On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:33:59 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:
>>> What other kind is there, a molecule is an object, and it is
>>> important to understand there is only one kind of kinetic energy,
>>> the mathematical calculation, that is all it is.
>>
>> Ok you are one of those who defines all energy as either kinetic or
>> potential. I must admit that I tend to agree that you can basically define
>> all energy like for instance heat in terms of either of these energies
>
>but of course this energy is real just as potential energy is real. Neither
>are just a mathematical concept
Not a mathematical concept, kinetic energy is totally
nonexistent until an interaction occurs.
For objects on the surface of Earth, there is a definite frame
of reference, it is solid Earth. But for molecules in the atmosphere,
the frame of reference for the kinetic energy is determined by the
direction of motion and position of any colliding molecules.
Until that collision, the only thing that exists is the motion,
it is not helpful to understanding to think of kinetic energy as some
magical property of the object(s), even in air at a given temperature.
It is the velocity of those molecules that determines the
kinetic energy, and that velocity can only be measured or described
relative to the other molecules.
Regardless of the differences between monoatomic or diatomic
molecules, the amount of energy that can be stored, absorbed, or emitted
in a given amount of time is restricted by the mass of the constituent
atoms.
There are a number of ways to determine the limits of any
possible greenhouse effects resulting from IR radiation, but just the
proportion of the effects compared to water vapor tells the story, where
water vapor is present, CO2 contributes less than 5 percent of any
possible greenhouse effect, and at higher altitudes, the quantity is
_LESS_ for CO2 than at lower altitudes, because the density of the
atmosphere is so much reduced, and the Parts Per Million Volume is so
small.
If 90 percent of the atmosphere is below 50,000 feet, then
there is less than 10 percent of the total CO2 contribution to any
possible greenhouse effects there, so the statement that water vapor at
high altitude is less is almost meaningless.
Why the argument for AGW on the basis of high altitude CO2 is
convincing at all shows how opinionated the theory is.
The 5 percent at below 50,000 feet plus an additional
10 percent above 50,000 feet amounts to 5.5 percent of the total
greenhouse effect of water vapor and CO2 combined.
In other words, CO2 greenhouse theory above 50,000 feet can be
totally neglected at half a percent of the total greenhouse effect of
_ALL_ gases.
And I submit this totally destroys the mystery and the
imagined possible temperature increases because of increased CO2.
Half of a percent of the total heat retaining capacity of the
atmosphere of what, 33 C, is too small to even consider even if the CO2
PPMV were doubled, because it would be 0.33 C, less than half a degree F
and very few temperature records are at a precision of half a degree.
BUT, the much greater capability of shielding of incoming
radiation caused by reflecting albedo of clouds can cause much greater
cooling effects, which suggests that there are warm periods like exist
now, and cooler periods in the Earth's history, there is no mechanism
for a substantial warming period as long as water exists over a large
enough proportion of the surface.
This suggests that efforts should be made to reduce the amount
of dry zones like rooftops, walls, and pavement, possibly by water spray
when and where water is in supply greater than needed, but the area that
man has caused to be dry is small.
The dry desert regions are a concern, possibly more could be
done to put water there, even if it produces salt deposits which could
be collected and stored or used in commerce.
All this simply means water provides the controlling
mechanism of Earth's temperature, and man is extremely lucky there is
far more water than oxygen or carbon.
Half a degree F, or a third of a degree C is the maximum
possible warming capability of doubling CO2 concentrations.
|