Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA)

Wake wrote: You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately CO2 is not an ideal gas.

It is close enough.
If you believe the Mauna Loa data, CO2 currently is about 0.04% of out atmosphere. Are you really trying to say that CO2 has more energy then then bulk of the atmosphere???

This shows you don't understand physics. CO2 is not "close enough". And yes, everyone except for YOU knows that a molecule of CO2 has more energy than one molecule of oxygen or one element of nitrogen. I have to wonder how you could miss such a basic observation.
As for Boltzmann's constant, you need to read up on it. Your post strongly suggests that you don't grasp it's concepts. Either that or you only want to disrupt this forum because you're bored and you get off on messing with people's minds. Myself, I think it's the latter.

James - how many times do I have to repeat this?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

If you look at the specific heat capacity of CO2 and then the other gases - or just "air" you will see that CO2 has a far lower specific heat capacity. This means that the CO2 molecules begin jumping about a lot more with the addition of energy. They THEN pass this heat on to the other gases in air through conduction. CO2 is actually a COOLANT and not something that contains "more energy" than the other gases.

Is it okay if I explain what you're missing ? I don't think you know what this means; Individual Gas constant
.......................- R -

the .... are necessary to position the -R-.
This is what you are talking about, right ?

It's from PV = nRT, this is what you're actually referring to, right ?
Need to know. I'll explain later.


Jim

I just referred you to a chart that gives the the specific heat, the specific heat radio and the individual gas constants. ALL of these show that CO2 carries less energy than Nitrogen which composes almost 2000 times more of the atmosphere than CO2.

I really do not understand what you think you are trying to prove.

Wake,
This is what your missing. I'm not trying to prove anything but you are. You look at one thing and then have all of the answers. I'm jealous. I really am.
Still, if you look at this, Co2 has more kinetic energy than O2 which has more kinetic energy than nitrogen. Can you show where I said CO2 can warm our atmosphere by transporting heat by itself ? That's what your link is about. A field of pure CO2. Our atmosphere is composed of more than that one gas. You don't realize that. And as you said you will keep showing that one link as your source for ALL of what you know. The link has no information on it that matters to me.
And since you failed to comment on the math, it shows you don't understand why kinetic energy matters. With you, you'd have everything shut down just to say your right. You can't consider that CO2 can transfer momentum to another gas. This doesn't require it to transfer heat because then it can conserve it's own momentum to increase it's kinetic potential once again. But you have no understanding of this. You say it simply doesn't matter because you are right.

https://goo.gl/images/nKe6m7

read this if you will, it'll help. it's the 2nd to last topic. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/shegas.html

I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat.

James_ wrote:
This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied.

James_ wrote:
This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.

James_ wrote:
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry

James_ wrote:
and Physics.

James_ wrote:
Maybe you'll get it.

James_ wrote:
I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops.

James_ wrote:
Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
...deleted unrelated link...

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Wake wrote:
Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Wake wrote:
CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

Wake wrote:
We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake,
The link "discusses" expansion in a Joules-Thomson field at room temperature.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Joule%E2%80%93Thomson%20effect

They mention that >> At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process; these three gases experience the same effect but only at lower temperatures.[5] [6] <<

This clearly demonstrates that gases can store energy. And since between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are of a similar climate we can consider "room temperature" be to be usable frame of reference. This is because those areas can reach 287 kelvins.
And with CO2 it might warm a little slower but once warmed it can increase the amount of kinetic energy in the form of linear momentum that lighter gases have. And this would be the point that I've been trying to make.
In our atmosphere
nitrogen 74%
oxygen (O2) 21%
CO2 0.04%

It seems likely for CO2 to have a warming effect. Is it significant ? I don't know. Kind of why I'm an advocate of further research such as heat being transported or conveyed through atmospheric gases in a closed system. The work to remove the heat would show if the heat absorbed by a field with increased levels of CO2 is significant or not.


Jim

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake,
The link "discusses" expansion in a Joules-Thomson field at room temperature.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Joule%E2%80%93Thomson%20effect

They mention that >> At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process; these three gases experience the same effect but only at lower temperatures.[5] [6] <<

This clearly demonstrates that gases can store energy. And since between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are of a similar climate we can consider "room temperature" be to be usable frame of reference. This is because those areas can reach 287 kelvins.
And with CO2 it might warm a little slower but once warmed it can increase the amount of kinetic energy in the form of linear momentum that lighter gases have. And this would be the point that I've been trying to make.
In our atmosphere
nitrogen 74%
oxygen (O2) 21%
CO2 0.04%

It seems likely for CO2 to have a warming effect. Is it significant ? I don't know. Kind of why I'm an advocate of further research such as heat being transported or conveyed through atmospheric gases in a closed system. The work to remove the heat would show if the heat absorbed by a field with increased levels of CO2 is significant or not.


Jim

ALL gases cool when they expand. This does NOT mean that they are in any way storing heat. It means that there is more heat per cubic mm in a denser medium.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake,
The link "discusses" expansion in a Joules-Thomson field at room temperature.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Joule%E2%80%93Thomson%20effect

They mention that >> At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process; these three gases experience the same effect but only at lower temperatures.[5] [6] <<

This clearly demonstrates that gases can store energy. And since between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are of a similar climate we can consider "room temperature" be to be usable frame of reference. This is because those areas can reach 287 kelvins.
And with CO2 it might warm a little slower but once warmed it can increase the amount of kinetic energy in the form of linear momentum that lighter gases have. And this would be the point that I've been trying to make.
In our atmosphere
nitrogen 74%
oxygen (O2) 21%
CO2 0.04%

It seems likely for CO2 to have a warming effect.

James_ wrote:
Is it significant ?

James_ wrote:
I don't know.

James_ wrote:
Kind of why I'm an advocate of further research such as heat being transported or conveyed through atmospheric gases in a closed system.

James_ wrote:
The work to remove the heat would show if the heat absorbed by a field with increased levels of CO2 is significant or not.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake,
The link "discusses" expansion in a Joules-Thomson field at room temperature.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Joule%E2%80%93Thomson%20effect

They mention that >> At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process; these three gases experience the same effect but only at lower temperatures.[5] [6] <<

This clearly demonstrates that gases can store energy. And since between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are of a similar climate we can consider "room temperature" be to be usable frame of reference. This is because those areas can reach 287 kelvins.
And with CO2 it might warm a little slower but once warmed it can increase the amount of kinetic energy in the form of linear momentum that lighter gases have. And this would be the point that I've been trying to make.
In our atmosphere
nitrogen 74%
oxygen (O2) 21%
CO2 0.04%

It seems likely for CO2 to have a warming effect. Is it significant ? I don't know. Kind of why I'm an advocate of further research such as heat being transported or conveyed through atmospheric gases in a closed system. The work to remove the heat would show if the heat absorbed by a field with increased levels of CO2 is significant or not.


Jim

ALL gases cool when they expand. This does NOT mean that they are in any way storing heat. It means that there is more heat per cubic mm in a denser medium.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake,
The link "discusses" expansion in a Joules-Thomson field at room temperature.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Joule%E2%80%93Thomson%20effect

They mention that >> At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process; these three gases experience the same effect but only at lower temperatures.[5] [6] <<

This clearly demonstrates that gases can store energy. And since between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are of a similar climate we can consider "room temperature" be to be usable frame of reference. This is because those areas can reach 287 kelvins.
And with CO2 it might warm a little slower but once warmed it can increase the amount of kinetic energy in the form of linear momentum that lighter gases have. And this would be the point that I've been trying to make.
In our atmosphere
nitrogen 74%
oxygen (O2) 21%
CO2 0.04%

It seems likely for CO2 to have a warming effect. Is it significant ? I don't know. Kind of why I'm an advocate of further research such as heat being transported or conveyed through atmospheric gases in a closed system. The work to remove the heat would show if the heat absorbed by a field with increased levels of CO2 is significant or not.


Jim

ALL gases cool when they expand. This does NOT mean that they are in any way storing heat. It means that there is more heat per cubic mm in a denser medium.

Why are you ignoring observation which has been verified ?

James_ wrote:
When a gas like CO2 cools slower than N2

James_ wrote:
in the same field

James_ wrote:
it is because it is storing energy.

James_ wrote:
It having more kinetic energy allows for this.

James_ wrote:
There is much evidence of global warming.

James_ wrote:
And since I will say that CO2 having some effect is likely I will not say that it is the primary cause.

James_ wrote:
This position of mine is difficult for you to handle because you're focusing on CO2 and say that >> because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. <<

James_ wrote:
I don't think CO2 conducts it's heat faster because I think it conducts less heat.

James_ wrote:
Your last quote was from your post 31-07-2017 15:06 at the top of the page.
Your discussing how heat strictly follows the heat of gases is only if the field is composed of a single gas. Since our atmosphere is composed of different gases some gases will cool more quickly than others. An example is at night when N2 is cooling CO2 will be cooling less. Yet since you say no such relationship exists it can not be considered how much more heat is being "trapped".

James_ wrote:
An example of this is your quote >> Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. 31-07-2017 18:53 <<
That's Newton's 1st Law of Motion...deleted link...

You didn't consider anything in the link I posted, did you ? Why you can't consider how angular momentum changes how gases interact with each other in our atmosphere.

spot wrote:
James, I don't know if you have seen stuff like this but experiments on CO2 have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

There seems to be allot of confusion on this thread I don't really know if listening to people on this message board is helpful in understanding what is going on in the real world.

If you are really interested I found this good.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

I recommend anyone genuinely interested in Climate to read that.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


I just don't get where you have gotten these ideas - because CO2 conducts it's heat faster than other gases it is COOLER. Kenetic energy of gases strictly follows the heat of gases. So N2 and O2 have more kinetic energy on the whole plus they compose 99% of the atmosphere.

You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.

CO2 stores heat. This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied. This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe you'll get it. I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops. Might take a couple of days. It's a big web and have other things I'll need to be doing as well.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
You'll need to scroll down the page a little.

Jim

Jim, you cannot "store heat" in a system with less energy. What's more you continue to by-pass the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. There can be no effect from something that isn't there. There is NOTHING special about CO2.

Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

We could go into what "norm" is and what a large difference there is between the upper margin of normal and the lower margin of normal but this is little more than discussion and not science per se.

Wake,
The link "discusses" expansion in a Joules-Thomson field at room temperature.
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Joule%E2%80%93Thomson%20effect

They mention that >> At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process; these three gases experience the same effect but only at lower temperatures.[5] [6] <<

This clearly demonstrates that gases can store energy. And since between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are of a similar climate we can consider "room temperature" be to be usable frame of reference. This is because those areas can reach 287 kelvins.
And with CO2 it might warm a little slower but once warmed it can increase the amount of kinetic energy in the form of linear momentum that lighter gases have. And this would be the point that I've been trying to make.
In our atmosphere
nitrogen 74%
oxygen (O2) 21%
CO2 0.04%

It seems likely for CO2 to have a warming effect.

It has none. CO2 is not a source of energy.

James_ wrote:
Is it significant ?

No.

James_ wrote:
I don't know.

Probably because you are having real trouble with the conservation of energy laws, including the laws of thermodynamics.

James_ wrote:
Kind of why I'm an advocate of further research such as heat being transported or conveyed through atmospheric gases in a closed system.

Join the fun. Research continues in the way the atmosphere move energy to space. If you're going to make sense out of any of it though, you are going to have to understand the conservation of energy laws.

James_ wrote:
The work to remove the heat would show if the heat absorbed by a field with increased levels of CO2 is significant or not.

The only way to remove the heat is to have everything be the same temperature. What field? This statement sounds like buzzwords again.

spot wrote:
James, I don't know if you have seen stuff like this but experiments on CO2 have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

There seems to be allot of confusion on this thread I don't really know if listening to people on this message board is helpful in understanding what is going on in the real world.

If you are really interested I found this good.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

I recommend anyone genuinely interested in Climate to read that.

James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
I don't think CO2 conducts it's heat faster because I think it conducts less heat.
Your last quote was from your post 31-07-2017 15:06 at the top of the page.
Your discussing how heat strictly follows the heat of gases is only if the field is composed of a single gas. Since our atmosphere is composed of different gases some gases will cool more quickly than others. An example is at night when N2 is cooling CO2 will be cooling less. Yet since you say no such relationship exists it can not be considered how much more heat is being "trapped".
I think when I used the word in quotation marks that you had to take some high blood pressure medication if you take it. There is a lot that you're missing because you won't consider physics. And as far as our atmosphere goes it is kind of necessary.
An example of this is your quote >> Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. 31-07-2017 18:53 <<
That's Newton's 1st Law of Motion http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

You didn't consider anything in the link I posted, did you ? Why you can't consider how angular momentum changes how gases interact with each other in our atmosphere. Jim

James_ wrote:

spot wrote:
James, I don't know if you have seen stuff like this but experiments on CO2 have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

There seems to be allot of confusion on this thread I don't really know if listening to people on this message board is helpful in understanding what is going on in the real world.

If you are really interested I found this good.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

I recommend anyone genuinely interested in Climate to read that.

spot,
Svante Arrhenius original work was CO2 caused Ice Ages. Today scientists acknowledge that ozone recovery has a cooling effect.

James_ wrote:
This is one reason why I have been pursuing an experiment to show that CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2.

James_ wrote:
If you check out the graph I linked to in the 1st post on this thread it clearly shows that warming and cooling happen regardless of CO2. As Jorgen Steffensen mentions CO2 is an intensifier. In this aspect we do not know how much it intensifies heat.
CO2 is not an 'intensifier'. It is not a heat source. It is not a magnifying glass.
[quote]James_ wrote:
I have mentioned to a reporter where I live that if I am right then we would know that there is both good CO2 and bad CO2 just as it is with ozone.

James_ wrote:
This could help Kentucky as well as other places. If it is found that CO2 causes sufficient warming to be a concern then more research into carbon capture

James_ wrote:
might be pursued while considering how the tropopause could be seeded with CO2 + H2O.

James_ wrote:
I think though that the experiment will be difficult to have tried

James_ wrote:
because it would be a new consideration and I doubt anyone would want to think that scientists over looked something like that.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
I don't think CO2 conducts it's heat faster because I think it conducts less heat.
Your last quote was from your post 31-07-2017 15:06 at the top of the page.
Your discussing how heat strictly follows the heat of gases is only if the field is composed of a single gas. Since our atmosphere is composed of different gases some gases will cool more quickly than others. An example is at night when N2 is cooling CO2 will be cooling less. Yet since you say no such relationship exists it can not be considered how much more heat is being "trapped".
I think when I used the word in quotation marks that you had to take some high blood pressure medication if you take it. There is a lot that you're missing because you won't consider physics. And as far as our atmosphere goes it is kind of necessary.
An example of this is your quote >> Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. 31-07-2017 18:53 <<
That's Newton's 1st Law of Motion http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

You didn't consider anything in the link I posted, did you ? Why you can't consider how angular momentum changes how gases interact with each other in our atmosphere. Jim

James, the field if composed of many gases reacts exactly the same for all of the laws of nature. Thinking that they only act in one way if they are isolated simply doesn't work because they are NEVER isolated.

The Conservation of Momentum is nothing more than a restatement of Newton's laws of motion for a special case - spin rather than other motion.

BECAUSE CO2 can contain less energy it near's it's limit faster than other gases. As it nears it's heat limits it becomes more active - if it exceeds it's limits it gets rid of the excess heat through radiation. But in the lower atmosphere this almost never happens because these more active CO2 molecules start bumping into other gas molecules around them. When they do this they lose both momentum and spin.

Here is a picture of subatomic particles in collision in an accelerator:
[img]https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/485614772297351358/[/img]

This is obtained by shooting a tight beam of protons at a tight beam of proton's going directly opposite. Through a collision of more and due to electromagnetic effects you can see that even in a near vacuum that it is extremely difficult to hold any conservation of angular momentum.

You appear to be trying to demonstrate some sort of magical quality of CO2 that it doesn't have.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
I don't think CO2 conducts it's heat faster because I think it conducts less heat.
Your last quote was from your post 31-07-2017 15:06 at the top of the page.
Your discussing how heat strictly follows the heat of gases is only if the field is composed of a single gas. Since our atmosphere is composed of different gases some gases will cool more quickly than others. An example is at night when N2 is cooling CO2 will be cooling less. Yet since you say no such relationship exists it can not be considered how much more heat is being "trapped".
I think when I used the word in quotation marks that you had to take some high blood pressure medication if you take it. There is a lot that you're missing because you won't consider physics. And as far as our atmosphere goes it is kind of necessary.
An example of this is your quote >> Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. 31-07-2017 18:53 <<
That's Newton's 1st Law of Motion http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

You didn't consider anything in the link I posted, did you ? Why you can't consider how angular momentum changes how gases interact with each other in our atmosphere. Jim

James, the field if composed of many gases reacts exactly the same for all of the laws of nature. Thinking that they only act in one way if they are isolated simply doesn't work because they are NEVER isolated.

The Conservation of Momentum is nothing more than a restatement of Newton's laws of motion for a special case - spin rather than other motion.

BECAUSE CO2 can contain less energy it near's it's limit faster than other gases. As it nears it's heat limits it becomes more active - if it exceeds it's limits it gets rid of the excess heat through radiation. But in the lower atmosphere this almost never happens because these more active CO2 molecules start bumping into other gas molecules around them. When they do this they lose both momentum and spin.

Here is a picture of subatomic particles in collision in an accelerator:
[img]https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/485614772297351358/[/img]

This is obtained by shooting a tight beam of protons at a tight beam of proton's going directly opposite. Through a collision of more and due to electromagnetic effects you can see that even in a near vacuum that it is extremely difficult to hold any conservation of angular momentum.

You appear to be trying to demonstrate some sort of magical quality of CO2 that it doesn't have.

Ah yes...learning music by ramming two trucks carrying pianos head on into each other on the freeway.

You are quite right. At the subatomic level, and even at the molecular level, angular momentum can be all over the place.

Newton was of course referring to gross matter and not the wonderful wacky world of subatomic physics or quantum mechanics. A satellite that starts spinning in space will continue to do so until it is stopped by a force (control rockets). A planet spinning producing a day/night cycle will continue to spin until something stops it (THAT should produce a rough ride!).

Individual molecules could be spinning in any direction.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
I don't think CO2 conducts it's heat faster because I think it conducts less heat.
Your last quote was from your post 31-07-2017 15:06 at the top of the page.
Your discussing how heat strictly follows the heat of gases is only if the field is composed of a single gas. Since our atmosphere is composed of different gases some gases will cool more quickly than others. An example is at night when N2 is cooling CO2 will be cooling less. Yet since you say no such relationship exists it can not be considered how much more heat is being "trapped".
I think when I used the word in quotation marks that you had to take some high blood pressure medication if you take it. There is a lot that you're missing because you won't consider physics. And as far as our atmosphere goes it is kind of necessary.
An example of this is your quote >> Conservation of Angular Momentum only means that an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. 31-07-2017 18:53 <<
That's Newton's 1st Law of Motion http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

You didn't consider anything in the link I posted, did you ? Why you can't consider how angular momentum changes how gases interact with each other in our atmosphere. Jim

James, the field if composed of many gases reacts exactly the same for all of the laws of nature. Thinking that they only act in one way if they are isolated simply doesn't work because they are NEVER isolated.

The Conservation of Momentum is nothing more than a restatement of Newton's laws of motion for a special case - spin rather than other motion.

BECAUSE CO2 can contain less energy it near's it's limit faster than other gases. As it nears it's heat limits it becomes more active - if it exceeds it's limits it gets rid of the excess heat through radiation. But in the lower atmosphere this almost never happens because these more active CO2 molecules start bumping into other gas molecules around them. When they do this they lose both momentum and spin.

Here is a picture of subatomic particles in collision in an accelerator:
[img]https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/485614772297351358/[/img]

This is obtained by shooting a tight beam of protons at a tight beam of proton's going directly opposite. Through a collision of more and due to electromagnetic effects you can see that even in a near vacuum that it is extremely difficult to hold any conservation of angular momentum.

You appear to be trying to demonstrate some sort of magical quality of CO2 that it doesn't have.

Ah yes...learning music by ramming two trucks carrying pianos head on into each other on the freeway.

You are quite right. At the subatomic level, and even at the molecular level, angular momentum can be all over the place.

Newton was of course referring to gross matter and not the wonderful wacky world of subatomic physics or quantum mechanics. A satellite that starts spinning in space will continue to do so until it is stopped by a force (control rockets). A planet spinning producing a day/night cycle will continue to spin until something stops it (THAT should produce a rough ride!).

Individual molecules could be spinning in any direction.

Newton's laws of motion referred to all known matter at the time. It wasn't until Einstein modified it to take into the space/time distortions of gravity that it had to be modified ONLY under extreme conditions.

The universe is generally built upon electromagnetic radiation and the only time you'd try to modify it would be in an EXTREMELY heavy gravity field.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
The universe is generally built upon electromagnetic radiation and the only time you'd try to modify it would be in an EXTREMELY heavy gravity field.

Both laws are referring to gross matter.

Einstein didn't modify Newton's laws of motion. He modified Newtons law of gravity by adding a term for relativity to it (the extreme gravity conditions).

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
The universe is generally built upon electromagnetic radiation and the only time you'd try to modify it would be in an EXTREMELY heavy gravity field.

Both laws are referring to gross matter.

Einstein didn't modify Newton's laws of motion. He modified Newtons law of gravity by adding a term for relativity to it (the extreme gravity conditions).

So you've changed your mind and believe that the universe is electromagnetic in nature?

Wake wrote:


James, the field if composed of many gases reacts exactly the same for all of the laws of nature. Thinking that they only act in one way if they are isolated simply doesn't work because they are NEVER isolated.

The Conservation of Momentum is nothing more than a restatement of Newton's laws of motion for a special case - spin rather than other motion.

James_ wrote:
Wake,
This is where you are wrong. Being technically right isn't what we're discussing, is it ? I showed you an example where 4 gases were listed to act differently to the laws of nature than other gases.
Yet you would say let's not discuss room temperature because not everyone on the planet lives at room temperature.
You are trying to use Verification by Association to show that you are right. That's how you win the debate and lose the war so to say.
And Wake, Conservation of Angular Momentum is w = v/r
This explains why CO2 doesn't give up it's heat as easily as nitrogen.
From your link
Specific heat
(kJ/(kg K))

Nitrogen (N2) = 1.04
Oxygen (O2) = 0.919
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) = 0.844

As your link shows quite clearly Wake, CO2 has a lower specific heat value. It doesn't like giving up it's heat as easily as oxygen or nitrogen.
If you'd like to understand why then this is what we need to be discussing in my opinion. Would you or into the night like to ?
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-average-kinetic-energy-of-the-molecules-in-a-gas-at-273k

Jim

James_ wrote:

spot wrote:
James, I don't know if you have seen stuff like this but experiments on CO2 have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

There seems to be allot of confusion on this thread I don't really know if listening to people on this message board is helpful in understanding what is going on in the real world.

If you are really interested I found this good.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

I recommend anyone genuinely interested in Climate to read that.

spot,
Svante Arrhenius original work was CO2 caused Ice Ages. Today scientists acknowledge that ozone recovery has a cooling effect. This is one reason why I have been pursuing an experiment to show that CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2.
The O2 would support the Chapman cycle http://www.fireprotection.org.nz/information-on/the-chapman-cycle This is one of my favorite links (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/ because Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen states that CO2 did not end the last Ice Age and that there were periods of warming and cooling that CO2 can not account for.
If you check out the graph I linked to in the 1st post on this thread it clearly shows that warming and cooling happen regardless of CO2. As Jorgen Steffensen mentions CO2 is an intensifier. In this aspect we do not know how much it intensifies heat. We need to know that.
I have mentioned to a reporter where I live that if I am right then we would know that there is both good CO2 and bad CO2 just as it is with ozone. This could help Kentucky as well as other places. If it is found that CO2 causes sufficient warming to be a concern then more research into carbon capture might be pursued while considering how the tropopause could be seeded with CO2 + H2O. I think though that the experiment will be difficult to have tried because it would be a new consideration and I doubt anyone would want to think that scientists over looked something like that.


Jim

p.s., spot, the local media and elected officials know who I am. I have tried asking a Dr. Guzman https://chem.as.uky.edu/users/migu222
This guy here https://www.uky.edu/prmarketing/staff needs to say yes. He's told me that the University of Kentucky isn't interested. As president of the University he knows nothing of science. This is because he's an administrator. I have let Dr. Guzman know that it'd be better if he tried the experiment.

spot wrote:


Jim I can find information on the amount of forcing from stratospheric ozone



It is not insignificant but much less then forcing from CO2, However I take away that work on the subject has been done so its not neglected as you seem to be implying.

Have you calculated how much your experiment will cost?

James_ wrote:
And Wake, Conservation of Angular Momentum is w = v/r

James_ wrote:
This explains why CO2 doesn't give up it's heat as easily as nitrogen.

James_ wrote:
From your link
Specific heat
(kJ/(kg K))

Nitrogen (N2) = 1.04
Oxygen (O2) = 0.919
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) = 0.844

As your link shows quite clearly Wake, CO2 has a lower specific heat value. It doesn't like giving up it's heat as easily as oxygen or nitrogen.

James_ wrote:
If you'd like to understand why then this is what we need to be discussing in my opinion. Would you or into the night like to ?
...deleted Holy Link...

@All,
It is in my opinion that research has shown that when a constant temperature changes

James_ wrote:
that gases will have different levels of kinetic energy.

James_ wrote:
This would IMO apply to our atmosphere and a gases effect on it.

James_ wrote:
This is where I think confusion reigns because as Wake stated, at 273k ALL gases will follow the rules of nature. In physics they have the same kinetic energy because they are in equilibrium.

James_ wrote:
What is not being considered is if a heavier gas can increase the momentum of a lighter gas.

James_ wrote:
This theory if there were one would be called Conservation of Momentum.

James_ wrote:
This then would allow a heavier gas to increase the kinetic energy of a lighter gas.

James_ wrote:
And to achieve an equilibrium the heavier gas would need to absorb more electromagnetic radiation.

James_ wrote:
And I think everyone will see that neither Wake nor Into the Night will discuss how 3/2 kT helps to understand how mass and conservation of momentum effects the specific heat of our atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
And lower specific heat might be considered as trapping heat.

spot wrote:

James_ wrote:

spot wrote:
James, I don't know if you have seen stuff like this but experiments on CO2 have been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

There seems to be allot of confusion on this thread I don't really know if listening to people on this message board is helpful in understanding what is going on in the real world.

If you are really interested I found this good.

https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

I recommend anyone genuinely interested in Climate to read that.

spot,
Svante Arrhenius original work was CO2 caused Ice Ages. Today scientists acknowledge that ozone recovery has a cooling effect. This is one reason why I have been pursuing an experiment to show that CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2.
The O2 would support the Chapman cycle http://www.fireprotection.org.nz/information-on/the-chapman-cycle This is one of my favorite links (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/ because Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen states that CO2 did not end the last Ice Age and that there were periods of warming and cooling that CO2 can not account for.
If you check out the graph I linked to in the 1st post on this thread it clearly shows that warming and cooling happen regardless of CO2. As Jorgen Steffensen mentions CO2 is an intensifier. In this aspect we do not know how much it intensifies heat. We need to know that.
I have mentioned to a reporter where I live that if I am right then we would know that there is both good CO2 and bad CO2 just as it is with ozone. This could help Kentucky as well as other places. If it is found that CO2 causes sufficient warming to be a concern then more research into carbon capture might be pursued while considering how the tropopause could be seeded with CO2 + H2O. I think though that the experiment will be difficult to have tried because it would be a new consideration and I doubt anyone would want to think that scientists over looked something like that.


Jim

p.s., spot, the local media and elected officials know who I am. I have tried asking a Dr. Guzman https://chem.as.uky.edu/users/migu222
This guy here https://www.uky.edu/prmarketing/staff needs to say yes. He's told me that the University of Kentucky isn't interested. As president of the University he knows nothing of science. This is because he's an administrator. I have let Dr. Guzman know that it'd be better if he tried the experiment.

Jim I can find information on the amount of forcing from stratospheric ozone

...deleted Holy Link and Graph...

spot wrote:
It is not insignificant but much less then forcing from CO2, However I take away that work on the subject has been done so its not neglected as you seem to be implying.

spot wrote:
Tell me, if you go to all the trouble of injecting CO2 and H2O at the top of troposphere what is to stop it from mixing with the rest of the atmosphere? How would you go about it rockets? planes? giant smokestacks? some other method? Have you calculated how much your experiment will cost?

Into the Night wrote:
.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
.

I noticed that you declined to discuss Boltzmann's constant. That was the offer. Since you refused there really is nothing I have to discuss with you.



Jim

Into the Night wrote:
Planes already inject CO2 and H20 at the top of troposphere.

It's called engine exhaust.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Planes already inject CO2 and H20 at the top of troposphere.

It's called engine exhaust.

40% of the CO2 generated by private travel is by commercial aircraft. So something like 35% of all of the "additional" CO2 that's 'killing the world' is in the stratosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Planes already inject CO2 and H20 at the top of troposphere.

It's called engine exhaust.

40% of the CO2 generated by private travel is by commercial aircraft. So something like 35% of all of the "additional" CO2 that's 'killing the world' is in the stratosphere.

Argument from randU.

No one knows how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere as the result of burning something. No one knows how much CO2 is coming from cars vs aircraft. No one knows how much CO2 is from 'natural' sources.

James_ wrote:
@All,
what is being ignored by not discussing how the Boltzmann constant applies to our atmosphere, I'll make this as simple as I can.
where T is the Kelvin temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant.
KE = 3/2 × 1.381 × 10⁻²³ J⋅K⁻¹ × 273 K = 5.66 × 10⁻²¹ J

273 k = 31.73° F.

The line below represents average temperage of 273 k,


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
....N2 has an................O2 has an....................CO2 has an
.atomic weight............atomic weight...............atomic weight
......of 14.......................of 16..............................22


273 is the AVERAGE temperature. Because CO2 has more mass/kinetic energy there is nothing to keep it from absorbing energy from N2 or O2. If no other energy is available then the area around CO2 in a field would be warmer. This would be the "argument" in a debate on CO2's influence on our atmosphere. And specifically if it can excite N2 and O2 how much "extra energy" can be retained in our atmosphere ?
That question has yet to be answered. This is why there is a debate on climate change and what is causing it.


Jim

p.s., it might be helpful to get familiar with this link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/eqpar.html#c2

this can be fun because CO2 has a Vrms = 556.351561
.....................................O2.................= 652.380032
...............................and N2.................= 697.423590

This gives all 3 equal kinetic energy at 273 k. The question is, will those numbers stay the same ? They won't. And as those 2 other individuals discussing who knows what can say that the 3 values given follow the rules of nature equally. But you can't really expect CO2 to stay at the same level of kinetic energy as O2 or N2 do you ? I surely hope not.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
what is being ignored by not discussing how the Boltzmann constant applies to our atmosphere, I'll make this as simple as I can.
where T is the Kelvin temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant.
KE = 3/2 × 1.381 × 10⁻²³ J⋅K⁻¹ × 273 K = 5.66 × 10⁻²¹ J

273 k = 31.73° F.

The line below represents average temperage of 273 k,


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
....N2 has an................O2 has an....................CO2 has an
.atomic weight............atomic weight...............atomic weight
......of 14.......................of 16..............................22


273 is the AVERAGE temperature. Because CO2 has more mass/kinetic energy there is nothing to keep it from absorbing energy from N2 or O2. If no other energy is available then the area around CO2 in a field would be warmer. This would be the "argument" in a debate on CO2's influence on our atmosphere. And specifically if it can excite N2 and O2 how much "extra energy" can be retained in our atmosphere ?
That question has yet to be answered. This is why there is a debate on climate change and what is causing it.


Jim

p.s., it might be helpful to get familiar with this link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/eqpar.html#c2

this can be fun because CO2 has a Vrms = 556.351561
.....................................O2.................= 652.380032
...............................and N2.................= 697.423590

This gives all 3 equal kinetic energy at 273 k. The question is, will those numbers stay the same ? They won't. And as those 2 other individuals discussing who knows what can say that the 3 values given follow the rules of nature equally. But you can't really expect CO2 to stay at the same level of kinetic energy as O2 or N2 do you ? I surely hope not.

James - allow me to repeat please. Think of CO2 as reaching it's "boiling point" sooner than the gases around it.

What occurs then? Does steam from a boiling pot rise into the upper atmosphere or does it bump into the surrounding molecules and normalize temperatures?

Now this same "lower boiling point" in the upper atmosphere causes CO2 to radiate energy sooner than other gases.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
what is being ignored by not discussing how the Boltzmann constant applies to our atmosphere, I'll make this as simple as I can.
where T is the Kelvin temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant.
KE = 3/2 × 1.381 × 10⁻²³ J⋅K⁻¹ × 273 K = 5.66 × 10⁻²¹ J

273 k = 31.73° F.

The line below represents average temperage of 273 k,


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
....N2 has an................O2 has an....................CO2 has an
.atomic weight............atomic weight...............atomic weight
......of 14.......................of 16..............................22


273 is the AVERAGE temperature. Because CO2 has more mass/kinetic energy there is nothing to keep it from absorbing energy from N2 or O2. If no other energy is available then the area around CO2 in a field would be warmer. This would be the "argument" in a debate on CO2's influence on our atmosphere. And specifically if it can excite N2 and O2 how much "extra energy" can be retained in our atmosphere ?
That question has yet to be answered. This is why there is a debate on climate change and what is causing it.


Jim

p.s., it might be helpful to get familiar with this link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/eqpar.html#c2

this can be fun because CO2 has a Vrms = 556.351561
.....................................O2.................= 652.380032
...............................and N2.................= 697.423590

This gives all 3 equal kinetic energy at 273 k. The question is, will those numbers stay the same ? They won't. And as those 2 other individuals discussing who knows what can say that the 3 values given follow the rules of nature equally. But you can't really expect CO2 to stay at the same level of kinetic energy as O2 or N2 do you ? I surely hope not.

James - allow me to repeat please. Think of CO2 as reaching it's "boiling point" sooner than the gases around it.

What occurs then? Does steam from a boiling pot rise into the upper atmosphere or does it bump into the surrounding molecules and normalize temperatures?

Now this same "lower boiling point" in the upper atmosphere causes CO2 to radiate energy sooner than other gases.

Wake,
Gosh, I am glad that you let me know that water boils. You really are clueless, aren't you ? We're not discussing my experiment right now, we're discussing whether or not CO2 can excite molecules that have less atomic mass. When you try to come up with boiling water as an example of something heavier not being able to move something lighter, I think you really did miss it completely.
And as a gas CO2 is heavier than both nitrogen and oxygen (O2).
When you try to say that I don't understand physics Wake, don't use boiling water as an example of what you know when I'm trying to discuss Boltzmann's constant and how it applies to atmospheric gases. This isn't Home economics 101 you know.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
what is being ignored by not discussing how the Boltzmann constant applies to our atmosphere, I'll make this as simple as I can.
where T is the Kelvin temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant.
KE = 3/2 × 1.381 × 10⁻²³ J⋅K⁻¹ × 273 K = 5.66 × 10⁻²¹ J

273 k = 31.73° F.

The line below represents average temperage of 273 k,


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
....N2 has an................O2 has an....................CO2 has an
.atomic weight............atomic weight...............atomic weight
......of 14.......................of 16..............................22


273 is the AVERAGE temperature. Because CO2 has more mass/kinetic energy there is nothing to keep it from absorbing energy from N2 or O2. If no other energy is available then the area around CO2 in a field would be warmer. This would be the "argument" in a debate on CO2's influence on our atmosphere. And specifically if it can excite N2 and O2 how much "extra energy" can be retained in our atmosphere ?
That question has yet to be answered. This is why there is a debate on climate change and what is causing it.


Jim

p.s., it might be helpful to get familiar with this link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/eqpar.html#c2

this can be fun because CO2 has a Vrms = 556.351561
.....................................O2.................= 652.380032
...............................and N2.................= 697.423590

This gives all 3 equal kinetic energy at 273 k. The question is, will those numbers stay the same ? They won't. And as those 2 other individuals discussing who knows what can say that the 3 values given follow the rules of nature equally. But you can't really expect CO2 to stay at the same level of kinetic energy as O2 or N2 do you ? I surely hope not.

James - allow me to repeat please. Think of CO2 as reaching it's "boiling point" sooner than the gases around it.

What occurs then? Does steam from a boiling pot rise into the upper atmosphere or does it bump into the surrounding molecules and normalize temperatures?

Now this same "lower boiling point" in the upper atmosphere causes CO2 to radiate energy sooner than other gases.

Wake,
Gosh, I am glad that you let me know that water boils. You really are clueless, aren't you ? We're not discussing my experiment right now, we're discussing whether or not CO2 can excite molecules that have less atomic mass. When you try to come up with boiling water as an example of something heavier not being able to move something lighter, I think you really did miss it completely.
And as a gas CO2 is heavier than both nitrogen and oxygen (O2).
When you try to say that I don't understand physics Wake, don't use boiling water as an example of what you know when I'm trying to discuss Boltzmann's constant and how it applies to atmospheric gases. This isn't Home economics 101 you know.

Into the Night wrote:
.