On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:20:37 -0400, AR- wrote:



Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:


On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:






The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists Special."
It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the items they
put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4 large
rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and used the
remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar on
one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause greenhouse
warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He's failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. This episode is probably
also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole of
air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you can
assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the volume
fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases like
CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e. infrared
energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular atomic
vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a result,
these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more easily than
oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This conversion of
radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the principal of IR
spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing
excitations of outer electrons (used for instance in the UV
spectroscopy). This “absorbed� energy can be converted partially in
kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat production) and partially is
emitted again as radiation energy.


Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the gases
by conduction and convection from the black background.

Unfortunately there is no link to the video so I have only a sketchy idea
of how this experiment was conducted. But if there was a black background
behind the chambers it would generate IR radiation. The original light
source that passed through the chambers would also (unless it was of a
type or specifically designed not to). Thus, IR should have been involved
in this experiment. Though what you maybe saying, is that the main heating
effect (i.e.,much greater than the contribution from IR) given this
experimental set up, was conduction and convection.

That is correct. Conduction and convection (mass transport) are far more
effective than radiation at ambient temperatures. That's why most
computers have fans, for example.

Even back in the
1850's, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source and
detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It's
still true.

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.

You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot be
that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one that's
portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses to absorb
radiation.

It is difficult (and expensive), because of the need to thermally isolate
the sample gas with IR transparent optics, and the expensive, cooled IR
sensors necessary to detect IR in the 15u band in question.

There's not much serious dispute about the absorption spectrum of CO2,
it's the relevance to global warming, in view of the larger effect of
water and its phase changes, at issue. The only effect CO2 could have is
above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks from water make even that
unlikely.

Don't believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly understand it.
The burden of explaining a theory in a clear, accurate and understandable
manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be very suspicious of
those who try to convince you that you are so stupid you can't understand
their explanation. That's just their way of discouraging you from asking
questions they can't answer without exposing their ignorance.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:00:14 -0700, John M. wrote:

On Oct 31, 7:26 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special."
It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the items they
put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4 large
rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and used the
remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar
on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He's failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.
Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e.
infrared energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular
atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a
result, these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more
easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This
conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the
principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet
radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons (used for
instance in the UV spectroscopy). This “absorbed� energy can be
converted partially in kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat
production) and partially is emitted again as radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the gases
by conduction and convection from the black background.

So the atmosphere is not heated at all by conduction and convection?
sarcasm

Even back in the 1850's, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep
the radiation source and detectors completely thermally isolated from
the sample gas. It's still true.

Golly jeepers. The Laws of Physics didn't change in 150 years. Oh, except
that CO2 stopped being a GHG for some strange reason more sarcasm

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases.

Did nobody tell this clod that molecular rotation and vibration, along
with translation, are thermal properties of gases. no sarcasm

They are being shown to gullible children as propaganda.

You mean like in bible classes further sarcasm

John seems to be losing it. Maybe it's related to the climate cooling
down.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:38 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 3:00Â*pm, "John M." wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:26 pm, Bill Ward wrote:





On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special." Â*It aired on 4/26/08 Â*(Season 6, Episode 8). Â*One of
the items they put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. Â*They
made 4 large rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to
another, and used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear
mylar on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than
the control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do
this correctly. Â*He's failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. Â*This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.
Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat
absorbed by N2 + ...
= Â* Â*xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) Â*T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that
the volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However,
gases like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal
gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are
three- and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom,
i.e. infrared energy can be converted more easily into
intra-molecular atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or
heat energy. As a result, these gases (including water as vapor) are
heated up more easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR)
radiation. This conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by
the way is the principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic
ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons
(used for instance in the UV spectroscopy). This “absorbed�
energy can be converted partially in kinetic swinging energy
(resulting in heat production) and partially is emitted again as
radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. Â*The experiment heated the
gases by conduction and convection from the black background.

So the atmosphere is not heated at all by conduction and convection?
sarcasm

Â*Even back in the 1850's, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the
radiation source and detectors completely thermally isolated from the
sample gas. Â*It's still true.

Golly jeepers. The Laws of Physics didn't change in 150 years. Oh,
except that CO2 stopped being a GHG for some strange reason more
sarcasm

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases.

Did nobody tell this clod that molecular rotation and vibration, along
with translation, are thermal properties of gases. no sarcasm

They are being shown to gullible children as propaganda.

You mean like in bible classes further sarcasm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Conduction and Convection are the macroscopic mechanism for heat transfer
from one molecule to the other. What I tried to explain are the
"microscopic" molecular mechanisms of energy conversion from radiation
energy to kinetic energy.

And you explained it rather well. Now what's missing is any actual
evidence that CO2 can significantly affect the climate, as that is what
the experiment is claimed to demonstrate.

On Oct 31, 3:40*pm, Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:32*am, AR-





wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:36 am, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:

snip

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= * *xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) *T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

Uh, relevance?

I am assuming that he is presenting an argument that accounts for the
fact that 1) methane is a "global warming gas", that is it absorbs
radiation at a much greater rate than "non-global warming gases", yet 2)
a container of pure methane does not heat up at a higher rate than a
container of just air--that is, because of the contribution of the other
global warming gases in the column of air. I'm assuming that is the
purpose for pointing out the greater ability of some gases to absorb
radiation than others (though I admit, the argument presented also puts
methane in the more readily heated group). I do not know whether the
argument is sound, but if so, it would be a proper way to account for
the equal heating rates (though there is no way to know the truth of
that either seeing chemist does not have the habit of citing sources,
thus there is no difference in his presentation of fact, fiction,
propaganda, and delusion).

I don't think Bolaleman intended anything but the illusion that he
actually understood any of this.

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that's the last thing they
want.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


If you don't believe this you need to learn about the van der Waals
gas theory!
Let's discuss once you understood this.

On Oct 31, 9:47 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:00:14 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:26 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special."
It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the items they
put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4 large
rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and used the
remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar
on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He's failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewire™ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.
Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e.
infrared energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular
atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a
result, these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more
easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This
conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the
principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet
radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons (used for
instance in the UV spectroscopy). This “absorbed” energy can be
converted partially in kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat
production) and partially is emitted again as radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the gases
by conduction and convection from the black background.

So the atmosphere is not heated at all by conduction and convection?
sarcasm

Even back in the 1850's, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep
the radiation source and detectors completely thermally isolated from
the sample gas. It's still true.

Golly jeepers. The Laws of Physics didn't change in 150 years. Oh, except
that CO2 stopped being a GHG for some strange reason more sarcasm

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases.

Did nobody tell this clod that molecular rotation and vibration, along
with translation, are thermal properties of gases. no sarcasm

They are being shown to gullible children as propaganda.

You mean like in bible classes further sarcasm

John seems to be losing it. Maybe it's related to the climate
cooling down.

Strange that one who speaks nonsense like "...climate cooling down."
imagines another person is the one losing it.

On Oct 31, 2:28*pm, Benj wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:45 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a
"Young Scientists Special." *It aired on
4/26/08 *(Season 6, Episode 8). *One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse
gas theory. *They made 4 large rectangular
chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another,
and used the remaining two for controls.

The name "mythbusters" already makes this a suspect as a propaganda
vehicle. Note that all this proves is that one can measure the thermal
characteristics of PURE CO2 and CH4!

They simulated the Earth by shining a light
through the clear mylar on one side onto
a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer
and melted more ice than the control groups.
They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

BZZZZZTTT! Wrong question. The right question is can CO2 cause ENOUGH
so-called "global-warming" to be significant. Hence to REALLY "bust"
the myth the experiment would have two chambers one with today's air.
And the other with a mixture of air as measured about 1850 or some
other convenient pre-anthropogenic date. If today's air is melting
huge chunks of ice and yesterday's air is not, perhaps THEN you'll
have "busted" a "myth".

It is a shameful thing to abuse children with fake political
propaganda like this. This is almost as shameful as the Nobel Prize
going to Algore who cleverly reversed cause and effect between ocean
temperature and dissolved CO2.

Uh, the oceans are gaining CO2. The CO2 in the air is coming from
fossil fuel burning, as its isotopic ratios prove.

It is a shameful thing when doofuses of the highest order pretend to
be scientists here.

On Oct 31, 1:54*pm, Bolaleman wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:40*pm, Claudius Denk wrote:





On Oct 31, 11:32*am, AR-

wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:36 am, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:

snip

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= * *xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) *T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

Uh, relevance?

I am assuming that he is presenting an argument that accounts for the
fact that 1) methane is a "global warming gas", that is it absorbs
radiation at a much greater rate than "non-global warming gases", yet 2)
a container of pure methane does not heat up at a higher rate than a
container of just air--that is, because of the contribution of the other
global warming gases in the column of air. I'm assuming that is the
purpose for pointing out the greater ability of some gases to absorb
radiation than others (though I admit, the argument presented also puts
methane in the more readily heated group). I do not know whether the
argument is sound, but if so, it would be a proper way to account for
the equal heating rates (though there is no way to know the truth of
that either seeing chemist does not have the habit of citing sources,
thus there is no difference in his presentation of fact, fiction,
propaganda, and delusion).

I don't think Bolaleman intended anything but the illusion that he
actually understood any of this.

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that's the last thing they
want.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you don't believe this you need to learn about the van der Waals
gas theory!

You're in luck. Having studied it in graduate school it just so
happens I'm an expert on van der Waals gas theory.

Let's discuss once you understood this.

Okay. What part of it would you like me to help you with?

On Oct 31, 1:23*pm, AR-
wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:32 am, AR-
wrote:

Claudius Denk wrote:

On Oct 31, 8:36 am, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:

snip

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= * *xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) *T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

Uh, relevance?

I am assuming that he is presenting an argument that accounts for the
fact that 1) methane is a "global warming gas", that is it absorbs
radiation at a much greater rate than "non-global warming gases", yet 2)
a container of pure methane does not heat up at a higher rate than a
container of just air--that is, because of the contribution of the other
global warming gases in the column of air. I'm assuming that is the
purpose for pointing out the greater ability of some gases to absorb
radiation than others (though I admit, the argument presented also puts
methane in the more readily heated group). I do not know whether the
argument is sound, but if so, it would be a proper way to account for
the equal heating rates (though there is no way to know the truth of
that either seeing chemist does not have the habit of citing sources,
thus there is no difference in his presentation of fact, fiction,
propaganda, and delusion).

I don't think Bolaleman intended anything but the illusion that he
actually understood any of this.

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that's the last thing they
want.

Oh that's simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

and substantiated, for how radiation can and does cause
gasses to rise in temperature.

This thread has described several
mechanisms (convection, conduction, absorption).

Yeah, so?

That's not the issue
being disputed.

It's the only issue that matters. And that is why you won't get an
AGW cultist to discuss it.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:32:48 -0400, AR- wrote:



Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:20:37 -0400, AR- wrote:



Bill Ward wrote:


On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:



On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist wrote:


On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock wrote:







The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special." It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4
large rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and
used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar
on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause greenhouse
warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He's failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro's law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e.
infrared energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular
atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a
result, these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more
easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This
conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the
principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet
radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons (used for
instance in the UV spectroscopy). This “absorbed� energy can be
converted partially in kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat
production) and partially is emitted again as radiation energy.


Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the
gases by conduction and convection from the black background.

Unfortunately there is no link to the video so I have only a sketchy
idea of how this experiment was conducted. But if there was a black
background behind the chambers it would generate IR radiation. The
original light source that passed through the chambers would also
(unless it was of a type or specifically designed not to). Thus, IR
should have been involved in this experiment. Though what you maybe
saying, is that the main heating effect (i.e.,much greater than the
contribution from IR) given this experimental set up, was conduction and
convection.


That is correct. Conduction and convection (mass transport) are far
more effective than radiation at ambient temperatures. That's why most
computers have fans, for example.

Even back in the

1850's, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source and
detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It's
still true.

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.

You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot be
that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one that's
portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses to absorb
radiation.


It is difficult (and expensive), because of the need to thermally
isolate the sample gas with IR transparent optics, and the expensive,
cooled IR sensors necessary to detect IR in the 15u band in question.

There's not much serious dispute about the absorption spectrum of CO2,
it's the relevance to global warming, in view of the larger effect of
water and its phase changes, at issue. The only effect CO2 could have
is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks from water make even
that unlikely.

Do you have some addition sources you could point me to so that I could
better understand and evaluate these assertions?

This may get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

I haven't got the link handy, but Tyndall's 1865(?) book is available on
Google books. He did some of the original work on gas IR absorption.

Then you might see what a new mid-IR instrument would cost. Perkin Elmer
will give you a quote he

http://las.perkinelmer.com/Catalog/P...uctID=L125402A


Are there any assertions in particular that require clarification?

Don't believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly understand
it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear, accurate and
understandable manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be
very suspicious of those who try to convince you that you are so stupid
you can't understand their explanation.

I have rarely found that to be the case for people trying to explain a
theory.

That's just their way of discouraging you from asking
questions they can't answer without exposing their ignorance.

On Oct 30, 8:45 pm, Roger Coppock

They simulated the Earth by shining a light
through the clear mylar on one side onto
a black painted surface at the other side.

This is fraud. One does not need to use visible light on cardboard to
reproduce the infrared energy of the earth.

The fact that you need visible light shows your fraud. Certainly the
earth is warmed by the visible light from the sun. But this energy is
absorbed and radiated back at earth's temperatures which can be
duplicated more effectively than shining visible light on cardboard.
When visible light is absorbed by cardboard, it is radiated quickly
and mostly in high energy wavelengths from .7 um to 5 um.

This is not replicative of earth's radiation. It is only the 15um band
which is important in greenhouse theory. This has NOTHING to do with
the absorption of visible light by black cardboard. The use of
generalized terms to derive analogies and false exhibition of any
factual accounting of this exhibit to demonstrate or validate
greenhouse theory is a very serious crime, in the right
circumstances.

IF YOUR EXPERIMENT IS VALID, SHOW US THE RESULTS WITHOUT THE IMMEDIATE
ABSORPTION OF VISIBLE LIGHT, AND DONE WITH RADIATION SIMILAR TO THAT
FROM THE TEMPERATURES OF EARTH.
OTHERWISE YOU MERELY CONTINUE WITH AN EXHIBIT WHICH CAN BE PROVED
INVALID WHICH PROVES YOU GUILTY OF A SERIOUS CRIME.

In any amount of CO2, there is some amount of CO. CO and methane
oxidize in the presence of oxygen. Free hydrogen, and the OH ion also
oxidize.
The induction of visible light and production of high energy infrareds
from absorption by black cardboard, would certainly enhance the normal
oxidation of CO and methane. Methane completely oxidizes in the
atmosphere IN 12 years, which is one reason it is not an environmental
concern, dispite the FRAUD of the greenie weenie climate alarmists.

In order for you to state your conclusions without being directly
proved to have intent to defraud, you must apply the controls
neccassary to show that oxidation is not occurring which would be
adding heat energy to the exhibit, and all the proper controls which
include substance of containment. But you are not a scientist, nor
are you interested in science. So continue with your fraud and
psychological disease, poopycock.

There are real people out there whom you wish to screw with for your
fake interest in saving us from global warming. But we know your
little brain cannot encompass such facts.

KD