| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2007 05:23:37 PM |
| Object: |
Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
Contemporary Grenhouse theory is that 230Wm-2 is radiated from the
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved. This makes a surplus of 7Wm-2 that
is being received and not radiated.
The 230Wm-2 is supposedly from satellite measurements and calculation
of the averages. This is done with the concept of albedo in which
infrared are reflected.
The 237Wm-2 received must be done from calculations. There is no point
of the atmosphere to directly measure this. Outside the atmosphere the
solar constant is 1370Wm-2. Only 1000Wm-2 make it to the surface.
7Wm-2 means 7 Joules per second for each square meter.
The earth at radius 6300 kilometers has about 4.9E14 sq meters surface
area. A little more at the top of the atmosphere.
4.9E14 x 7 = 3.49E15 Joules per second, supposedly received above what
is radiated.
The atmosphere has about 5.27E21 grams.
With O2 20% and N2 80%, the average molar weight around 29.
The molar heat capacity of air is about 29 joules per mole per degC
So heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is around 5.27E21 Joules per
deg.
Heat capacity of entire atmosphere divided by Joules per second of
entire earth at 7Wm-2,
5.21E21 / 3.49E15 / 3600 / 24 = 17.5 days
At the rate of 7Wm-2, the quantity of heat to raise the entire
atmosphere 1 degC witl be retained in 17.5 days.
What kind of sense does this make?
These calculations for radiation receieved, insolation, and energy
equilibrium of energy radiated to space and measured by satellites are
bogus and meaningless.
Perhaps there is some validity of the 230Wm-2 average measured. The
rest is theoretical calculation and makes no sense.
Deatherage
.
|
|
| User: "Nomen Lapetos" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
14 Mar 2007 09:57:33 PM |
|
|
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173911017.640855.211890@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Contemporary Grenhouse theory is that 230Wm-2 is radiated from the
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved. This makes a surplus of 7Wm-2 that
is being received and not radiated.
you forget the clouds reflect about 25% of sunlight back into space.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
14 Mar 2007 10:46:45 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 8:57 pm, "Nomen Lapetos" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
<kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173911017.640855.211890@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Contemporary Grenhouse theory is that 230Wm-2 is radiated from the
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved. This makes a surplus of 7Wm-2 that
is being received and not radiated.
you forget the clouds reflect about 25% of sunlight back into space.
That's already considered of the 237W recieved. Considering albedo at .
31.
For the full OFFICIAL version of this elemental *****.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf
http://www.spenvis.oma.be/spenvis/help/background/illumination/illumination.html
Any way you look at it, a 7Wm-2 surplus of energy recieved to
radiatied at the top of the atmosphere makes no actual sense at all.
This means an accumulation of energy that would very quickly increase
the temperature of the atmosphere if it were true. The incoming values
are completely theoretically derived.
This is also true of the basic idea that water vapor retains 75Wm-2
and CO2 32Wm-2. This is a misuse of these terms from physics.
While Wm-2 is reflected in temperatures, it is a quantity of energy
per second at the velocity of light. If radiation is restricted and
higher temperature is caused, the radiation density increases as a
fourth power to temperature. If the earth's temperature were increased
by restricted radiation, this would be the density of the radiation
leaving the earth. Only in smaller aperature.
This is rank ***** and completely not a valid application of
physics. If it is not, someone please explain how this quantity of
heat is retained without direct effect on temperature. This simplistic
use of the concept of Wm-2 is insensible.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
14 Mar 2007 11:01:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 "Nomen Lapetos" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173911017.640855.211890@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Contemporary Grenhouse theory is that 230Wm-2 is radiated from the
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved. This makes a surplus of 7Wm-2 that
is being received and not radiated.
you forget the clouds reflect about 25% of sunlight back into space.
That may be part of the reason for only 237 Wm^2
to the surface or 342 Wm^2 to the atmosphere instead of
the full 1000 watts average per square meter reaching
the ground in full sunlight.
Apparently the modeling uses an average of
24 hours and may even use the average insolation
numbers for various locations to get from 1000 down
to 342 or less.
There are so many different contributors to
the modeling and data compiling that it is difficult
to even find out where the concepts and numbers
come from.
And it isn't electricity, which is what the
unit watt is conventionally, heat energy is usually
in calories or BTU per hour.
There is so much variability in many different
inputs, like evapotranspiration of trees according to
the availability of ground water (each pound of water
evaporated per hour cools the tree area by about 330
watts). Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
So converting the flow of 342 watts per square
meter constant average flow of energy/power to the
change in heat content of the air, ground, or ocean
is a major chore, which probably makes the
modeling a vain undertaking.
Each different chemical element in the soil,
in the gases of the atmosphere, and the different
salinity of the world's water have a different heat
capacity per unit of volume or mass, and the fact
that water undergoes two different phase changes
quite often creates a near unsolvable problem,
as the latent heat of vaporization of one pound
of water is 1000 times the heat energy needed
to raise the temperature of one pound of water
one degree F., and the latent heat of fusion of
a pound of water equal to the heat energy
needed to raise one pound of water about
80 degrees F.
This all, makes, in my opinion, the concept
of an average mean global temperature a silly
concept.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
17 Mar 2007 12:48:15 AM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 10:01 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
You cut these charlatan's too much slack. These numbers are completely
theoretical. Even what they refer to as 'satellite data', is
theoretically derived. They estimate albedo at the top of the
atmosphere, as uniform for all the earth and not in consideration of
variation in cloud cover. The consider clouds to be responsible for
heating. They show graphs that look like readings from instruments.
But they are all derived from theoretical models. In the article by
Kiehl, he states that the discrepency between satellites and even one
sattellite is up to 9Wm-2. It is actually far beyond their theoretical
capabilty of a few Watts, to define any values which they attribute to
GHGs. Graphs drawn from the same solar constant from different
sattellites give very different results. This article and theory
departs from scientific analyses and becomes completely hypothetical
with no scientifically determined basis for the assumptions and
conclusions.
They use the Wm-2 as a quantity. If used as an average for the total
area of the earth, it is a quantity. The 342 is exactly the solar
constant divided by four. This is supposedly the quantity recieved of
solar radiation and the quantity that must be lost by radiation or
reflection. This is actually meaningless in relevance to temperatures
or average temperatures since surface temperatures are due to actual
recieved radiation. An actual analyses of surface temperatures and
radiation recieved shows no validity in this value of 342 in
determining temperatures. This means of determining this average may
reflect a equilibrium of the outgoing radiation to incoming radiation,
but it means nothing for actual mean temperature or average
temperatures. To use the Boltzman Stefan equantion as merely a means
of determining quantity by surface area, denies it's real importance
which is the density of the radiation field per sq cm.
You'd think that they could even do math. Although you may consider
these quantities by this strict adherence to surface area, this gives
you no point to determine average temperature. These values of
radiatied energy are a fourth power to temperature. The average of the
energy and the temperature this may denote is not the same as the
average temperature and the energy this denotes.
The earth with an average temperature of 57F, has temperatures from
-50F in Antartica to 130F. This leads to a discrepency of about 15F to
20F for the average of the energies, and the average of the
temperatures. They have no valid application for energy of radiation
and average temperature.
5.67E-8 x T^4 = Wm-2
Therefore their computation from the 237W of an average temperature of
255K is invalid. This is their basic theory. They say that with only
an O2 and N2 atmosphere, the average temperature of the earth would be
255K which is -18C or -2F. Then they say the presence of GHGs, retains
enough heat energy to raise the temperature 33C to the normal average
temperature of 287K, 13C or 57F, which is the average temperature near
the surface of the earth. According to Stefans law, this is a 63%
increase in total energy or energy per sq cm.
It is impossible that these gases in the atmosphere are retaining this
much heat and that they do not restrict incoming radiation. The sun
radiates 50% of it's energy in visble light, 9% in the ultraviolet,
and 41% in the infrared. Almost all of the energy from the solar
constant that does not make it to the ground is in the thermal
frequencies. The climatolgists of AGW do not give a valid scientific
evaluation of this. The entirely try to hide the fact that 1000Wm-2
are recieved at the surface. They only wish to work with their
averages which they manipulate to show effect from existing GHGs and
support their fanatic belief that very slight increase in CO2
concentration could affect the temperature balance of the earth.
They are pushing this bogus theory and fraud to the point of the
highest level of criminal intent, with their insistence of controlling
or modifiying peoples lives.
Suppose you have an asteroid with a quarter mile radius. This is small
enough to not have internal temperature increase from gravitational
compression. If it is in the solar constant of earth, and rotating
slowly, perhaps in 24 hrs like earth, what will the internal
temperature at the center be?
The side receiving the radiation will be absorbing and conducting heat
to the interior. The rate that the heat is conducted through the solid
is dependant on temperature, (higher temperature conducts greater rate
of energy). The temperature at the surface in direct radiation is
therefore the energy being recieved minus the energy being transferred
from the surface by conduction and the energy radiated according to
the surface's temperature. The interior is absorbing energy via
conduction.
As the asteroid rotates and the surface goes into shadow, the heat in
the surface is radiated and the temperature goes down and the rate of
energy radiated from the surface in the dark goes down. The very
surface would quickly go to near absolute zero, but for the heat being
transfered back from the interior as conduction. The rate that the
energy is lost by radiation is much faster than the rate that the
conduction brings heat to the surface. It will only be several meters
deep into the asteroid that the material retains the temperature near
the temperature that it was when the surface above it was recieving
radiation. The overal quantity of energy being radiated during the
time of darkness will not be equivelent to the energy that is recieved
during the time in the radiation. At a certain depth, heat energy will
be stored and not lost when the surface is not recieving radiation.
As time goes on, the interior of the asteroid will achieve the
temperature of near 121C. Because the time will come when the interior
has absorbed enough energy so that when the surface begins absorbing
energy, it will warm the zone of a few meters that loses most of heat
during the dark period and it will be recieving energy more than what
it can lose by conduction to the interior. The surface will then reach
the temperature at which it radiates equivelent to the incoming solar
radiation. The zone that loses heat near the surface, acts as
insulation for the interior since it cannot transfer heat as rapidly
as the heat is transfered into the interior at the higher
temperatures.
When heat is transfered by conduction, the temperature is most
important and denotes the rate that heat is being transfered. Heat
will not conduct and cause a higher temperature than the temperature
from which it is conducted.
This shows that there is no value in dividing the disk by the sphere
for input radiation. This gives no valid reckoning of internal
temperature or average surface tempertures. It only can denote the
equilvelent of recieved to radiated energy. The temperature and
radiation from the area of the dark side of the body, has nothing to
do with the absorbed energy on the lit side because the rate of
conduction is not at the velocity of light as is the input radiation.
A simple analyses of the moon and it's temperatures shows this. The
asteroid of a quarter mile radius receives energy according to pi r^2.
But it doesn't lose this energy according to 4 pi r^2. The center
recieves the same energy regardless of the point in rotation. The side
towards the sun reaches a temperature near or equal to recieved
radiation and is thus radiating almost all of the energy that is being
absorbed. None of this is transfered to the other side by conduction.
The side in the dark is radiating the energy from the interior near to
the surface that it has stored from it's time in the light.
The Boltzman Stefan equation is actually in ergs per sq cm. It is
valid for a radiative body at 1 cm from it's surface. It is a
calibration of the density of the energy of the radiation that is
traveling through the plane of a sq cm per second at the velocity of
light. Although with such an average, quantities of energy in Joules
or ergs can be derived with definite surface area. But this value of
Boltzman Stefan denotes an energy density of the radiation field. It
is the density that denotes the temperature of a surface that recieves
this energy.
A piece of steel perpendicular in the solar constant will reach this
temperature in it's interior and go no higher. The side in the dark
will at it's extreme surface be not far from absolute zero and radiate
accordingly to this low temperture. The side to the sun will radiate
below the recieved radiation according to the energy conducted through
the steel which is being radiated on the other side. The interior will
be at nearly equivelent temperature to the density of the recieved
radiation, for the solar constant, 121C.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russel Sprout" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
17 Mar 2007 04:58:27 AM |
|
|
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174110495.848788.115480@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:01 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
You cut these charlatan's too much slack. These numbers are completely
theoretical. Even what they refer to as 'satellite data', is
theoretically derived. They estimate albedo at the top of the
atmosphere, as uniform for all the earth and not in consideration of
variation in cloud cover. The consider clouds to be responsible for
heating. They show graphs that look like readings from instruments.
But they are all derived from theoretical models. In the article by
Kiehl, he states that the discrepency between satellites and even one
sattellite is up to 9Wm-2. It is actually far beyond their theoretical
capabilty of a few Watts, to define any values which they attribute to
GHGs. Graphs drawn from the same solar constant from different
sattellites give very different results. This article and theory
departs from scientific analyses and becomes completely hypothetical
with no scientifically determined basis for the assumptions and
conclusions.
Whatever...
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Umweltphysik_fuer_alle/SS06/Umweltphysik-fuer-Alle_Klima--7.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? Academie der beiten de meiten. |
19 Mar 2007 07:03:56 PM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:58 am, "Russel Sprout" <s...@idontthinkso.net> wrote:
<kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174110495.848788.115480@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:01 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
You cut these charlatan's too much slack. These numbers are completely
theoretical. Even what they refer to as 'satellite data', is
theoretically derived. They estimate albedo at the top of the
atmosphere, as uniform for all the earth and not in consideration of
variation in cloud cover. The consider clouds to be responsible for
heating. They show graphs that look like readings from instruments.
But they are all derived from theoretical models. In the article by
Kiehl, he states that the discrepency between satellites and even one
sattellite is up to 9Wm-2. It is actually far beyond their theoretical
capabilty of a few Watts, to define any values which they attribute to
GHGs. Graphs drawn from the same solar constant from different
sattellites give very different results. This article and theory
departs from scientific analyses and becomes completely hypothetical
with no scientifically determined basis for the assumptions and
conclusions.
Whatever...
;> http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Umweltphysik
Der academie shows a picture of Planck, and then proceeds to directly
insult him by changing his radiation formula. Planck's hypothesis and
main contribution to science is his constant, h. This constant only
has meaning in relevance to cycles per second or, v. This gives
integral multiples of h. These values of hv, can be added and
subtracted as sums. Qm sees fit to debase Planck's formula. QM is
obsessed with waves, like classical physics, and is unable to quantify
heat and energy like classical physics.
Planck's radiation law is 8 pi hv^3/c^3 1/loghv/kt - 1, to convert
the v/c to wavelength is invalid, and gives a false curve. It is very
easy to draw or graph a curve on a page. This does not make it a valid
distribution curve. In the valid distribution curve, the area beneath
the curve is directly proportional to energy.
Notice how the distribution in their graph for Wiens law increases
intenstiy in the infrareds when it is done in frequency. It is a hoax
and deliberate fraud to only recognize 'shortwave' radiation from the
sun.
In grenhouse theory it is derived that the average insolation at the
earth's surface would be 236Wm-2 and this would denote the average
temperature without grenhouse gases. This may denote a quantity if
strictly used with surface area. But this mean energy would be the
average of energies that would denote an average temperature much
lower. At least 10C. The addition of Wm-2 of the greenhouse gases
encounters the same problem and is very far from the mean energy
needed to bolster the temperature to an actual average temperature of
287K, 13C or 57F.
This is absolutely critical to the theory of grenhouse gases, because
if the effect of existing grenhouse gases cannot be shown, there is
not rational for the hysteria of minute increases in concentrations.
But who needs math if you got a bunch of neat looking graphs
completely derived from theoretical modeling and a bunch of ***** poor
mathematicians who make up a bunch of professional looking
mathematical scribbles???.
And a bunch of idiots in consensus of something that is very provable
to be invalid???
hahahahcrackpotshahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Idiot Hansons Cracked Pot Army" |
|
| Title: Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary recieved raditation. |
19 Mar 2007 07:21:03 PM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 4:03 pm, wrote:
hahahahcrackpotshahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
Deatherage
Death-Rag said...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/58a4d69ec69d19e5
Death-Rag said: Somtimes I talk neccessary analyses psuedo
evalutation
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/086634847d9203b3
Death-Rag said: resposibility SKEPTISM wern't grenhouse gases recieved
analyses intitial grenhouse gases.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/cb3146cdcedd19dd
Death-Rag said: awfull funny grenhouse sevaral quantiies per secind
grenhouse theory, appication mathmatics laboratoy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3840a64f8bf17935
Death-Rag said: apptitude parasitc validilty repitition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/aa4c1b9fc293bd82
Death-Rag said: continous specta oscilator oscilator intenstiy
intenstity continulally abiltity Moderen particuilate
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/15926ce35b797481
Death-Rag said: analyses horsehit analyses guilability criticise
disgard raditation Phobiacs transfering ofthe analyses conhesive
grenhouse 'grenhouse gases' analyse pervasivness 'grenhouse theory'.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5597a473e27cacb8
Death-Rag said: vapoer anlyses transfering dissapated recieving
equivelent inabliltty continully transfering recieved grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/4a38a6c8e3b292b3
Death-rag said: notalbly medieavel deliberatly discusion brillliant
hypothessis' electromagntic GRENHOUSE equipartion deleoped raditation
quanlification popstulate YOu analyses temperture occuring recieving
falsly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6abb9edf7934e28d
Death-Rag said: continully eluciadated arrises grenhouse fuctuations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/442155a915794499
Death-Rag said: fulctuation 'science communtiy' aggrees
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/663a6c3e99db32e7
Death-Rag said: Crankpot grenhouse Farenheit bouyant continous
equivelent radition transfering dissapated habital grenhouse grenhouse
gase empircal arguement acutal
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/04221b76dbe700f5
Death-Rag said: continous radition radites frauduent scientifc
analyses restricition My limited education in physics grenhouse
genertation continous mokecules grenhouse freqeucnies radition fouth
power equivelent recieving discription dissapates phyisicists.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2281f2fbe1a4ec80
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory religous fanatics analyses arguements
analyses discusion instead of insultive characterzations Alvagadros
number insultive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5673cdd6199a93b0
Death-Rag said: A true analyses grenhouse gases neccasary to adjuct
occuring culmulative.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0b561a597665319e
Death-Rag said: vegitation Grenhouse gase theory grenhouse gases,
grenhouse gases rule cocentrations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/953c4c4f50d37db0
Death-Rag said: transfering recieve dumbnest recieved grenhouse
*****.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/db1dd2300c052d7d
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory transfering composium themelses
grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227b4dd47714bfe8
Death-Rag said: This is a vey serious matter, severly uneccasarilly
grenhouse theory. 'grenhouse' gases anlyses recieved fouth power
recieving recievese grenhouse establishement.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5f7cf0a57c32ba35
Death-Rag said: neccesities grenhouse gases intitial theory of
grenhouse gases
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/91115ba9958bbb82
Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition
recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary
recieved raditation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3b1987f4ba6567a6
Death-Rag said: The analyses evaportation, inductrialization occured.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/161b7a7d02ffb63c
Death-Rag said: inagurated succedded nobel favoratism committiess
benifited widespead modifing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a Watt? Academie der beiten de meiten. |
24 Mar 2007 10:49:30 AM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 6:03 pm, wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:58 am, "Russel Sprout" <s...@idontthinkso.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1174110495.848788.115480@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:01 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
You cut these charlatan's too much slack. These numbers are completely
theoretical. Even what they refer to as 'satellite data', is
theoretically derived. They estimate albedo at the top of the
atmosphere, as uniform for all the earth and not in consideration of
variation in cloud cover. The consider clouds to be responsible for
heating. They show graphs that look like readings from instruments.
But they are all derived from theoretical models. In the article by
Kiehl, he states that the discrepency between satellites and even one
sattellite is up to 9Wm-2. It is actually far beyond their theoretical
capabilty of a few Watts, to define any values which they attribute to
GHGs. Graphs drawn from the same solar constant from different
sattellites give very different results. This article and theory
departs from scientific analyses and becomes completely hypothetical
with no scientifically determined basis for the assumptions and
conclusions.
Whatever...
;>http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Umweltphysik
Der academie shows a picture of Planck, and then proceeds to directly
insult him by changing his radiation formula. Planck's hypothesis and
main contribution to science is his constant, h. This constant only
has meaning in relevance to cycles per second or, v. This gives
integral multiples of h. These values of hv, can be added and
subtracted as sums. Qm sees fit to debase Planck's formula. QM is
obsessed with waves, like classical physics, and is unable to quantify
heat and energy like classical physics.
Planck's radiation law is 8 pi hv^3/c^3 1/loghv/kt - 1, to convert
the v/c to wavelength is invalid, and gives a false curve. It is very
easy to draw or graph a curve on a page. This does not make it a valid
distribution curve. In the valid distribution curve, the area beneath
the curve is directly proportional to energy.
Notice how the distribution in their graph for Wiens law increases
intenstiy in the infrareds when it is done in frequency. It is a hoax
and deliberate fraud to only recognize 'shortwave' radiation from the
sun.
In grenhouse theory it is derived that the average insolation at the
earth's surface would be 236Wm-2 and this would denote the average
temperature without grenhouse gases. This may denote a quantity if
strictly used with surface area. But this mean energy would be the
average of energies that would denote an average temperature much
lower. At least 10C. The addition of Wm-2 of the greenhouse gases
encounters the same problem and is very far from the mean energy
needed to bolster the temperature to an actual average temperature of
287K, 13C or 57F.
This is absolutely critical to the theory of grenhouse gases, because
if the effect of existing grenhouse gases cannot be shown, there is
not rational for the hysteria of minute increases in concentrations.
But who needs math if you got a bunch of neat looking graphs
completely derived from theoretical modeling and a bunch of ***** poor
mathematicians who make up a bunch of professional looking
mathematical scribbles???.
And a bunch of idiots in consensus of something that is very provable
to be invalid???
hahahahcrackpotshahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies-
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Umweltphysik_fuer_alle/SS06/Umweltphysik-fuer-Alle_Klima--7.pdf
Quote from pg 11,
""At any wavelength the Emissivity of a body (or gas!) is exactly
equal to its absorptivity."'"
This rendition of Kirchoff's theorem has no relevant meaning. Often
visible light is absorbed, it's energy is absorbed into the heat of
the substance at it's surface, and it does not re-radiate in these
same frequencies.
According to Max Born, der Academie der Beiten de Meiten, is also in
deliberate alteration of Kirchoffs theorem. Kirchoff was the head of
German Physics until he handed this postion over to Planck. The
careful experimental work of the German physicists of the late 19th
century that led to the proper analyses of light and energy by Planck
and Einstein, was based upon the theorem of Kirchoff.
Kirchoffs theorem according to Max Born, 'Atomic Physics', pg
205,,,"the ratio of the emissive and absorptive powers of a body
depends only on the temperature of the body and not on it's nature;
otherewise radiative equilibrium could not exist within a cavity
containing substances of different kinds.""
He further defines 'blackbody' radiation in relation to the energy
that is absorbed as to that which is reflected. The actual truth is
that thermal frequencies are uniformly absorbed and not reflected. The
temperature of a gas at any normal temperatures is only dependent upon
the density of the radiation field and not upon the particular gas.
Overall energy is not affected by spectroscopic 'bands' of lighter or
darker emissions in the continous spectra of the thermal frequencies.
This is what laboratory investigation reveals, and why such laboratory
reference is omitted from der Academie's expostulation of their
theoretics to support their false conclusions of AGW and grenhouse gas
theory.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crackpot Zombie Hordes" |
|
| Title: Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary recieved raditation. |
24 Mar 2007 04:21:41 PM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 7:49 am, wrote:
German Physics until he handed this postion over to Planck.
century that led to the proper analyses of light and energy by Planck
205,,,"the ratio of the emissive and absorptive powers of a body
otherewise radiative equilibrium could not exist within a cavity
darker emissions in the continous spectra of the thermal frequencies.
theoretics to support their false conclusions of AGW and grenhouse gas
Deatherage
Death-Rag said...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/58a4d69ec69d19e5
Death-Rag said: Somtimes I talk neccessary analyses psuedo
evalutation
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/086634847d9203b3
Death-Rag said: resposibility SKEPTISM wern't grenhouse gases recieved
analyses intitial grenhouse gases.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/cb3146cdcedd19dd
Death-Rag said: awfull funny grenhouse sevaral quantiies per secind
grenhouse theory, appication mathmatics laboratoy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3840a64f8bf17935
Death-Rag said: apptitude parasitc validilty repitition.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/aa4c1b9fc293bd82
Death-Rag said: continous specta oscilator oscilator intenstiy
intenstity continulally abiltity Moderen particuilate
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/15926ce35b797481
Death-Rag said: analyses horsehit analyses guilability criticise
disgard raditation Phobiacs transfering ofthe analyses conhesive
grenhouse 'grenhouse gases' analyse pervasivness 'grenhouse theory'.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5597a473e27cacb8
Death-Rag said: vapoer anlyses transfering dissapated recieving
equivelent inabliltty continully transfering recieved grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/4a38a6c8e3b292b3
Death-rag said: notalbly medieavel deliberatly discusion brillliant
hypothessis' electromagntic GRENHOUSE equipartion deleoped raditation
quanlification popstulate YOu analyses temperture occuring recieving
falsly
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6abb9edf7934e28d
Death-Rag said: continully eluciadated arrises grenhouse fuctuations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/442155a915794499
Death-Rag said: fulctuation 'science communtiy' aggrees
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/663a6c3e99db32e7
Death-Rag said: Crankpot grenhouse Farenheit bouyant continous
equivelent radition transfering dissapated habital grenhouse grenhouse
gase empircal arguement acutal
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/04221b76dbe700f5
Death-Rag said: continous radition radites frauduent scientifc
analyses restricition My limited education in physics grenhouse
genertation continous mokecules grenhouse freqeucnies radition fouth
power equivelent recieving discription dissapates phyisicists.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/2281f2fbe1a4ec80
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory religous fanatics analyses arguements
analyses discusion instead of insultive characterzations Alvagadros
number insultive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5673cdd6199a93b0
Death-Rag said: A true analyses grenhouse gases neccasary to adjuct
occuring culmulative.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0b561a597665319e
Death-Rag said: vegitation Grenhouse gase theory grenhouse gases,
grenhouse gases rule cocentrations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/953c4c4f50d37db0
Death-Rag said: transfering recieve dumbnest recieved grenhouse
*****.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/db1dd2300c052d7d
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory transfering composium themelses
grenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/227b4dd47714bfe8
Death-Rag said: This is a vey serious matter, severly uneccasarilly
grenhouse theory. 'grenhouse' gases anlyses recieved fouth power
recieving recievese grenhouse establishement.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5f7cf0a57c32ba35
Death-Rag said: neccesities grenhouse gases intitial theory of
grenhouse gases
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/91115ba9958bbb82
Death-Rag said: enough phyics Actuall applicaton recieving radition
recieving equivelent recieves You inablility metthod Particulary
recieved raditation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3b1987f4ba6567a6
Death-Rag said: The analyses evaportation, inductrialization occured.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/161b7a7d02ffb63c
Death-Rag said: inagurated succedded nobel favoratism committiess
benifited widespead modifing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? Academie der beiten de meiten. |
19 Mar 2007 09:06:35 PM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 6:03 pm, wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:58 am, "Russel Sprout" <s...@idontthinkso.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1174110495.848788.115480@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:01 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
You cut these charlatan's too much slack. These numbers are completely
theoretical. Even what they refer to as 'satellite data', is
theoretically derived. They estimate albedo at the top of the
atmosphere, as uniform for all the earth and not in consideration of
variation in cloud cover. The consider clouds to be responsible for
heating. They show graphs that look like readings from instruments.
But they are all derived from theoretical models. In the article by
Kiehl, he states that the discrepency between satellites and even one
sattellite is up to 9Wm-2. It is actually far beyond their theoretical
capabilty of a few Watts, to define any values which they attribute to
GHGs. Graphs drawn from the same solar constant from different
sattellites give very different results. This article and theory
departs from scientific analyses and becomes completely hypothetical
with no scientifically determined basis for the assumptions and
conclusions.
Whatever...
;>http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/
Umweltphysik
This is a very intensive website for AGW. Notice how little science is
actually in this complete presentation. Nowhere is there a fundamental
substantiation of the property of CO2 to retain heat. It is taken as
foregone. There is no reference to any laboratory data. There is not
even reference to the Hoax exhibit of the CO2 encased in a glass
containter or similar material. Maybe even these charlatans know the
danger of presenting the hoax exhibit as a scientific demonstration.
Notice how basic data is not presented. The first graph shows an
average solar insolation. It never gives the maximum of this
insolation at solar noon. This is an important piece of basic data.
They wish to hide this fact in their continual theoretical modeling
since it indicates a surface temperature which does not coincide with
the warming supposedly caused by grenhouse gases.
Der academie shows a picture of Planck, and then proceeds to directly
insult him by changing his radiation formula. Planck's hypothesis and
main contribution to science is his constant, h. This constant only
has meaning in relevance to cycles per second or, v. This gives
integral multiples of h. These values of hv, can be added and
subtracted as sums. Qm sees fit to debase Planck's formula. QM is
obsessed with waves, like classical physics, and is unable to
quantify
heat and energy like classical physics.
Planck's radiation law is 8 pi hv^3/c^3 1/loghv/kt - 1, to convert
the v/c to wavelength is invalid, and gives a false curve. It is very
easy to draw or graph a curve on a page. This does not make it a
valid
distribution curve. In the valid distribution curve, the area beneath
the curve is directly proportional to energy. These AGWists wish to
hide the fact that 41% of the sun's energy is in infrared frequencies
which are not qualitive different in any way to the radiation of the
earth. This avoids the question of grenhouse gases blocking incoming
radiation.
Notice how the distribution in their graph for Wiens law increases
intenstiy in the infrareds when it is done in frequency. It is a hoax
and deliberate fraud to only recognize 'shortwave' radiation from the
sun. This is deliberately ingnoring at least 400Wm-2 of solar energy
incident upon the upper atmosphere.
In grenhouse theory it is derived that the average insolation at the
earth's surface would be 236Wm-2 and this would denote the average
temperature without grenhouse gases. This is based on an albedo or
reflected radiation of .31. This definition of albedo is at the top of
the atmosphere, for all frequencies of solar radiation and considers
all parts of the earth with the same albedo and without consideration
of variation in cloud cover.
The 236Wm-2 may denote a quantity if strictly used with surface area.
But this mean energy would be the average of energies that would
denote an average temperature much lower. At least 10C. The addition
of Wm-2 of the greenhouse gases encounters the same problem and is
very far from the mean energy needed to bolster the temperature to an
actual average temperature to 287K, 13C or 57F.
And there is no fundamental assesment of the actual radiation and it's
energy that produces the increase of 63% energy from 255K to 287K.
This is absolutely critical to the theory of grenhouse gases, because
if the effect of existing grenhouse gases cannot be shown, there is
not rational for the hysteria of minute increases in concentrations.
But who needs math if you got a bunch of neat looking graphs
completely derived from theoretical modeling and a bunch of ***** poor
mathematicians who make up a bunch of professional looking
mathematical scribbles???.
And a bunch of idiots in consensus of something that is very provable
to be invalid???
hahahahcrackpotshahahahahcrackpotshahahahah
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
17 Mar 2007 08:42:42 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 3:58 am, "Russel Sprout" <s...@idontthinkso.net> wrote:
<kdth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174110495.848788.115480@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:01 pm, Joe Fischer <j...@bigscreencomputers.com> wrote:
Note that watts per square meter is a rate
of energy flow or power, not a quantity of heat, while
a calorie or BTU is a unit of quantity of heat energy.
You cut these charlatan's too much slack. These numbers are completely
theoretical. Even what they refer to as 'satellite data', is
theoretically derived. They estimate albedo at the top of the
atmosphere, as uniform for all the earth and not in consideration of
variation in cloud cover. The consider clouds to be responsible for
heating. They show graphs that look like readings from instruments.
But they are all derived from theoretical models. In the article by
Kiehl, he states that the discrepency between satellites and even one
sattellite is up to 9Wm-2. It is actually far beyond their theoretical
capabilty of a few Watts, to define any values which they attribute to
GHGs. Graphs drawn from the same solar constant from different
sattellites give very different results. This article and theory
departs from scientific analyses and becomes completely hypothetical
with no scientifically determined basis for the assumptions and
conclusions.
Whatever...
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Umweltphysik>
- Show quoted text -
Your website starts out trying to be scientific, but quickly begins
supplementing theoretical models for, and as, scientific data. I like
the way you breezed through the Planck curve without noticing that the
intensity of radiation of the infrareds is always greater at greater
temperature. Then you ignore this as you attribute incoming energy to
only 'shortwave'. Then you have the hoaky little graph with the energy
distribution 'normalized', and with equal area of the earths radiation
with the sun. This is stupid. In a proper Planck graph, area beneath
the curve is exactly proportional to energy and equal to Boltzman
Stefan for energy to Temperature,,,5.67E-5 ergs, cm-2,sec-1,degK-4.
If you actually graph distribution of the sun with the proper Planck
formula of ,,,8 pi hv^3/ c^3 1 / loghv/kT - 1 , and the earth in
proper scale in which the actual area beneath the curve represents the
energy. And then scale the suns distribution with the area exactly the
ratio of area to the earths energy,(however you figure it, 230W?)
You see the fact that the sun radiates in the infrared with much more
energy in all the higher infrared frequencies up to at least 7um. And
the sun radiates through the band of 10 to 18um.
The sun radiates at least 400Wm-2 in these lower (longwave)
frequencies.
Your false science distorts and hides this very clear fact.
But that would be doing science, to give this accurate portrayal of
the suns radiation and would not serve your belief in CO2 trapped heat
going to cause catastrophe.
These later graphs at this site which attempt to show or infer a
qualitive difference to the sun's and earth's radiation are part of
the AGW fraud and the ***** poor theoretical sciences.
Boltzman Stefan is a density of energy. You only use it as an
insolation average. But that intitial graph of average insolation at
the surface diurnally even shows the invalidity of your later
attribution of average temperature from the ratio pi r^2 / 4 pi r^2.
The temperatures at the surface are determined be density of energy
recieved. The rate that this energy is lost from the surface
determines nightime temperatures.
At all point the temperature of the atmosphere is determined by the
heat passing through it of that which is absorbed directly at the
surface or in the lower 6-8 kilometers.
The fact that the atmosphere is opaque from 2um causes the reduction
in the solar constant at the surface and the slower rate of heat loss
at night than the moon.
Almost all of the visible light reaches the surface. 1% of the solar
constant is absorbed as ultraviolet in the stratosphere. The lower
atmosphere contains half of all the atmosphere in the lower 6
kilometers. Much of the higher energy infrared is absorbed in this
region by the air molecules. The lower thermal frequencies do not pass
the stratosphere and are the primary cause of the thermal inversion of
the stratosphere in which the top of the stratosphere is around 27degF
while the top of the troposphere and bottom of the stratosphere is
around -70F.
So add it up, science buffs. With the sun at zenith:
solar constant 1370 W, 50% viible = 680W,,,9%ultraviolet = 123W
41%infrared = 560 W
1000Wm-2 makes it to the surface.
Almost all of the visible and most of the ultraviolet make it to the
surface. The infrareds beyond 2um that reach the surface are mostly
absorbed and retransmitted at lower frequencies which causes the
trophs in the infrareds. The air transmits well around 10 microns as
this is the most common energy state for the earth's temperature. This
is also a region that CO2 radiates it's energy very well which
probably is the cause of the low emission regions of it's continous
spectra.
The bulk of the missing 370W of the solar constant is in the infrareds
from the sun which do not pass through the atmosphere. Careful
scientific analyses instead of graphs from theoretical modeling,
proves this fact.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
17 Mar 2007 06:26:50 PM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2007 06:42:42 -0700, wrote:
But that would be doing science, to give this accurate portrayal of
the suns radiation and would not serve your belief in CO2 trapped heat
going to cause catastrophe.
OK, clever clogs, what *is* causing the catastrophe, then?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
17 Mar 2007 06:41:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 "Russel Sprout" <s@idontthinkso.net> wrote:
Whatever...
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Umweltphysik_fuer_alle/SS06/Umweltphysik-fuer-Alle_Klima--7.pdf
Thanks for the url, page 22 shows clearly the bandwidths
of the various GHGs, and that water vapor spreads the entire
range below visible light, but CO2 only has a couple of spikes.
Water vapor doesn't have to radiate to cool, it releases
heat by convection in cold air high in the air, and then the air
is closer to space and radiates the heat.
Over all, an excellent paper.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
17 Mar 2007 01:43:03 AM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 9:48 pm, wrote:
[...]
So do you work anymore, or do you spend your entire day frothing at
the mouth?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
14 Mar 2007 08:34:41 PM |
|
|
Contemporary Grenhouse theory is that 230Wm-2 is radiated from the
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved. This makes a surplus of 7Wm-2 that
is being received and not radiated.
The 230Wm-2 is supposedly from satellite measurements and calculation
of the averages. This is done with the concept of albedo in which
infrared are reflected.
The 237Wm-2 received must be done from calculations. There is no
point
of the atmosphere to directly measure this. Outside the atmosphere
the
solar constant is 1370Wm-2. Only 1000Wm-2 make it to the surface.
7Wm-2 means 7 Joules per second for each square meter.
The earth at radius 6300 kilometers has about 4.9E14 sq meters
surface
area. A little more at the top of the atmosphere.
4.9E14 x 7 = 3.49E15 Joules per second, supposedly received above
what
is radiated.
The atmosphere has about 5.27E21 grams.
With O2 20% and N2 80%, the average molar weight around 29.
The molar heat capacity of air is about 29 joules per mole per degC
So heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is around 5.27E21 Joules
per
deg.
Heat capacity of entire atmosphere divided by Joules per second of
entire earth at 7Wm-2,
5.21E21 / 3.49E15 / 3600 / 24 = 17.5 days
At the rate of 7Wm-2, the quantity of heat to raise the entire
atmosphere 1 degC witl be retained in 17.5 days.
What kind of sense does this make?
These calculations for radiation receieved, insolation, and energy
equilibrium of energy radiated to space and measured by satellites
are
bogus and meaningless.
Perhaps there is some validity of the 230Wm-2 average measured. The
rest is theoretical calculation and makes no sense.
Deatherage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade" |
|
| Title: Crackpot, ignore |
14 Mar 2007 08:41:33 PM |
|
|
2. Carbon Criminal Polluters
View profile
More options Mar 14, 2:35 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics
From: "Carbon Criminal Polluters" <Carbon.Criminal.Pollut...@Exxon-
Turds.info>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 15:35:43 -0700
Local: Wed, Mar 14 2007 2:35 pm
Subject: A watt is one Avagadro's Number of electrons passing a point
in a conductor at one volt of electromagnetic force applied. crackpot,
ignore.
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
crackpot, ignore.
On Mar 14, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Contemporary Grenhouse theory
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved.
These calculations for radiation receieved
Deatherage
crackpot, ignore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. V I Plankenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Crackpot, ignore |
14 Mar 2007 09:22:02 PM |
|
|
I think that FOX news if full of *****.
They are strenuously propagandizing on DirecTV against global warming. This
is really stupid.
If you have 100,000 doctors, and 75,000 of them are diagnosing you with
cancer, would you throw a tantrum and kill the messenger ?
I am not %100 certain of anything, global warming included. On that topic
I'm "feeling" probably %80-%90 certain that we are wrecking the planet. I'm
not %100, but FOX news sure sounds like that could care less if we blew the
place to smithereens and I think that their attitude is extremely
dangerous - at least as wreckless as smoking crack.
"Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade" <Exxons.Crackpots@Exxon-Turds.info>
wrote in message
news:1173922893.140318.168060@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
2. Carbon Criminal Polluters
View profile
More options Mar 14, 2:35 pm
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.physics
From: "Carbon Criminal Polluters" <Carbon.Criminal.Pollut...@Exxon-
Turds.info>
Date: 14 Mar 2007 15:35:43 -0700
Local: Wed, Mar 14 2007 2:35 pm
Subject: A watt is one Avagadro's Number of electrons passing a point
in a conductor at one volt of electromagnetic force applied. crackpot,
ignore.
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
crackpot, ignore.
On Mar 14, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Contemporary Grenhouse theory
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved.
These calculations for radiation receieved
Deatherage
crackpot, ignore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Grenhouse theory? What is a watt? |
24 Mar 2007 10:55:55 AM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 6:23 pm, wrote:
Contemporary Grenhouse theory is that 230Wm-2 is radiated from the
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved. This makes a surplus of 7Wm-2 that
is being received and not radiated.
The 230Wm-2 is supposedly from satellite measurements and calculation
of the averages. This is done with the concept of albedo in which
infrared are reflected.
The 237Wm-2 received must be done from calculations. There is no point
of the atmosphere to directly measure this. Outside the atmosphere the
solar constant is 1370Wm-2. Only 1000Wm-2 make it to the surface.
7Wm-2 means 7 Joules per second for each square meter.
The earth at radius 6300 kilometers has about 4.9E14 sq meters surface
area. A little more at the top of the atmosphere.
4.9E14 x 7 = 3.49E15 Joules per second, supposedly received above what
is radiated.
The atmosphere has about 5.27E21 grams.
With O2 20% and N2 80%, the average molar weight around 29.
The molar heat capacity of air is about 29 joules per mole per degC
So heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is around 5.27E21 Joules per
deg.
Heat capacity of entire atmosphere divided by Joules per second of
entire earth at 7Wm-2,
5.21E21 / 3.49E15 / 3600 / 24 = 17.5 days
At the rate of 7Wm-2, the quantity of heat to raise the entire
atmosphere 1 degC witl be retained in 17.5 days.
What kind of sense does this make?
These calculations for radiation receieved, insolation, and energy
equilibrium of energy radiated to space and measured by satellites are
bogus and meaningless.
Perhaps there is some validity of the 230Wm-2 average measured. The
rest is theoretical calculation and makes no sense.
Deatherage
A solution is to allow deep geologic heat. And the drilling is the
easy part. And the transfer thehard part. An old unsued oil well as
the heat source can make maybe a kilowatt using the correct transfer
method.
I am going to patent th eidea so it is not disclosable. BUt 1Kw per
old oil well at ten thousand dollar per machine.
SO installed $10K/1Kw
ANd it is free energy. Except heating the world is impossible using
geoheat! A transfer cost is to large.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carbon Criminal Polluters" |
|
| Title: A watt is one Avagadro's Number of electrons passing a point in a conductor at one volt of electromagnetic force applied. crackpot, ignore. |
14 Mar 2007 05:35:43 PM |
|
|
crackpot, ignore.
On Mar 14, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Contemporary Grenhouse theory
earth. 237Wm-2 is being recieved.
These calculations for radiation receieved
Deatherage
crackpot, ignore.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
