On Oct 31, 11:21*pm, z wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:20*pm, AR-

wrote:
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.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

once more, I point folks to the D-Tek, a commerical device for
measuring CO2 content in an air sample by the drop in temperature of a
target irradiated with IR through the sample, and the reduction of the
irradiation of the target due to absorbtion of the IR by the CO2.http://www.inficon.com/download/en/D-TEK_CO2.pdf

We are justly waiting then, for the proper and formal scientific
documentation. What, you do not have this? Small oversight.

There is such a thing called the scientific method. The attempt with
the scientific method, is to prove your negatives to such an extent
that definite conclusions can be made.
You do not define your term IR.
You do not define your term absorption.
You do not explain exactly the conditioning of your glass. You show no
variables at all by which any conclusions of specifics can be drawn.
You show 1 exhibit, and reach conclusions from your pre-conclusioned
and ill defined terms.

Actual evidence of the 'absorption' you claim, would always be at the
point of equilibrium. In any change of temperature, there are many
factors, and change of temperature is not the standard to go by in
attempting to show inordinate absorption. If CO2 inordinately absorbs
IR, then it will always produce a higher temperature at equilibrium
since it is retaining greater energy in the system which 'transparent'
gases would allow to escape. Simple doulble pained glass with CO2
inside should demonstrate the property you claim. And this should be
done with as many different materials in place of the glass as
possible. Any one knows that it is very easy to condition glass to
allow only specific frequencies. Coupled with the bands of non-
transmission of CO2, this could be a major factor in your hoaky
exhibits and false conclusions from your detector.

In your detector, you are dealing with a small quantity of gas.
According to the 'kinetic theory of gases', gases are the same
although they have differently weighted molecules, because heavier
molecules have lower velocity, and thus the molecules of a gas absorb
the same kinetic energy.

But when dealing with the gas constant R, and then defining Bolzman's
constant of ' k ;one must realize that k is the average energy of 1
molecule in the mole of gas. This is the average for a specific
molecule over a length of time, or the average of all the molecules at
any specific moment.

It is important to remember the individual molecules, from which the
'average' pertains, and their absorption of energy as temperatures are
changed.

Many of the CO2 molecules in your detector, may be absorbing more
energy into the HEAT CAPACITY WHICH IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GREENHOUSE
GASES, which is the combination of the kinetic energy absorbed into
velocity of it's mass, the rotation of it's mass or vibrations, and
some enthalpy withing the complex molecule. All monatomic gases have
the same heat capacity which does not change at different temperatures
like most other gases. This is regardless of their weight and
according to the kinetic theory of gases.

The average velocity, (root mean-square average) is inversely
proportional to the square root of the moleclular weight. The average
velocity of hydrogen molecules at 0degC is 1.84E3 m s-1.

Therefore, the average velocity for CO2 molecules at 0degC is
2.8E2 m s-1

I am sure that this instument can detect minute quantities of CO2. But
your inference and conclusion that this is proof of the property of
greenhouse gases is not supported, by either proper scientific method,
or theoretical application.

You present no controls to substantiate your statement,
""the reduction of the
irradiation of the target due to absorbtion of the IR by the CO2"".

Your continued reference to this detector, and your lack of proper and
formal scientific documentation demonstrates clearly that your
approach to science is merely a psychological disease. You use
generalized terms, give incomplete description, and use terms that
have already reached conclusions you cannot support as well as evading
defintiton of terms you use in even very short sentences.

And then, like the blowhard you are, you demand that people accept and
believe your ill defined and unsupported conclusions.

If you believe in your own conclusions with the importance for saving
the world that you pretend, THEN LET'S SEE THE FORMAL SCIENTIFIC
DOCUMENTATION, or even some half assed attempt, WEENIE. The little
mommie's boys are no longer at home, making their dutiful and adoring
mother believe their LIES AND PRETENSE.

Sail on, fool,,

hahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahHhahahah

KD