DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia
There are TWO aspects of Lambert-Beer's Law, and you happily ignore that. In fact, the law is a combination of two separate historic laws, just as the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) is a combination of Boyle-Mariotte's Law relating pressure and volume at constant temperature and Guy-Lussac's Law describing relationship between temperature and pressure, at constant volume.
Lambert's Law deals with energy absorption as a function of path way through a medium, with all concentrations kept constant.
Beer's law deals with absorption through a medium where the pathway is kept constant, but the concentration of the species vary.
The formula you posted was Lambert's Law. Not Beer's Law. Lambert's Law is irrelevant, as the pathway is not varied (although it certainly is quite complex for a mathematical calculation...). But we are interested in the energy effect of changing concentration, so Beer's Law is valid.
Just about all those references you cited and asked me to check CONFIRM that they too think that Beer's law is observed! They even base their calculation of that fact, just as I did!
And still: NO ONE has to this date shown me anything that even comes close to a calculation of the heating effect on our globe from various concentrations of carbon dioxide. ALL those that APPEAR to be doing so, are CALIBRATING THEIR DATA on the assumption that ALL the observed global warming is caused by greenhouse gases! This is logic that bites its own tail, and it is NOT proof of anything.
I am still looking for that PROOF that carbon dioxide COULD cause at least the main part of the currently observed global warming - and you have not given it. I will even accept a calculated estimate that it is POSSIBLE....
But I know the challenge in this. Beer's law clearly shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE. So that proof/estimate would have to include an explanation of WHY Beer's law breaks down in the case of atmospheric carbon dioxide...
And I understand: it is more important to you WHO is right than WHAT is right, and I spot no intention from your side in regards to explaining your point. This throwing references and formulas around with no explaining WHY they are relevant or HOW they support a certain case is quite tiring and not all doing anything to enlighten me, so I am throwing in the towel here - you can continue on your own - it isn't worth my time to check your responses.
No. There is the Beer-Lambert law which defines absorbtion by a mixed gas in any circumstance. It is based on the earlier less useful rules but the equation I provided can be used to determine how much energy is absorbed by a column of air if you know the composition.
What is actually true is that you ignored 4 different sources on the matter at hand ad fell back to a very simple rule which is nearly impossible to apply to the entire atrmosphere. You claim there is another source for the warming but have yet to produce a suspect. I will point out that there is none.
Until you can actually discuss things rather than throwing otu claims and then deny making them I think this discussion is over.
|
RE: So climate change is a Joke? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread