, what you might do at first is
show us experimental evidence that provess that neither Nitrogen or
Oxigen don't fit this definition. Well, how about it?
Go and look at their absorbtion spectra then. You do some homework.
[/quote]
I've done so already. Its regrettable that I didn't come to the same
conclusion that you have. Maybe it's because I don't have direct
access to your imagination.
[quote]
There is also the secondary effect of the gas half life in the
atmosphere. CH4 is a potent short term GHG but is oxidised to CO2 in our
oxygen rich atmosphere with a half life of about a decade. The CO2 hangs
around for a lot longer.
This paragraph is nonsensical. You speak of a "secondary" effect but
then fail to relate it to AGW.
You are choosing to be obtuse.
[/quote]
You are choosing to obscure.
[quote]Rednecked fuckwit detected.
Are you really so stupid or do you have to work at it?
[/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: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:13 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:951ae76a-c1b9-4fb7-b0b0-1cd30730b3ad at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[...]>really, so its not personal, but my actions must prove “you” wrong
because none of the science “you” have seen, counters “your
suggestion”, and your not making it personal, now thats a joke, and no
excuse for your laziness…
.
Why, Mr Psychic, how fascinating this discovery must be for you - but it
fails to answer the question - unless you are claiming that it is all about
me. Eg. what has my laziness got to do with the calculation of greenhouse
properties from thermodynamic properties of fluids?
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software:http://software-1011.com;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Securityhttp://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
[/quote]
wow, i show how you are going about science with a tim casey centered
approach to the universe, and you call me psychic, thats interesting
as i only needed to read how you asked the question, ie in a very
personally biased manner, (kind of backwards and you should know that
by now). Which directly addresses my original point, don’t you think
you are on thin ice by only citing the woods experiment, which was how
many years ago? How fascinating it must be for you catching up to the
21st century... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:03:05 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:25 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
.
so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
.
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties.
The simplest test is does it have any vibrational modes that can be
excited at prevailing temperatures and pressures.
Pay attention. TC's question has to do with how to quantify the
"greenhouse" property of a gas in terms of real, measurable
thermodynamic properties. Not only did you avoid addressing this
question but your response was nonsensical. Get a dictionary and look
up the meaning of the word, "test," then reconsider your response.
The infrared spectrometer is the simplest method of showing it based on
the absorbtion lines in the spectrum. Or you could simply measure the
atmospheric transparency as a function of wavelength.
[/quote]
..
Apparently you never learned what quantity means.
While satellite sensors can measure radiation flux,
and estimates can be made of the proportions due to
various gases at different temperatures, there still
exists some question about the actual radiation flux
of a volume of air containing a trace gas like CO2.
Some thought should be given to the basic claim
that GHGs warm the Earth without a more rational
conclusion that GHGs moderate the temperatures
in the atmosphere, AGW is fixated on some fictional
"surface", but GISS uses air temperature a meter or
so above the ground recorded by sensors in boxes
in sunlight and which may not reflect the actual
high or low extremes of the surface itself.
Obviously direct sunlight temperatures are
not wanted, but if the "surface" is supposed to
be part of the science, then the lows experienced
by the surface during black sky radiation should
be included some way.
Excuse me for deleting your foul mouthed
non-scientific retort.
[quote]Diatomic molecules
cannot be GHG on Earth
Why not?
The bonds are too strong. No significant modes that can be excited to
make transitions at prevailing temperatures on Earth.
[/quote]
Ignoring the huge heat sink of the atmosphere
is a mistake, there is way to much emphasis on CO2
ability to "trap", "store", "retain", or absorb very much
energy.
[quote]but polyatomics can have (at least) one low
energy vibrational mode active in the longwave IR.
Why do you state this. Show us the experimental evidence that brought
you to this conclusion.
I can derive the equations of motion you inbred moronic halfwit. Oh and
again we can measure the IR spectra of the various greenhouse gasses
these days using FTIR spectrometry getting very high resolution.
[/quote]
And get a value for radiation flux of a cubic meter
of CO2 in a hydrogen-oxygen suspension at 390 PPMV?
[quote]Nice animation for teaching IR spectroscopy online at:
CO2 (a simple triatomic molecule)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
CH4 (more complex polyatomic)http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
This is rather obvious science-based propaganda.
Not at all.
This is the *real* science as opposed to pathological dittohead lies.
[/quote]
But it fails to provide any numbers for flux.
[quote]Then to a first approximation
Approximation? Who was asking for approximations?
the greenhouse property of a gas is
determined by its absorbtion spectrum in the band that the planet
surface is emitting the most thermal radiation in. For the Earth this
translates as roughly wavelengths in the range 1-10um.
This is a start in that at least you've stated something definitive
enough to be testable. Now you need to support this assertion with
experimental evidence. For example, what you might do at first is
show us experimental evidence that provess that neither Nitrogen or
Oxigen don't fit this definition. Well, how about it?
Go and look at their absorbtion spectra then. You do some homework.
[/quote]
Is it really that cut and dried that it can be said
they absorb or radiate NO IR at all?
[quote]There is also the secondary effect of the gas half life in the
atmosphere. CH4 is a potent short term GHG but is oxidised to CO2 in our
oxygen rich atmosphere with a half life of about a decade. The CO2 hangs
around for a lot longer.
This paragraph is nonsensical. You speak of a "secondary" effect but
then fail to relate it to AGW.
You are choosing to be obtuse.
Are you really so stupid or do you have to work at it?
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
That seems to be obvious with the concentration
increasing, was it mentioned to distract from the issue
of quantity of energy that the current CO2 concentration
can radiate or absorb and exchange with the 2,000 times
as many N2 molecules and the 500 O2 molecules? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:951ae76a-c1b9-4fb7-b0b0-1cd30730b3ad at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[...]
[quote]really, so its not personal, but my actions must prove “you” wrong
because none of the science “you” have seen, counters “your
suggestion”, and your not making it personal, now thats a joke, and no
excuse for your laziness…
..[/quote]
Why, Mr Psychic, how fascinating this discovery must be for you - but it
fails to answer the question - unless you are claiming that it is all about
me. Eg. what has my laziness got to do with the calculation of greenhouse
properties from thermodynamic properties of fluids?
..
--
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:11 am
|
|