Remember me
▼ Content

Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA)



Page 3 of 4<1234>
31-07-2017 23:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Wake wrote: You have to get it through your head that as a TRACE gas CO2 has no effect on anything other than photosynthesis.


In another thread I wanted you to not jump to conclusions and that's what you've been doing.

This forum SHOULD be used as a discussion forum in which you discuss things and not present them as a positive fact rather than a personal theory.

I think that you are convinced that there is global warming and I simply see no verifiable proof of that.

PERHAPS there has been some warming but it doesn't appear to me to be any more than would be the reheating of the world after the Maunder Minimum followed shortly thereafter by the Dalton Minimum.

We HAVE proven that the MGT chart released by NASA is pure unadulterated lies. And I expect the Trump administration to take actions on that shortly.
31-07-2017 23:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


You are correct. CO2, however, does seem to have an effect besides photosynthesis. It affects the religious in believing it has magickal properties.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 00:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
Edited on 01-08-2017 00:27
01-08-2017 01:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
Edited on 01-08-2017 02:05
01-08-2017 04:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.

It is not possible to store heat.
James_ wrote:
This is why it has a low heat value on the link you supplied.

Oxygen has a specific heat of 0.22 btu/lb deg F. Nitrogen has a specific heat of 0.24 btu/lb deg F. Carbon dioxide has a specific heat of 0.18 btu/lb deg F. (Water has 1 btu/lb deg F)
James_ wrote:
This is what allows it to excite other gases efficiently.

CO2 is not warmer than the gases immediately around it. Nothing is getting excited by CO2.
James_ wrote:
You need to study Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's pretty much ignored in Atmospheric Chemistry

Because it doesn't really mean anything useful there.
James_ wrote:
and Physics.

Physics doesn't ignore angular momentum.
James_ wrote:
Maybe you'll get it.

Get what? That you are using 'angular momentum' like a buzzword?
James_ wrote:
I'll try to find the research that shows CO2 resists cooling when the temperature drops.

CO2 is mass. It resists cooling when the temperature drops just like any other mass. CO2's specific heat (the rate it cools or warms) if about 0.18 btu/lb deg F. Not much different than any other gas in the atmosphere.
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...

The web and the Holy Link are not the Oracle of Truth.

I suggest you go study what specific heat is, why you cannot store heat, and why heat conductivity and specific heat are two separate properties that have little to do with each other.

You might also look at angular momentum and realize why it makes no difference to the atmosphere, other than to prevent devastating winds from tearing the surface of the Earth apart.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 04:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.

You cannot store heat at all. You are correct there is nothing special about CO2 and that it's a trace gas (about 0.04% of the atmosphere, using the Mauna Loa data).
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.

Specifically angular motion (once is object is spinning, it wants to keep spinning unless some force acts on it).
Wake wrote:
CO2 is a molecule in a dense atmosphere which drains it of all energy above the approximate norm via conduction.

CO2 is not a heat sink. It is just mass, like any other mass in the atmosphere.
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.

I would say this is not science. There is no theory talking about such 'norms'.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 16:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
01-08-2017 18:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
01-08-2017 20:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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 ? When a gas like CO2 cools slower than N2 in the same field it is because it is storing energy. It having more kinetic energy allows for this.

I think this is where you have a problem, you said >> This forum SHOULD be used as a discussion forum in which you discuss things and not present them as a positive fact rather than a personal theory.

I think that you are convinced that there is global warming and I simply see no verifiable proof of that. 31-07-2017 16:13 on this page <<

There is much evidence of global warming. And since I will say that CO2 having some effect is likely I will not say that it is the primary cause. 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. <<

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
Edited on 01-08-2017 20:34
01-08-2017 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


An excellent way to put it.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 20:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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 ?

Observations are not a proof. Observations are subject to interpretation by the observer. A 'verified' observation simply means two observers are interpreting the same observation (each in their own way).
James_ wrote:
When a gas like CO2 cools slower than N2

It doesn't. It cools (or warms) faster than N2. This essentially means that thermal energy acquired as a result of the absorption of infrared light is more easily lost to surrounding air. The gas is the same temperature as the surrounding air.
James_ wrote:
in the same field

What field?
James_ wrote:
it is because it is storing energy.

It is not possible to store energy. Energy is always flowing to somewhere else.
James_ wrote:
It having more kinetic energy allows for this.

CO2 is not hotter than surrounding air. It is the same temperature.
James_ wrote:
There is much evidence of global warming.

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes. What exactly IS it??
James_ wrote:
And since I will say that CO2 having some effect is likely I will not say that it is the primary cause.

How can there be a cause for something you can't define?
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. <<

It is not cooler. It is the same temperature as the surrounding air.
James_ wrote:
I don't think CO2 conducts it's heat faster because I think it conducts less heat.

Go look it up. The properties of CO2 are well known. Remember specific heat and heat conductivity are two separate properties.
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".

You cannot trap heat.
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.

Gases don't really have an angular momentum, other than being part of the spinning Earth.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 21:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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.
01-08-2017 22:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


Trying to convert him into your classical Global Warming religion are you?


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 22:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


Into the Night,
You really don't say anything. It seems you just like posting.
An example is this statement of yours where you are quoting me;
James_ wrote:
I don't know.[/quote]
Probably because you are having real trouble with the conservation of energy laws, including the laws of thermodynamics.
[quote]

I understand the laws of thermodynamics. Yet while you say >> Join the fun. Research continues in the way the atmosphere move energy to space. <<

You are ignoring why I said that. Instead you are changing the subject. You are taking it away from what is being discussed. This is why I think you might be a Russian who is in here only to have some fun. After all, you NEVER discuss climate change and seem to have no position on it. You only like messing with people. Why I usually avoid posting with you, it is the only way to avoid the games you play with people.
01-08-2017 23:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
Edited on 01-08-2017 23:10
01-08-2017 23:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
01-08-2017 23:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.

The ozone layer is not being 'recovered'. Ozone is generated and destroyed continuously.
James_ wrote:
This is one reason why I have been pursuing an experiment to show that CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2.

Be sure to have a nice cold soda when you try that experiment. Carbon dioxide and water make carbonated water (and a very small amount of carbonic acid). It does not make formaldehyde and oxygen.
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.

There is no 'good' or 'bad' ozone. There is just ozone.

The ozone in the ozone layer removes the bulk of harmful UV light in the process of its formation and destruction. This is good.

Low level ozone helps scrub the air. It produces that 'fresh rain' smell. This is good.

NOx compounds and unburned hydrocarbons (unburned fuel) can combine with ozone to produce smog, but that's due to the NOx compounds and the unburned hydrocarbons...not ozone (which is always there). A very simple system on automotive engines prevents the formation of NOx compounds. Modern FADEC systems reduce the unburned hydrocarbons (as that is wasted fuel). The reduction of NOx and unburned hydrocarbons is why we don't have nearly as much smog as before.

There is no 'good' CO2 or 'bad' CO2. CO2 is good. It makes life possible.

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

Want to capture carbon? Plant a tree (or anything else).

CO2 does not cause warming. It can't.

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

Jet aircraft exhaust consists primarily of CO2 and water. They routinely fly in the tropopause, since that is the most efficient place for a jet engine to operate (the airlines are trying to save energy too! Fuel costs money!).
James_ wrote:
I think though that the experiment will be difficult to have tried

It's easy. The monitoring system on any jet aircraft measure this stuff as part of operating the engine.
James_ wrote:
because it would be a new consideration and I doubt anyone would want to think that scientists over looked something like that.

It is not a new consideration (unless you consider WW2 technology 'new').

Scientists and engineers know what you get when you burn kerosene (or gasoline). A perfect burn of either fuel emits nothing more than carbon dioxide and water. Rich (sooty) burns wastes fuel. It goes out the tailpipe unburned. Lean (hot) burns produce NOx compounds and damages the engine. Engine damage caused by lean burns occurs in the exhaust valves of a reciprocating engine (the kind found in cars), or in the turbine blades and burner cans of a jet engine. If the jet engine is lean enough, the monitoring sensors get roasted as well, just before the flame goes out.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2017 23:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 00:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
02-08-2017 04:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


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).


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 07:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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?
02-08-2017 08:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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?


No.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 16:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.



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

@All,
It is in my opinion that research has shown that when a constant temperature changes that gases will have different levels of kinetic energy. This would IMO apply to our atmosphere and a gases effect on it.
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.
What is not being considered is if a heavier gas can increase the momentum of a lighter gas. This theory if there were one would be called Conservation of Momentum. This then would allow a heavier gas to increase the kinetic energy of a lighter gas.
And to achieve an equilibrium the heavier gas would need to absorb more electromagnetic radiation. 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. And lower specific heat might be considered as trapping heat.
Edited on 02-08-2017 17:03
02-08-2017 17:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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


I really don't understand what you're saying.

Let me put this in other terms - CO2 has a lower boiling point and if you remove the energy source it cools down more rapidly. And because of that lower boiling point it transfers heat to its surrounding faster. It doesn't HOLD heat - it gets rid of it.
02-08-2017 21:00
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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



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.

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?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 02-08-2017 21:12
02-08-2017 22:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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?


Spot,
With your graph, it shows ozone in smog (tropospheric) and in the stratosphere. Scientists do not believe that anything happens in the tropopause. To show that something does could be an insignificant change in atmospheric chemistry or maybe not. Scientists already accept that co2 supports ozone recovery. You can do a search and form your own opinion about the ozone layer and if we need it.
If I can engage a university like Ky. St., Transy, etc. then 2 weather balloons cost about $700, helium for one balloon about $75. Normal atmospheric air could be used with a slight increase of co2 and water. For that someone could exhale into the balloon and n eye dropper or less of water added to it.
A sample for testing co2 and o2 only would require 2 sensors. Then after the test balloon is retrieved co2 and o2 levels could be sampled and tested again. If co2 drops an o2 increases then something did happen. The most telling gas would be ch2o. Hopefully that's obvious.
I tried explaining to IBdaMann and Into the Night that if co2 increases heat by reducing radiance then pressure relative to wm^2 would increase. I think that covers everything.


Jim

p.s., as for seeding co2 and h2o into ozone, they could be released through a porous material which would slow their being emitted into space. This would give them a chance to mix in a cylinder before becoming a part of the atmosphere.
Hauling water up would be the most expensive part. It might be possible to have a water tank that is floated up using helium and then flies back down using wings and a tail. If so then the amount helium used might be decreased.
It'd be preferable to lower f-gases, etc. but until that happens alternative ideas do need to be considered.
Edited on 02-08-2017 22:21
02-08-2017 22:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
And Wake, Conservation of Angular Momentum is w = v/r

Conversation of angular momentum is not a factor.
James_ wrote:
This explains why CO2 doesn't give up it's heat as easily as nitrogen.

It gives up its thermal energy better than 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.

Lower numbers means it's easier, not harder. The number is related to the number of calories you have to put into a gram of the substance to get it change by one degree.

Lower numbers mean it takes less calories of heat to change a gram of the substance by one degree.
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

If a temperature changes, it is not constant.
If a temperature is constant, it is not changing.
James_ wrote:
that gases will have different levels of kinetic energy.

Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. Weight (or mass) of a molecule makes no difference.
James_ wrote:
This would IMO apply to our atmosphere and a gases effect on it.

Temperature means the same, whether you are talking about a laboratory tank or an atmosphere.
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.

That means they have the same average kinetic energy too.
James_ wrote:
What is not being considered is if a heavier gas can increase the momentum of a lighter gas.

It can. The effect is to transfer the same kinetic energy to the lighter gas. The temperature between the two gases (and the average kinetic energy) starts to become the same.
James_ wrote:
This theory if there were one would be called Conservation of Momentum.

There is a theory called that. You are right here.
James_ wrote:
This then would allow a heavier gas to increase the kinetic energy of a lighter gas.

Only if the heavier gas is at a higher temperature (has more average kinetic energy) then the colder gas.
James_ wrote:
And to achieve an equilibrium the heavier gas would need to absorb more electromagnetic radiation.

Absorption of electromagnetic energy that results in conversion to thermal energy is not affected by the weight (mass) of the molecule.
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.

The atmosphere doesn't have a specific heat. The atmosphere is made up of many gases in varying concentrations, each with their own specific heat value.
James_ wrote:
And lower specific heat might be considered as trapping heat.

You cannot trap heat. Lower specific heat values are not a way to trap heat. Neither are higher specific heat values.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. As long as there is a coupling of any kind, heat always flows from hot to cold.

If there is no coupling, there is no heat. If there is no temperature difference, there is no heat.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 22:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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...

Ozone doesn't 'force' anything. It is not an energy source.
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.

CO2 doesn't 'force' anything. It is not an energy source.
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?

Planes already inject CO2 and H20 at the top of troposphere.

It's called engine exhaust.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 22:50
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
02-08-2017 23:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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

That's an offer?


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2017 23:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
03-08-2017 02:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2017 03:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


You simply cannot control your tendencies to be stupid can you? Fuel contains a given amount of carbon and consumed by oxidation releases that as CO2.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm[/url]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-weight-ratio-co2-fuel/

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
03-08-2017 17:17
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@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.
Edited on 03-08-2017 17:21
03-08-2017 17:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
03-08-2017 18:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
Edited on 03-08-2017 18:20
03-08-2017 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


It is not the weight. It is the energy. Temperature is measured as the average kinetic energy of molecules. A heavier molecule moving more slowly has the same kinetic energy as a lighter molecule moving faster.

Think truck vs sports car. Speed is not kinetic energy.
k=1/2 * Mass * speed^2 is.
If a truck that weighs twice what a car weighs is moving at 3 miles per hour, the car would have the same kinetic energy if it were moving at 9 miles per hour.

Temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules, not their speed, not their mass.

Two substances that are the same temperature have the same kinetic energy, regardless of their atomic weight. One gas is made of 'sport cars' and the other gas is made of 'trucks'. They have the same average kinetic energy.

Any substance above absolute zero has kinetic energy above absolute zero. This includes gases. It is what makes the pressure of a gas in a closed container. It was through these experiments with gas, pressure, and temperature, that created both the Boltzmann constant and our laws of thermodynamics.

The Boltzmann constant is simply an expression of the gas constant in a different way. It is just another way of saying that when the temperature increases of a gas in a closed container, the pressure increases (due to the increased kinetic energy).

The Earth acts as an open container for the atmosphere. There is no top. Increased kinetic energy simply means the atmosphere expands in size slightly. This expansion does not increase the weight of an air column over an area. It does not produce a high pressure area.
Even though air is moving upward due to this expansion, the weight doesn't change, which means it doesn't produce a low pressure area either.

All of this is ignoring the layered effects of the atmosphere, which modify the basic principle somewhat. The basic principle still applies, however.

Angular momentum is not part of this. Linear momentum is part of this, but it's wrapped up in 'freeway collisions' of 'cars and trucks'.

Any substance that has a temperature above absolute zero has moving molecules. They are not all moving the same direction. It's like a freeway in chaos. One hits another, the combined results hits a third, etc. They are constantly hitting each other, changing their direction, and changing their speed (indestructible cars and trucks on a freeway!). They also don't just crash and stop like real cars and trucks, but keep going. Real cars and trucks lose their energy to heat generated in the collision. Molecules vibrating ARE thermal energy. They just keep going, according to the conservation of energy laws.

You have to take energy out of them to cool them, you have to put energy into them to warm them.

The average kinetic energy of this whole mess is what we call temperature.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2017 21:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


If you do not want to understand my example you can simply block it out of your mind. You seem to be developing a theory of the world around you that goes counter to fact so you might as well.
03-08-2017 21:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
.


I deleted unholy quote.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
NOAA's greenhouse gas forcing is fake?107-02-2019 19:12
The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA8010-11-2017 05:08
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 03:32
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 22:37
More NASA and NOAA scientists stepping up to the plate.1124-05-2017 02:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact