View Single Post
  #23   Report Post  
Old October 31st 08, 08:53 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics
Bill Ward Bill Ward is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Apr 2007
Posts: 128
Default The 'Global Warming in a Bottle' Experiment, Done Correctly. (Are you listening Mr. Bolger?)

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 “absorbedâ€
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.