The Sound of Settled Science

[flacaltenn]

.I also knew that it can only store and transport heat in its liquid form.

Obviously not because these compressors would be too expensive to run CO2 as a liquid.. It's a gas --- man.. LOL....

 

[flacaltenn]

What do they say about the MAGNITUDE of that effect in 2100?? Go look it up so we can discuss whether "this effect" amounts to a snooze or the BIGGEST THREAT to our existence.

The world is NOT ending in 12 years.. Did you KNOW that? In fact, in 12 years at the current rate of warming, it'll just be about 0.15DegC warmer... That's a wispy cloud passing thru on a summer's day..

Oh, I see, if we are all dead by then, it won't matter.

Sorry, the time to address this problem is now, not in 12 years or 80 years.

We'll be all dead from another 0.15DegC change in the MASTemperature in 12 years? Get a fucking grip or INVEST some research on your own.. You know virtually nothing about the projections or the scientific claims for GW futures...

 

[flacaltenn]

it can store

Wrong;

It is incapable, in the gas form, of energy storage.

Get me the link.. And explain to me how those GAS CO2 compressors work if CO2 has ZERO Heat capacity in gas form..

Don't leave the realm of reality.. I don't where you get these wild hairs. But they're not good looking for your image...

 

[Billy_Bob]

it can store

Wrong;

It is incapable, in the gas form, of energy storage.

Get me the link.. And explain to me how those GAS CO2 compressors work if CO2 has ZERO Heat capacity in gas form..

Don't leave the realm of reality.. I don't where you get these wild hairs. But they're not good looking for your image...

Tell me Flac, what happens to energy in the transport system when the compressor is shut off? is it stored somewhere magical or does entropy occur and the heat is lost to space?

CO2 can not retain heat in the gas form. When the first phase change happens and the gas is compressed into a liquid all the energy it possesses is forced out. During the second phase change, from liquid to gas an energy deficit is caused and heat/energy is collected until temperature equilibrium is obtained. At this point it begins radiating heat energy.

The compressor is on the gas side and the heat it creates is taken by the gas and emitted on the high pressure side as the cycle again begins.

Please show me where CO2 can store energy without work being done. I'll wait.

 

[flacaltenn]

CO2 can not retain heat in the gas form. When the first phase change happens and the gas is compressed into a liquid all the energy it possesses is forced out. During the second phase change, from liquid to gas an energy deficit is caused and heat/energy is collected until temperature equilibrium is obtained. At this point it begins radiating heat energy.

Forget compression now.. And what happens when you turn off power to your CO2 heat pump does not matter..

The FACT is that CO2 is one of those gaseous molecules that has the right vibrational modes to absorb and store and re-emit photon energy in the INFRARED band (or kinetic energy)... Denying this just signs your tin foil hat card..

Single atom gases or biatomic gases (O2, N2, etc) can NOT do this. CO can but just barely.. You need symmetrical 3 or more atom gas molecules to have this property.. Like H2O or CO2 or CH4...

Maybe you got jacked by some people telling you that CO2 was transparent to sunshine.. But it's OPAQUE at some IR frequencies. Which is the ONLY THING that matter to the GH effect, since it's the IR radiation from the Earth's SURFACE that's at play in the GH effect.. NOT the incoming solar irradiance..

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 can not retain heat in the gas form. When the first phase change happens and the gas is compressed into a liquid all the energy it possesses is forced out. During the second phase change, from liquid to gas an energy deficit is caused and heat/energy is collected until temperature equilibrium is obtained. At this point it begins radiating heat energy.

Forget compression now.. The FACT is that CO2 is one of those gaseous molecules that has the right vibrational modes to absorb and store photon energy in the INFRARED band (or kinetic energy)... Denying this just signs your tin foil hat card..

Single atom gases or biatomic gases (O2, N2, etc) can NOT do this. CO can but just barely.. You need symmetrical 3 or more atom gas molecules to have this property.. Like H2O or CO2 or CH4...

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

Infrared energy is so low in the spectrum that the energy it holds cools the atmosphere and fails to warm it. Calling it 'storage' is laughable...

You can keep your own tinfoil..

 

[westwall]

You are apparently the conspiracy nut. I am trying to discuss the science and you are going on about everything but science...claiming conspiracy with koch brothers to get science published...secret underground bunkers etc...

Naw, man, it's not a conspiracy when they do it pretty much out in the open. Almost all of the anti-Warming propaganda trails back to the Koches and the Oil industry.

cui bono - who benefits.

If we engaged in a Crash Program to get onto alternative clean energy, we could do it. Probably for a lot less than it costs us to play Hall Monitor in the Persian Gulf.

And not necessarily using all the things hippies like. I'd have no problem with increasing the number of nuclear plants, for instance. I think left wing hysteria over nukes in the 1980's has helped put us here.

But the oil companies benefit from the status quo, so they are happy to put out absolute bullshit about how it isn't happening or it isn't as bad as it looks, or gosh darn, we might all die, but that's better than letting the government tell us where to put our thermostats!!!!

Again with the 95%. I asked before if you could name any other branch of science where the number of people who believe a hypothesis is correct is offered up as evidence that the hypothesis is correct. You didn't answer

Because it was a stupid question. That's why I didn't bother with it.

I also don't question the 4 out of 5 dentists thing...

Hundreds of billions to the oil companies, or 76 TRILLION dollars to the global warming fraudsters.

Yes, who benefits

You are hoist on your own petard of idiocy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

Your talking ENTROPY not storage... Your conflating the time it takes heat to leave the earths atmosphere and the energy stored by a molecule. They are very different things..

Sorry Flac... On this one your wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

And the claim of a record fails even in the past 150 years...here are the results of over 90,000 chemical analyses of atmospheric CO2...and by the way, chemical analysis is far more accurate than the spectral analysis which is being used by climate science today..

That's hysterical stuff. Especially if those hundreds or so points in the "local measurements" were taken indoors, outdoors, under the sea and 12,000 ft up by balloon... You got a SOURCE for that "locally measured CO2 data"??

You and BillyBob would have a MUCH EASIER time destroying a lot of the panicked GW assertions if you just STUCK to mainstream science and the facts. Making shit up and LOOKING for conspiracy science to make your case is a LOT HARDER than actually using real science...

 

[flacaltenn]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

Your talking ENTROPY not storage... Your conflating the time it takes heat to leave the earths atmosphere and the energy stored by a molecule. They are very different things..

Sorry Flac... On this one your wrong.

No sources. No discussion.. You're making me uncomfortable, but not informing me of ANYTHING I can square with the Chemistry and Physics that I understand.. You can certainly CLAIM you're right, but you've not won a single honesty point here...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

Your talking ENTROPY not storage... Your conflating the time it takes heat to leave the earths atmosphere and the energy stored by a molecule. They are very different things..

Sorry Flac... On this one your wrong.

No sources. No discussion.. You're making me uncomfortable, but not informing me of ANYTHING I can square with the Chemistry and Physics that I understand.. You can certainly CLAIM you're right, but you've not won a single honesty point here...

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

No...

It must re-emit the photon or lose its energy via collision within the time the photon resides before the dipole moment of the molecule expels it. This is not storage. You cant access it at will and it is time dependent due to the molecules make up.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/energy-transfer-rate

 

[flacaltenn]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, I'm sure the oil companies are telling you the truth.

Hey Joe --- that article was being published in the AGU Journal. For you -- thats the American Geophysical Union, one of largest group of GW scientists in the field. AND -- it's been peer reviewed....

If you KNOW this is "oil company propaganda" -- you should have provided that information BEFORE your 20 other posts in this thread.. What a waste of server space -you are..

For $16 -- you can get a "read only" copy and SHOW US where any "oil company" sponsored their work...

Go for it...

 

[flacaltenn]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

Your talking ENTROPY not storage... Your conflating the time it takes heat to leave the earths atmosphere and the energy stored by a molecule. They are very different things..

Sorry Flac... On this one your wrong.

No sources. No discussion.. You're making me uncomfortable, but not informing me of ANYTHING I can square with the Chemistry and Physics that I understand.. You can certainly CLAIM you're right, but you've not won a single honesty point here...

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

No...

It must re-emit the photon or lose its energy via collision within the time the photon resides before the dipole moment of the molecule expels it. This is not storage. You cant access it at will and it is time dependent due to the molecules make up.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/energy-transfer-rate

You're confused. There is no LONGTERM BULK STORAGE required for the GHouse effect or with regard to ANY of the gases that make up the same..

That's because the Earth is CONSTANTLY emitting and LOSING heat energy to the sky via IR and convection. It does this every hour/minute/second/nanosec of the day.. The atmos layer in which these GH gases resides only RETARDS that loss of heat. And as the concentration of GH gases INCLUDING water vapor increases, there is incrementally LESS going to the heavens and MORE being back-radiated/reflected/mirrored to the surface.

That not only causes new surface temp equilibriums, but the INSTANTANEOUS temperature of the troposphere where the bulk of these gases reside also increase in temperature because of the ability to retain that intercepted IR for however SHORT the residence time is... BECAUSE this is happening CONSTANTLY -- and ALL day and ALL night.. More GH gas -- the more heat RESIDES in those atmos layers.

Not "stored" as tho it's an energy tank with a spigot on it... The only efficient long term STORAGE of heat ANYWHERE on the planet is in the oceans or at the core.. And the oceans do not benefit from back-radiated IR as much as it does down-radiated total solar irradiance.

 

[SSDD]

Really? Got any evidence for the science you claim they bought and paid for?

Yes...

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

So your first link..an opinion piece by the way produced buy a clearly biased organization doesn't say anything at all about the koch brothers buying scientific studies and having them published...it says that they provide funding to groups that are skeptical of the claims climate science is making...skepticism is a vital and necessary part of science and you would know that if you knew the first thing about science...and climate science doesn't tolerate skepticism within its own ranks...one of the things that demonstrates that it is a cult, not actual science.

So thus far, you have no evidence that the koch brothers as actual bought any published science...certainly not the papers I already provided for you which you claimed was bought and paid for by them.

The Covert Attack on McCain's Climate Leadership: Koch and Exxon

And your second link also does not say anything at all about the koch brothers buying science and having it peer reviewed and published...they don't name a single paper or scientist. They say that someone gave money to skeptical non profit groups. Again...skepticism is vital in science...lockstep belief is vital in quasi religious pseudoscience.

So the fact is that you can't name a single scientist, or paper in which the koch brothers bought and paid for the research and the review and publishing process. Like all your claims thus far, it is baseless and is in fact, a conspiracy theory since there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence.

Yeah, you see, sometimes you do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because someone is going to make a profit.

The right thing is to let business take care of business. Innovation does not come out of government...The space program is the only government scientific endeavor which ever produced anything like real innovation in science...and that time is long past. It isn't the right thing to pay people to build inefficient and expensive energy production facilities which produce unreliable energy and drive prices so high that people have to decide whether to pay the power bill or eat..

 

[SSDD]

.I also knew that it can only store and transport heat in its liquid form.

Obviously not because these compressors would be too expensive to run CO2 as a liquid.. It's a gas --- man.. LOL....

What does the fact that it is costly have to do with the fact that CO2 can only store and transport heat in its liquid form? You sound like wuwei...

 

[SSDD]

The FACT is that CO2 is one of those gaseous molecules that has the right vibrational modes to absorb and store and re-emit photon energy in the INFRARED band (or kinetic energy)... Denying this just signs your tin foil hat card..

Sorry guy...in its gas form CO2 has the capacity to absorb and emit, or in most cases, absorb, and lose the energy it absorbed to a collision with another molecule.

 

[SSDD]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

You keep sounding less smart all the time...maybe you should stop digging...it its gas form, the time between absorption and emission is .003ns...the time between collisions is far less....which is why very few CO2 molecules actually ever emit a photon...the vast bulk of energy absorbed by CO2 is lost to non GHG molecules via collision..which is why conduction is the primary mode of energy transport through the troposphere...which is why there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

At this point, I am becoming embarrassed for you too....The fact that CO2 can only store heat when it is liquid is no secret....its very interesting that you don't know this.

 

[SSDD]

And the claim of a record fails even in the past 150 years...here are the results of over 90,000 chemical analyses of atmospheric CO2...and by the way, chemical analysis is far more accurate than the spectral analysis which is being used by climate science today..

That's hysterical stuff. Especially if those hundreds or so points in the "local measurements" were taken indoors, outdoors, under the sea and 12,000 ft up by balloon... You got a SOURCE for that "locally measured CO2 data"??

You and BillyBob would have a MUCH EASIER time destroying a lot of the panicked GW assertions if you just STUCK to mainstream science and the facts. Making shit up and LOOKING for conspiracy science to make your case is a LOT HARDER than actually using real science...

Mainstream science on the topic is dead wrong...why would I want to be on that crazy train?