Date: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:55 am. By: Guest
On Oct 14, 3:25 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 1:51 pm, Bolaleman wrote:
On Oct 14, 1:02 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:07 am, Bolaleman wrote:
Global warming results in more extreme weather, causing hotter and drier summers and including colder winters. Ironically, an increase in greenhouse gases has been predicted to cause a cooling of the stratosphere. This phenomenon would occur because most thermal infrared is absorbed at low altitudes, and little is left over to warm the stratosphere. Additionally, at stratospheric temperatures CO2 emits more thermal infrared to space than it absorbs.
What a bunch of shit. Warmer air evaporates more water. Warming does not neccasarily cause drier conditions.
Colder winters mean less heat energy. This is only the rational that the believers use to maintain their irrational beliefs when temperatures do not increase as they predict. No valid scientific theory.
Thermal infrared is merely energy which is radiation which travels at the velocity of light and is measured in ergs, Joules or electron volts. Any infrared radiation is a quantity of energy.
You use these terms, so feel free at any time to do some mathematics on the quantity of energy that radiates from a heated body according to Boltzman Stefan, 5.67E-12 Joules, cm-2,sec-1, degK-4, to the energy of the molecular motions of a gas, also defined by Boltzman as RT, or the energy of a mole of a gas which specifically defines the energy of the pressure these molecules exert due to their motion and collisions with eachother or a surface of a container, 8.31 Joules per mole per degree K.
"""Additionally, at stratospheric temperatures CO2
emits more thermal infrared to space than it absorbs."""
And this statement of yours is the culminating proof that you have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking, regardless of your mindless repitition from your education. In proper physics there is the 'Law of the Conservation of Energy and Matter'. In fact in proper physics this is the intial starting point. So where the hell does this energy come from that the CO2 emits more than it absorbs? It certainly does not come from the motions of the molecules as defined by RT. You are simply insane and have no functional understanding or mathematical ability to define the terms you use which are all merely designed to support your beliefs.
All you have is piss poor rhetoric and tormented terminology to maintain your irrational belief in global warming climate crisis when facts, statistics and mathematics of physics and energy do not suit to support your beliefs.
And you mathematically illiterate idiots wish for society to hand over to you complete control of our use of energy behind your completely idiotic rhetoric which only pampered and naive fools who have never had to actually live in the real world believe, and therefore feel no compunction for accuracy or validity as they wander through life in their narcissitic haze and commit their aggresion against society.
You should go straight to prison for your fraudulent theories, and you will someday.
KDeatherage
Nice that you learned the basics of physics but this is enough to describe the behavior of a hot liquid in contact with a gas but not enough to explain complex climatic effects. There is sufficient evidence that global heating might result in a drop of temperature in some areas of the world and in an increase in others. Check the web and you will find several published studies where the reasons are explained. Main effect are streams like the Gulf stream who might be affected by changes of the density of top water layers, result of a dilution of sea water with fresh water from melting glaciers. A basic explanation of these processes can be found here:http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
----------------- Find Green Jobs:http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It could very well be that it could be warmer in some areas and cooler in others. But the real point is that the theory of greenhouse gases must describe a condition where the increase of 1 part in 10,000 of CO2 can cause dramatic climatic effects. This could only be by a continual retention of heat energy in the earth's heat system. This is based upon entirely incorrect theoretical application of the energy of the motions of the molecules of a gas, and invalid application of theory of infrared electromagnetic radiation. This does not only apply to transfers from liquid to gas, as you try to write off and forget my direct criticism of your mathematical ineptitude.
In your contemporary theory, it is supposed that CO2 'absorbs' infrared radiation at the 15um band which O2 and N2 do not. CO2 has dark bands in it's infrared spectrum at 2.7, 4.2 and 15um. But it is critical to your theory that CO2 also radiates at the 15um band, and therefore there is a increase of the radiation energy at this band within the atmosphere. I know that you defer this with your hairbrained theories of how the energy is 'handed' off to the molecular motions of N2 and O2.
a) In any event, if this is true, it could be demonstrated in direct laboratory experimentation. The increased presence of CO2 between two panes of glass would reduce the energy passing through and could be directly measured as increased energy between the panes and a higher temperature. This would appear in the final temperature, as more energy would be retained in the gases between the glass. This does not include specially conditioned glass which transmits specific frequencies.
There are many other means that the property of CO2 could be demonstrated to absorb or react to IR as other gases do not, if this were a valid attribution of a property. But this property only exist in the repeated phrase of academics with no actual direct scientific basis. You agree and affirm that I am correct with this if you cannot refer some proper scientific documentation of this property of CO2 to retain energy and cause higher temperatures.
b) The increased energy retained in the environment which is to affect the climate could be detected at any point. This is a failure for your theory.
Near artic temperatures are not increased according to your theory,
Upper level atmospheric temperatures near the tropics are not increased as according to your theory,
Ocean temperatures are not increased according to your theory. In fact in the last several years, the oceans have cooled considerably. This is noticeable in the very low number of strong atlantic hurricanes this season.
One should never forget the basics of greenhouse theory, which is that the natural levels of CO2 supposedly increase temperature by 7.4C. Also supposedly, CO2 was below 310ppm in the 1930's and is now nearing 390ppm. This being about 30% increase, there is no evidence whatsoever in statistics from any region of this proportion of the 7.4 or the 32Wm-2 claimed for the natural greenhouse effect of existent CO2.
That you can rationalize cooler temperatures without showing very specifically the the heating in other regions that is causing the change and is evidence of your theoretical belief in CO2 caused global warming is merely trite mental conjuring to continue your unsupported belief in the CO2 caused warming.
Temperatures rose consistently through the 90's, but then peaked in 1998. Temperatures of the 30's were warmer or as warm as present, when CO2 levels were still very low. Your article tries to imply dramatic effects from very low emissions of humans in the early industrial age, which avoids any real statistics and is in no way compatible with present temperature statistics and CO2 levels.
Any temperature fluctuations are normal, not caused by 'greenhouse gases'. The need to invent theory and rationalize the lack of radical climate change as predicted by the scientists of climate scaremongering, can be considered a deliberate aggression against our normal economic function.
KD-
I appreciate your affirmation that there is no direct evidence that CO2 can retain energy inordinately and cause warming. You cannot submit scientific documentatin of this property, which would be easily available if it were true. Your inability to submit this proper documentation serves as proof that it does not exist, mainly because you submit your literature of psuedo-science in which you repeat your theoretical claims.
It is only your definition of 'infrared' and 'absorption' that you use as your scientific basis, both of which are vague and invalid. To state the term, 'absorbs infrared radiation' must mean to absorb 'energy' which would not otherwise be absorbed, and this is fallacious. Temperature is a reading of the quantity of energy is a specific volume area. If you claim that 'infrared is absorbed', it must be documented by measured temperature increase, something which your pseudo-science cannot do.
Just something for the conjurers of climate scaremongering to think about at those few moments in life when they consider actual theory of gases and physics or chemistry without the mindless repitition for which the scientific community relies upon completly,,,
Hydrogen gas can be heated. According to the lame theory of greenhousers, it does not absorb the continous spectrum of the infrared. Yet when the temperature of the gas reaches a certain level, it begins to produce the Lyman series and the Balmer series. Of course the Lyman series are in the ultraviolet and not visible.
Each molecule absorbs energy and emits energy in the packets described by Planck and Einstein, (of which Arthenius was completely ignorant) This can all be clearly quantified.
At these temperatures, some of molecules are even ionized, meaning they have absorbed at least the energy of 13.59 electron volts. The radiation from the Lyman lines is from about 10 electron volts on up, and the Balmer series is from about 2 to 4 electron volts.
So the mathematical question for the mathematically inept theory from the believers of greenhouse theory, is how do the molecules absorb the quantiy of energy to produce the photons of the Lyman and Balmer series if these molecules are not absorbing energy of the complete continous spectrum of the infrared? That these photons are produced by the individual atoms proves that the energy to compose these photons is from cumulative absorption by the hydrogen gas of the continous spectrum of the infrared.
The theory of greenhouse gases relies on invalid theory which cannot quantify any of their terms of infrared radiation or absorption, which was derived from the completely invalid theory of classical physics from before the advent and proper definition of heat, radiation and energy by Planck and Einstein.
The propagation of this invalid theory upon any social conditions is a criminal act and a direct aggression against the economic function of the US, which can be proved in court and for which the proponents should be held accountable be the highest measures of the law.
KD