| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2007 08:48:43 PM |
| Object: |
Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
D Smith wrote:
Retief <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:
xxxxx
So what? Well, let's get back to basics of radiation transfer. A photon
is aborbed, and the energy is transfered into thermal energy. The air then
re-emits IR radiation, and there is a 50% chance the energy is emitted
upwards, and a 50% chance it is emitted downwards.
You have a very complex analyses here but this paragraph shows that you
have no valid physics. Infrared radiation is no different that visible
light except for the energy of the photons. (hv). Your term 'transfered
to thermal energy means nothing. The earth radiates almost all of it's
energy in a band around 10 microns. This is thermal energy. At this
temperature there is a density of the radiation field according to
Boltzman-Stefan.
The only region close to this that CO2 has a major absorption band is
15um. Relief is right. There is no transference here that minute CO2
increases could affect. You in no way can actually quantify or
demostrate in the laboratory the energy you claim is retained into the
heat of the atmosphere by CO2.
The only other thermal energy of which you could be refering is the
molecular aggitation of the molecules. This is kT in the radiation
formula. kT being the mean kinetic energy, and the energy of one mole
as RT. The heat capacity of diatomic molecules and CO2 is nearly the
same in the atmosphere, which is 7/2R or about 29 Joules/mol/deg. This
quantity of energy is absorbed from the radiation field into the
kinetic energy of the different motions of the molecule and it's
expansion. The collisions of the molecules is elastic. This means that
a portion of the kinetic energy of their motion is reconverted to
radiation and photons in each collision. Because of this, without the
constant absorption by all the gas molecules, the gas could not
maintain a temperature. Beyond 2 microns, gases absorb infrared
radiation the same and emit it in a continous spectra. The bands of low
emission, which all molecules have, does not affect overal rate of
energy radiation.
The mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules is kT. The frequency of
highest intensity is 4.96kT or .2898cm/T.
If what you say about CO2 were true, it could very easily be
demonstrated in the laboratory.
There is no direct scientific basis to any of your analyses here. You
have a complex theory of absorption of energy by CO2. Where is your
laboratory evidence? If CO2 had this property to retain heat and cause
higher temperature, this could be detected in laboratory experiments.
The experiments incased in glass are a hoax.The glass retains the lower
frequencies. Proof that it is not CO2 causing higher temperatures is
the fact that neutral materials can be found in which no detectable
difference in the temperature with any concentration of CO2 can be
detected. Water vapor must be consistent.
You only have theoretical calculations for what you believe are
absorption bands. These are actually bands of low emission in the
continous spectra of CO2. These do not represent inordinate absorption.
They only exists because the CO2 molecule radiates better at other
frequeincies.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a danerous and fatal disease like rabies
The energy emitted
upwards may escape directly to space, or it may be asborbed again,
depending on probability (Beer's Law). The photons emitted downwards will
definitely NOT be lost directly to space - they will have to be reabsorbed
and reemitted upwards before they can be lost to space. So, the energy in
the IR radiation being emitted from the earth's surface may have to
undergo several absorption/reemission cycles before the energy is lost to
space. How many depends on the transmittance values in the figure Retief
refers to: if the transmittance for 1km is 90%, the energy has a good
chance of making it through on the first try. If the transmittance is only
1%, the chances on the first try are very small and it will take a lot of
absorption/reemission cycles to reach space.
The significance of this? Looking at the transmittance for one unit of
atmosphere (in whatever units you choose - distance at a particular
pressure, mass, etc.) is only part of the story. You have to look at the
whole process of absorption, reemission, and eventual loss to space as the
result of multiple emissions. Even if almost no radiation at a particular
wavelength can be lost directly from the surface to space, an increase in
the absorption (e.g. increase in CO2 concentration) means that energy will
have to undergo a greater number of absorption/reemission cycles to "get
to the other side". Increasing the number of cycles means impeding the
flow of energy, and impeding the flow of energy means energy is retained
and is available for heating the surface.
This is moderately complex, but not overwhelmingly so. What you need is
a model that will handle all the absoprtion/reemission cycles, and track
the heat content of the atmosphere as a function of altitude. (Turns out
you also need to include energy transfers by convection, too.) The primary
effects were figured out years ago. For a one-dimension approach, I would
suggest looking up the names Manabe and Wetherald (papers in the
scientific literature in the 1960s), and the term "radiative-convective
model".
.
|
|
| User: "D Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
22 Jan 2007 01:38:16 AM |
|
|
You've responded to my post three times (one a duplicate,
more-or-less), but I'm only going to spend time following up on this one.
What you post is also mainly a re-hash of other babble you post on a
regular basis, rather than any thoughtful discussion of what I posted.
Unfortunately, you seem to have the assertiveness trait working
strongly, but your knowledge of radiation transfer and energy balances
seems to border on nil. You can use the words, but you clearly have no
idea what they mean.
kdthrge@yahoo.com writes:
D Smith wrote:
Retief <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:
xxxxx
So what? Well, let's get back to basics of radiation transfer. A photon
is aborbed, and the energy is transfered into thermal energy. The air then
re-emits IR radiation, and there is a 50% chance the energy is emitted
upwards, and a 50% chance it is emitted downwards.
You have a very complex analyses here but this paragraph shows that you
have no valid physics. Infrared radiation is no different that visible
light except for the energy of the photons. (hv).
Well, at least we can agree on one thing. Energy of photons is
dependent on wavelength.
Your term 'transfered
to thermal energy means nothing.
Sure it does. The energy that is absorbed is use to heat the molecule
(your "kinetic energy" - I think: your use of terminology is so outside
normal science that I can't really be sure what you think or know).
The earth radiates almost all of it's
energy in a band around 10 microns. This is thermal energy.
No, it isn't. It is radiation. Radiation is only one of many forms of
energy. Sometimes people call it "thermal radiation", but that's not a
particulary good use of terminology. Energy that is radiated has to come
from somewhere. Radiation that is absorbed has to go somewhere - it can be
re-radiated, but it has to be stored within the molecule before it can be
re-radiated. Before it is re-radiated, it is typically stored as heat.
At this
temperature there is a density of the radiation field according to
Boltzman-Stefan.
You've repeatedly posted about the Stefan-Boltzman. Unfortunately, you
seem to be unaware of Planck's Law. Planck's Law is the one that defines
how much energy is emitted at what wavelengths. It has an emissivity term,
and for gases that emissivity is highly dependent on wavelength. It also
has temperature: as temperature increases, the amount of radiation at any
wavelength increases.
Another radiation law you seem to be unaware of is Kirchhoff's law,
which states that the absorptivity of a gas will equal the emissivity at
the same wavelength. Thus, abosrptivity is also strongly dependent on
wavelength. That's why the graph Retief gave the link to shows such a
strong wavelengh dependence.
The Stefan-Boltzman law comes from integrating Planck's law, and gives
the total amount of energy emitted, not the wavelength distribution. The
Stefan-Boltzman law is also often used with an emissivity term, but this
only works if the emissivity term is a constant and can be taken outside
the integral. This is a reasonable approximation for solids or
liquids, but is a really bad idea for gases. (Or, you can just decide to
call it an "apparent emissivity", and pretend it is some
wavelength-weighted integrated approximation of the complex
wavelength-dependent real emissivity function, but that's a really crude
approximation.) Stefan-Boltzman's law also has a temperature term: as
temperature increases, total energy emitted increases.
To do radiation transfer calculations properly in gases, you need
Planck's law, not the Stefan-Boltzman law. This is what will tell you how
much energy is being radiated at any poitn in time. If the radiated
energy is greater than the absorbed energy, the object will cool. If teh
radiation rate is less than the rate of absorption, the object heats up.
Simple energy balance, but it seems to be beyond your level of
understanding.
The only region close to this that CO2 has a major absorption band is
15um. Relief is right. There is no transference here that minute CO2
increases could affect. You in no way can actually quantify or
demostrate in the laboratory the energy you claim is retained into the
heat of the atmosphere by CO2.
Oh, several generations of laboratory spectrometers design to measure
gas concentrations using radiation absorption seem to refute your claim.
Again, you show lots of bluster but you have no idea what you are talking
about.
The only other thermal energy of which you could be refering is the
molecular aggitation of the molecules. This is kT in the radiation
formula. kT being the mean kinetic energy, and the energy of one mole
as RT. The heat capacity of diatomic molecules and CO2 is nearly the
same in the atmosphere, which is 7/2R or about 29 Joules/mol/deg. This
quantity of energy is absorbed from the radiation field into the
kinetic energy of the different motions of the molecule and it's
expansion. The collisions of the molecules is elastic. This means that
a portion of the kinetic energy of their motion is reconverted to
radiation and photons in each collision. Because of this, without the
constant absorption by all the gas molecules, the gas could not
maintain a temperature. Beyond 2 microns, gases absorb infrared
radiation the same and emit it in a continous spectra. The bands of low
emission, which all molecules have, does not affect overal rate of
energy radiation.
The mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules is kT. The frequency of
highest intensity is 4.96kT or .2898cm/T.
This is all techno-babble.
If what you say about CO2 were true, it could very easily be
demonstrated in the laboratory.
Oh, my. You really are in denial. The lab where I work has a CO2
analyzer that will measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It does this by
passing light through the air between a sending unit and a receiving
unit, and measuring how much light is absorbed at the wavelengths that CO2
is supposed to absorb at. Should I send it back to the manufacturer and
tell them that it defies the laws of physics? Or perhaps I should just
conclude that you are a complete idiot?
There is no direct scientific basis to any of your analyses here. You
have a complex theory of absorption of energy by CO2. Where is your
laboratory evidence? If CO2 had this property to retain heat and cause
higher temperature, this could be detected in laboratory experiments.
The experiments incased in glass are a hoax.The glass retains the lower
frequencies. Proof that it is not CO2 causing higher temperatures is
the fact that neutral materials can be found in which no detectable
difference in the temperature with any concentration of CO2 can be
detected. Water vapor must be consistent.
More techno-babble.
You only have theoretical calculations for what you believe are
absorption bands. These are actually bands of low emission in the
continous spectra of CO2. These do not represent inordinate absorption.
They only exists because the CO2 molecule radiates better at other
frequeincies.
The laws of physics tell us that things that radiate better and other
frequencies also absorb better at other frequencies.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a danerous and fatal disease like rabies
The energy emitted
upwards may escape directly to space, or it may be asborbed again,
depending on probability (Beer's Law). The photons emitted downwards will
definitely NOT be lost directly to space - they will have to be reabsorbed
and reemitted upwards before they can be lost to space. So, the energy in
the IR radiation being emitted from the earth's surface may have to
undergo several absorption/reemission cycles before the energy is lost to
space. How many depends on the transmittance values in the figure Retief
refers to: if the transmittance for 1km is 90%, the energy has a good
chance of making it through on the first try. If the transmittance is only
1%, the chances on the first try are very small and it will take a lot of
absorption/reemission cycles to reach space.
The significance of this? Looking at the transmittance for one unit of
atmosphere (in whatever units you choose - distance at a particular
pressure, mass, etc.) is only part of the story. You have to look at the
whole process of absorption, reemission, and eventual loss to space as the
result of multiple emissions. Even if almost no radiation at a particular
wavelength can be lost directly from the surface to space, an increase in
the absorption (e.g. increase in CO2 concentration) means that energy will
have to undergo a greater number of absorption/reemission cycles to "get
to the other side". Increasing the number of cycles means impeding the
flow of energy, and impeding the flow of energy means energy is retained
and is available for heating the surface.
This is moderately complex, but not overwhelmingly so. What you need is
a model that will handle all the absoprtion/reemission cycles, and track
the heat content of the atmosphere as a function of altitude. (Turns out
you also need to include energy transfers by convection, too.) The primary
effects were figured out years ago. For a one-dimension approach, I would
suggest looking up the names Manabe and Wetherald (papers in the
scientific literature in the 1960s), and the term "radiative-convective
model".
I just happened to pull this reference out of a pile of papers I was
looking at today:
Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.
I'm fairly sure that Manabe and Wetherald have a better understanding
of atmospheric radiation transfer than Deatherage. I also doubt that
Deatherage will bother to look it up, but perhaps someone else will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
22 Jan 2007 10:29:02 AM |
|
|
D Smith wrote:
You've responded to my post three times (one a duplicate,
more-or-less), but I'm only going to spend time following up on this one.
What you post is also mainly a re-hash of other babble you post on a
regular basis, rather than any thoughtful discussion of what I posted.
Unfortunately, you seem to have the assertiveness trait working
strongly, but your knowledge of radiation transfer and energy balances
seems to border on nil. You can use the words, but you clearly have no
idea what they mean.
Screw you, worm. I'll face you in court on that statement any day of
the week. A wienie little schoolboy like you can sure talk some *****
behing that skirt of tenure. Jump on out into the real world, little
froggy.
kdthrge@yahoo.com writes:
D Smith wrote:
Retief <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:
xxxxx
So what? Well, let's get back to basics of radiation transfer. A photon
is aborbed, and the energy is transfered into thermal energy. The air then
re-emits IR radiation, and there is a 50% chance the energy is emitted
upwards, and a 50% chance it is emitted downwards.
You have a very complex analyses here but this paragraph shows that you
have no valid physics. Infrared radiation is no different that visible
light except for the energy of the photons. (hv).
Well, at least we can agree on one thing. Energy of photons is
dependent on wavelength.
Wrong energy is dependent on frequency. The light quantum hypothesis by
Einstein says light energy is transfered in discreet packets with
energy hv and mass E=mc^2
Your term 'transfered
to thermal energy means nothing.
Sure it does. The energy that is absorbed is use to heat the molecule
(your "kinetic energy" - I think: your use of terminology is so outside
normal science that I can't really be sure what you think or know).
Wrong. The very basic of all chemistry and molecular physics is calle
the 'kinetic theory of gases' go look it up
The earth radiates almost all of it's
energy in a band around 10 microns. This is thermal energy.
No, it isn't. It is radiation. Radiation is only one of many forms of
energy. Sometimes people call it "thermal radiation", but that's not a
particulary good use of terminology. Energy that is radiated has to come
from somewhere. Radiation that is absorbed has to go somewhere - it can be
re-radiated, but it has to be stored within the molecule before it can be
re-radiated. Before it is re-radiated, it is typically stored as heat.
Of course radiation is on of many forms of energy. They can all be
converted. There is only the motion, linear and rotational and the
energy of the radiation field. Molecular collisions are elastic. There
is nowhere for you imagined energy to be stored. It is only stored in
the kinetic energy that must be absorbed from somewhere to stay within
the law of conservation of enery. No appied energy that is turned into
kinetic energy = no motion.
At this
temperature there is a density of the radiation field according to
Boltzman-Stefan.
You've repeatedly posted about the Stefan-Boltzman. Unfortunately, you
seem to be unaware of Planck's Law. Planck's Law is the one that defines
how much energy is emitted at what wavelengths. It has an emissivity term,
and for gases that emissivity is highly dependent on wavelength. It also
has temperature: as temperature increases, the amount of radiation at any
wavelength increases.
Planck's law only stipulates the probabilities that an individual
osccilator may be in. Very rarely is a distribution like the
theoretical curve. Planck's law makes it possible to define Wiens law
or the most probable energy state for the oscilator. Overall emissivity
is not dependent on substance. I see you also perver Kirchoff's Law to
fit your end conclusion. Kirchoff's law says that emissivity is not a
product of the substance but of the temperature of the substance.
Otherwise, differenct substances would not reach the same temperature
in an oven which we no from laboratory data to be true.
Another radiation law you seem to be unaware of is Kirchhoff's law,
which states that the absorptivity of a gas will equal the emissivity at
the same wavelength. Thus, abosrptivity is also strongly dependent on
wavelength. That's why the graph Retief gave the link to shows such a
strong wavelengh dependence.
The Stefan-Boltzman law comes from integrating Planck's law, and gives
the total amount of energy emitted, not the wavelength distribution. The
Stefan-Boltzman law is also often used with an emissivity term, but this
only works if the emissivity term is a constant and can be taken outside
the integral. This is a reasonable approximation for solids or
liquids, but is a really bad idea for gases. (Or, you can just decide to
call it an "apparent emissivity", and pretend it is some
wavelength-weighted integrated approximation of the complex
wavelength-dependent real emissivity function, but that's a really crude
approximation.) Stefan-Boltzman's law also has a temperature term: as
temperature increases, total energy emitted increases.
Boltaman developed this equation befor Planck from close experimental
observation. This what you say here is garbage. Just the ramblings of a
theoretical idiot that has no laboratory data to back up his
postulating.
Here is a blank space for you to refer the laboratory data that shows
any concentraion of CO2 to cause higher final temperature.
_________________________________
Otherwise put your tail betweeen you legs and run away runt
To do radiation transfer calculations properly in gases, you need
Planck's law, not the Stefan-Boltzman law. This is what will tell you how
much energy is being radiated at any poitn in time. If the radiated
energy is greater than the absorbed energy, the object will cool. If teh
radiation rate is less than the rate of absorption, the object heats up.
Simple energy balance, but it seems to be beyond your level of
understanding.
You only say that so you can pretend that the stipulated frequency
intensities are rigid and therfore supports your conjecture. Wrong, a
substance that is changing temperature will be at any given
temperature. It's radiation will obey density to temperature. It's
distribution will not by in a Planck curve. Gases are the basic of
Planck's Law. Notice the kT in the formula. This is from the kinetic
theory of gases and is the mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules
from which you derive RT, and can theoretically determine heat capacity
which is the overall kinetic energy absorbed from the radiation field
for a substance to increase it's temperature.
The only region close to this that CO2 has a major absorption band is
15um. Relief is right. There is no transference here that minute CO2
increases could affect. You in no way can actually quantify or
demostrate in the laboratory the energy you claim is retained into the
heat of the atmosphere by CO2.
Oh, several generations of laboratory spectrometers design to measure
gas concentrations using radiation absorption seem to refute your claim.
Again, you show lots of bluster but you have no idea what you are talking
about.
Put up or shut up. CO2 has dark bands at 2.7, 4.2 and 15um. Even by
your rigid Planck distribution idea you cannot quantify any of your
energies and thus talk in these general and meaningless terms
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Here is an experiment which proves you are based in fraud. I know,
you'll just say that this is propaganda.
REFER THE CORRECT DEPICTION AND RESULTS THEN,TURD SUCKING LIAR
The only other thermal energy of which you could be refering is the
molecular aggitation of the molecules. This is kT in the radiation
formula. kT being the mean kinetic energy, and the energy of one mole
as RT. The heat capacity of diatomic molecules and CO2 is nearly the
same in the atmosphere, which is 7/2R or about 29 Joules/mol/deg. This
quantity of energy is absorbed from the radiation field into the
kinetic energy of the different motions of the molecule and it's
expansion. The collisions of the molecules is elastic. This means that
a portion of the kinetic energy of their motion is reconverted to
radiation and photons in each collision. Because of this, without the
constant absorption by all the gas molecules, the gas could not
maintain a temperature. Beyond 2 microns, gases absorb infrared
radiation the same and emit it in a continous spectra. The bands of low
emission, which all molecules have, does not affect overal rate of
energy radiation.
The mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules is kT. The frequency of
highest intensity is 4.96kT or .2898cm/T.
This is all techno-babble.
If what you say about CO2 were true, it could very easily be
demonstrated in the laboratory.
Oh, my. You really are in denial. The lab where I work has a CO2
analyzer that will measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It does this by
passing light through the air between a sending unit and a receiving
unit, and measuring how much light is absorbed at the wavelengths that CO2
is supposed to absorb at. Should I send it back to the manufacturer and
tell them that it defies the laws of physics? Or perhaps I should just
conclude that you are a complete idiot?
There you go. Working in a lab and measuring missing wavelengths.
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR DAMN THERMOMETER. IS IT STILL UP YOUR ***** ALONG
WITH YOUR HEAD????????
There is no direct scientific basis to any of your analyses here. You
have a complex theory of absorption of energy by CO2. Where is your
laboratory evidence? If CO2 had this property to retain heat and cause
higher temperature, this could be detected in laboratory experiments.
The experiments incased in glass are a hoax.The glass retains the lower
frequencies. Proof that it is not CO2 causing higher temperatures is
the fact that neutral materials can be found in which no detectable
difference in the temperature with any concentration of CO2 can be
detected. Water vapor must be consistent.
More techno-babble.
You only have theoretical calculations for what you believe are
absorption bands. These are actually bands of low emission in the
continous spectra of CO2. These do not represent inordinate absorption.
They only exists because the CO2 molecule radiates better at other
frequeincies.
The laws of physics tell us that things that radiate better and other
frequencies also absorb better at other frequencies.
Refer to Kirchoffs Law. Emmissivity is not a product of the nature of
the substance, but of the energy of the radiation field. Otherwise
substances would not reach the same temperature in an oven, if they had
different rates of overall emissivity in the same radiatin field.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a danerous and fatal disease like rabies
The energy emitted
upwards may escape directly to space, or it may be asborbed again,
depending on probability (Beer's Law). The photons emitted downwards will
definitely NOT be lost directly to space - they will have to be reabsorbed
and reemitted upwards before they can be lost to space. So, the energy in
the IR radiation being emitted from the earth's surface may have to
undergo several absorption/reemission cycles before the energy is lost to
space. How many depends on the transmittance values in the figure Retief
refers to: if the transmittance for 1km is 90%, the energy has a good
chance of making it through on the first try. If the transmittance is only
1%, the chances on the first try are very small and it will take a lot of
absorption/reemission cycles to reach space.
The significance of this? Looking at the transmittance for one unit of
atmosphere (in whatever units you choose - distance at a particular
pressure, mass, etc.) is only part of the story. You have to look at the
whole process of absorption, reemission, and eventual loss to space as the
result of multiple emissions. Even if almost no radiation at a particular
wavelength can be lost directly from the surface to space, an increase in
the absorption (e.g. increase in CO2 concentration) means that energy will
have to undergo a greater number of absorption/reemission cycles to "get
to the other side". Increasing the number of cycles means impeding the
flow of energy, and impeding the flow of energy means energy is retained
and is available for heating the surface.
*****. Made up ***** by childish dishonest self infatuated little
boys that never quit grew up to take responsibility for what they say
and do.
If you worried about CO2 and global warming dial the
hotline,,,BR549,,,ask for Junior
This is moderately complex, but not overwhelmingly so. What you need is
a model that will handle all the absoprtion/reemission cycles, and track
the heat content of the atmosphere as a function of altitude. (Turns out
you also need to include energy transfers by convection, too.) The primary
effects were figured out years ago. For a one-dimension approach, I would
suggest looking up the names Manabe and Wetherald (papers in the
scientific literature in the 1960s), and the term "radiative-convective
model".
I just happened to pull this reference out of a pile of papers I was
looking at today:
Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.
I'm fairly sure that Manabe and Wetherald have a better understanding
of atmospheric radiation transfer than Deatherage. I also doubt that
Deatherage will bother to look it up, but perhaps someone else will.
Heres one for you to suck on,,,1370 - 370 = 1000Wm-2 recieved at the
equator under optimal conditions. Energy is 4th power to temperature.
THEREFORE ALL YOU CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPERATURE AND ENEGY USING YOUR
AVERAGES ARE BLANTANTLY INVALID AND CRIMINAL FRAUD AND EMBEZZLEMENT
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
.
|
|
|
| User: "D Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
22 Jan 2007 10:33:28 PM |
|
|
writes:
D Smith wrote:
You've responded to my post three times (one a duplicate,
more-or-less), but I'm only going to spend time following up on this one.
What you post is also mainly a re-hash of other babble you post on a
regular basis, rather than any thoughtful discussion of what I posted.
Unfortunately, you seem to have the assertiveness trait working
strongly, but your knowledge of radiation transfer and energy balances
seems to border on nil. You can use the words, but you clearly have no
idea what they mean.
Screw you, worm. I'll face you in court on that statement any day of
the week. A wienie little schoolboy like you can sure talk some *****
behing that skirt of tenure. Jump on out into the real world, little
froggy.
Hit a sore spot, did I?
The rest of your post is just more meaningless prattle, laced with
more venemous insults.
Go ahead. Do your worst. See if I care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "God" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
23 Jan 2007 05:47:04 PM |
|
|
"D Smith" <maji1234@accesscomm.ca> wrote
The rest of your post is just more meaningless prattle, laced with
more venemous insults.
What else can RepubliKKKans do?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
23 Jan 2007 12:08:38 AM |
|
|
D Smith wrote:
kdthrge@yahoo.com writes:
D Smith wrote:
You've responded to my post three times (one a duplicate,
more-or-less), but I'm only going to spend time following up on this one.
What you post is also mainly a re-hash of other babble you post on a
regular basis, rather than any thoughtful discussion of what I posted.
Unfortunately, you seem to have the assertiveness trait working
strongly, but your knowledge of radiation transfer and energy balances
seems to border on nil. You can use the words, but you clearly have no
idea what they mean.
Screw you, worm. I'll face you in court on that statement any day of
the week. A wienie little schoolboy like you can sure talk some *****
behing that skirt of tenure. Jump on out into the real world, little
froggy.
Hit a sore spot, did I?
No, just have to be truthful. I could never imagine a more perverted
reference to Kirchoffs theorem than what you have put forward.
Kirchoffs theorem is that emissivity is a product of the radiation
field and not the individual substance. This is why all substances
reach the same final temperature in an oven. The ***** you talk is
freaking ridiculous and it's awfully damn funny if this ***** is
your whole life. It's funny how you believe in massless photons that
come in and rattle the IR's and thermals,hahahhahah
It must be all those feedback systems making it hot.hahahahaha
OOOooohhh,,,that makes a little twirp like you feel important,,,,danger
danger,,,,listen to the little twirps that need center of
attention,,,,danger danger,,,global warming explained by lame *****
feedback system theory,,,,,what else do you do in life to serve this
magnificent importance you play or are wishing to play in everybodies
elses life despite your ***** poor physics???
Most people really don't care about these theoretical physics you know.
It is something I do as a hobby. Valid physics often has real
applications in life. Chemistry is a fascinating science built upon
careful, brilliant and determinative experimental techniques. So where
does this raunchy physics of the theoretical idiots you repeat, fit
into the larger scale of things. Nowhere, just in your pitiful little
brains with no valid application to anything in reality.
Maybe you should be one to enter testimony in the federal hearings. All
your buddies will be right there behind you nodding their head in
agreement. That stupid little spiel you got about how minute quantities
of increase in CO2 will still have effect even if the bands are already
saturated, is AWFUL cute considering the fraud upon society you wish to
perpetrate with it and how stupid and invalid it is.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
The rest of your post is just more meaningless prattle, laced with
more venemous insults.
Go ahead. Do your worst. See if I care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "davee" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
23 Jan 2007 01:27:46 AM |
|
|
and then we have "Any complex waveform may be made from the fundamental
sinewave and even and odd harmonics" Did someone mention sidebands and
subharmonic relationships?
Permeability and conservation of speed and propagation constants "red
shift" I have redshift.
Do any of these relationships have either i or j operators, or Pi or
circular function?
.
|
|
|
| User: "davee" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
23 Jan 2007 01:38:33 AM |
|
|
And the reciprocal of the product of permeability and permitivity of
free space constants equals C squared relating density instead of speed
to the mass energy relationship.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Lopez Licks Exxon Butt" |
|
| Title: Whatever Happened to Kent Death-rag, who liked to gross people out sucking Exxon's ***** in public |
23 Jan 2007 12:23:22 AM |
|
|
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences
(paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and
associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
Ottawa
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada.
Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1115
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University
of Guelph, Ont.
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/McKitrick_Fraud.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1008
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg;
environmental consultant
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1163
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1165
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and
Sioux Lookout, Ont.
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1174
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=88
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept.
of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;
Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of
State Climatologists
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=912
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,
University of Virginia
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1175
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=10
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=42
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=85
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=8
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=124
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=73
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=86
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=6
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=87
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=134
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=88
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=136
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science
Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
Connecticut
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=241
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_AdTI.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Walter_Williams_AdTI.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/McKitrick_Fraud.html
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TASSC%20Patrick%20J.%20Mich...
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=Exxon%20Funding%20RIC...
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/NCPA.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95 Singer Seitz Ames
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=365 Fred Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=174 Singer Michaels
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=175 Singer McKitrick
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=84 Singer Thomas Gale Moore
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston,
Mass.
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/McKitrick_Fraud.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=173 Liars Lineup
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=126 Dirty Ten
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=147 Dirty Seven
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=176 Singer Circle
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=82
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
Cave Junction, Ore.
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ScienceCop.info/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "God" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
23 Jan 2007 05:46:25 PM |
|
|
Well, at least we can agree on one thing. Energy of photons is
dependent on wavelength.
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote
Wrong energy is dependent on frequency.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
The ignorance is astounding. And amazingly he is still quite a bit smarter
than the average
AmeriKKKan citizen monkey.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "281979" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
22 Jan 2007 01:12:43 PM |
|
|
PHOTON EMISSION THEORY
Proposed by Peter Okidi January 22, 2007
mv=C2=B2/r=3DGmm/r=C2=B2
------------------------------------------------------------- (1)
v=C2=B2=3DGm/r
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)
v=3Dc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3)
c=C2=B2=3DGm/r
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(4)
E=3Dmc=C2=B2=3Dh=CE=BD-----------------------------------------------------=
---------------
(5)
m=3Dh=CE=BD/
c=C2=B2--------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
(6)
c=3DG h=CE=BD/
c=C2=B2---------------------------------------------------------------------
(7)
r=3DGh=CE=BD/
c^4-------------------------------------------------------------------
(8)
r=3D(Gh/ c^4).=CE=BD
-----------------------------------------------------------------(9)
m-mass of the photon
(Gh/ c^4).is constat valve equvalent to (=C3=9E)
h-6.626176*10^-34 planck constant
G-6.67*10^-11 gravitational constant
c-3*10^8 speed of light
=C3=9E-(Gh/ c^4)=3D3.978018575810^-75
Radius r of the photon orbital
r-radius of the orbital
=CE=BD-frequency of the radiation
=C3=9E-Photon emission constant
Frequency range of electromagnetic radiation
Very long long electronic waves 10^4 to10^1Hz
Radio waves5*10^12 to 10^4 Hz
gama-rays10^19 to 10^23Hz
radius of photo emitted by the electron for the lowerest frequency of
an electromagnetic wave of 10^1 Hz
r=3D =C3=9E. =CE=BD
r =3D3.978018575810^-75*10^1
r=3D3.978018575810^-74 meters
radius of photo emitted by the electron for the highest frequency of
an electromagnetic wave of 10^23 Hz
r=3D =C3=9E. =CE=BD
r =3D3.978018575810^-75*10^23
Photon orbital radius
r =3D3.978018575810^-52 meters
3=2E978018575810^-52 meters is approximately the radius of an
electron,that is the orbit occupied by the outer most photon which
reqiures a much high frequency to be emitted.
Mass of photon
Mass of photon veries with the frequency at which the photon are
emitted
mc=C2=B2=3Dh=CE=BD
the high the frequncey the larger the mass.
Orbital arrangement of photon
The photon are arrange in such away that the innner orbital are
occupied by photon with less mass and the outer orbital are occupied by
photon with larger mass(high frequency of emittion).hence photon with
the high frequency ever determines the last radius of the photon
orbiatal rangement hence the radius of the electron.
Photon are not paired the occupy orbital according to their mass and
they rotate and revoluate round the electon center.
Ilustration below shows planetary Orbital arrangement of photons inside
an electron
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil." |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
21 Jan 2007 12:16:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
D Smith wrote:
Retief <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:
xxxxx
So what? Well, let's get back to basics of radiation transfer. A photon
is aborbed, and the energy is transfered into thermal energy. The air then
re-emits IR radiation, and there is a 50% chance the energy is emitted
upwards, and a 50% chance it is emitted downwards.
You have a very complex analyses here but this paragraph shows that you
have no valid physics. Infrared radiation is no different that visible
light except for the energy of the photons. (hv). Your term 'transfered
to thermal energy means nothing. The earth radiates almost all of it's
energy in a band around 10 microns. This is thermal energy. At this
temperature there is a density of the radiation field according to
Boltzman-Stefan.
The only region close to this that CO2 has a major absorption band is
15um. Relief is right. There is no transference here that minute CO2
increases could affect. You in no way can actually quantify or
demostrate in the laboratory the energy you claim is retained into the
heat of the atmosphere by CO2.
Actually there is, NDIR instruments are used to measure CO2
concentrations using this principle continually (if you take your car
in for an annual emission check that's the method used).
The only other thermal energy of which you could be refering is the
molecular aggitation of the molecules. This is kT in the radiation
formula. kT being the mean kinetic energy, and the energy of one mole
as RT. The heat capacity of diatomic molecules and CO2 is nearly the
same in the atmosphere, which is 7/2R or about 29 Joules/mol/deg.
Not true, diatomics such as O2 & N2 around 20, CO2 about 28.
This
quantity of energy is absorbed from the radiation field into the
kinetic energy of the different motions of the molecule and it's
expansion. The collisions of the molecules is elastic. This means that
a portion of the kinetic energy of their motion is reconverted to
radiation and photons in each collision. Because of this, without the
constant absorption by all the gas molecules, the gas could not
maintain a temperature.
Wrong, elastic means that all the kinetic energy stays as kinetic
energy!
Beyond 2 microns, gases absorb infrared
radiation the same and emit it in a continous spectra.
Not true, absorb and emit in bands.
The bands of low
emission, which all molecules have, does not affect overal rate of
energy radiation.
The mean kinetic energy of the gas molecules is kT.
Actually it's 3kt/2.
The frequency of
highest intensity is 4.96kT or .2898cm/T.
If what you say about CO2 were true, it could very easily be
demonstrated in the laboratory.
There is no direct scientific basis to any of your analyses here. You
have a complex theory of absorption of energy by CO2. Where is your
laboratory evidence? If CO2 had this property to retain heat and cause
higher temperature, this could be detected in laboratory experiments.
The experiments incased in glass are a hoax.The glass retains the lower
frequencies. Proof that it is not CO2 causing higher temperatures is
the fact that neutral materials can be found in which no detectable
difference in the temperature with any concentration of CO2 can be
detected. Water vapor must be consistent.
Absolute nonsense, glass is not used in IR spectroscopy.
You only have theoretical calculations for what you believe are
absorption bands. These are actually bands of low emission in the
continous spectra of CO2. These do not represent inordinate absorption.
They only exists because the CO2 molecule radiates better at other
frequeincies.
Not true, they are true absorption bands and when done at sufficient
resolution the individual lines can be seen. Also your statement
contradicts Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation!
The energy emitted
upwards may escape directly to space, or it may be asborbed again,
depending on probability (Beer's Law). The photons emitted downwards will
definitely NOT be lost directly to space - they will have to be reabsorbed
and reemitted upwards before they can be lost to space. So, the energy in
the IR radiation being emitted from the earth's surface may have to
undergo several absorption/reemission cycles before the energy is lost to
space. How many depends on the transmittance values in the figure Retief
refers to: if the transmittance for 1km is 90%, the energy has a good
chance of making it through on the first try. If the transmittance is only
1%, the chances on the first try are very small and it will take a lot of
absorption/reemission cycles to reach space.
The significance of this? Looking at the transmittance for one unit of
atmosphere (in whatever units you choose - distance at a particular
pressure, mass, etc.) is only part of the story. You have to look at the
whole process of absorption, reemission, and eventual loss to space as the
result of multiple emissions. Even if almost no radiation at a particular
wavelength can be lost directly from the surface to space, an increase in
the absorption (e.g. increase in CO2 concentration) means that energy will
have to undergo a greater number of absorption/reemission cycles to "get
to the other side". Increasing the number of cycles means impeding the
flow of energy, and impeding the flow of energy means energy is retained
and is available for heating the surface.
This is moderately complex, but not overwhelmingly so. What you need is
a model that will handle all the absoprtion/reemission cycles, and track
the heat content of the atmosphere as a function of altitude. (Turns out
you also need to include energy transfers by convection, too.) The primary
effects were figured out years ago. For a one-dimension approach, I would
suggest looking up the names Manabe and Wetherald (papers in the
scientific literature in the 1960s), and the term "radiative-convective
model".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VistaKing" |
|
| Title: Re: CHERRYPICKING AGAIN |
27 Jan 2007 02:56:40 PM |
|
|
D Smith wrote:
So what? Well, let's get back to basics of radiation transfer. A
photon
is aborbed, and the energy is transfered into thermal energy. The air
then
re-emits IR radiation, and there is a 50% chance the energy is emitted
upwards, and a 50% chance it is emitted downwards.
<kdthrge@yahoo.com> wrote
You have a very complex analyses here but this paragraph shows that you
have no valid physics.
Ahahahahahahahahaha.....kdthrge claiming by implication that radiation
emitted by CO2 is randomly emitted in any direction.
Ahahahahahahahahah... Such astounding stupidity..... How does it manage
to feed itself?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
