Re: Take Their Word For It

Claudius Denk wrote:
<dimndsonmywndshld@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1146430647.035047.309030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claudius Denk wrote:

And the best lab evidence indicate that there is not
much difference between the thermal properties of these molecules as compared to
CO2.



wrong, see discussion re. short wave/long wave radiation...for example
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00082.htm



Uh. There's nothing on this website that addresses the issue I presented. Replacing the word radiative for thermal doesn't make much difference. We're still expected to take their word for it.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'thermal properties' of diatomic
oxygen & nitrogen in comparison with carbon dioxide. There is
ample evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in specific
wavelengths that the Earth is very fond of emitting at, given
its temperature. In fact, they've built satellite infrared
sensors based on this very fact. Diatomic oxygen/nitrogen,
in contrast, do not absorb radiation so efficiently at outgoing
wavelenghts.

Of course, you do still have to take my word for it. But you
can go to the link below, and read some, and branch off other
links. You'll still have to take someone's word for it, of
course, unless you're going to start doing a lot of radiation
experiments in the laboratory.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/opsats/geo/GOES/GOESmain.html


Scott
.