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.