Posted on 08/28/2013 7:42:51 AM PDT by Kip Russell
In my haste, I messed up the zeroes in the centi- to nano- conversion
Quiz results
49 Correct
1 Wrong
98%
You answered 49 of 50 questions correctly for a total score of 98%.
Actually, my premise is exactly correct. In order for global warming to occur, the atmospheric net energy content must increase. I have never seen anyone describe a mechanism by which CO2 stores energy. All I have seen is that CO2 absorbs in the IR, and emits in the IR--the process, which is known as fluorescence, happens almost instantaneously and is therefore not a storage mechanism.
On the other hand, I saw where another FReeper pointed out that water has a built-in energy storage mechanism--when it undergoes phase changes, a large amount of energy is absorbed or released depending on the direction of the phase change. In that respect, water can and does strongly affect atmospheric energy content. The only phase change CO2 undergoes occurs at about -80 C (give or take a few degrees). Above that temperature, I do not see any great capacity for CO2 to store energy.
Pardon me for the use of the terms “transparent” and “opaque”. I would have hoped that generalities would suffice to illustrate the properties of CO2 and not devolve into a semantic argument. That said, I made no mention of water vapor (which incidentally a green-house gas), nor its role in atmospheric physics; I made no mention of global warming, of what “most scientists” believe, of earth’s climate and the predictive modeling associated with climatology, or the philosophy of science.
What I said was (and again allow me to apologize for generalizing, “One of the immutable qualities of CO2 is that it is transparent to short-wave energy and opaque to long-wave. In other words, light will easily pass through it, bur heat is absorbed and reradiated. This has been known since the 20s and is easily demonstrated.”
I hope that clears things up for you. Are we done?
This is why I do not believe in man-made global warming or the notion of evolution. Science is against both.
Socialists pretend that these things are science, but they do not pass the test.
I had to answer one incorrectly to score a point that I know to be wrong because that is the general “consensus” in the scientific community.
I actually did get one wrong because I didn't know the answer.
Water does have a higher heat capacity than CO2, to be sure. I’m not sure why you keep mentioning fluorescence - that involves the reemission of visible light, not heat (IR).
Sadly much worse on the tougher one - only 28 correct. :(
My goodness, that was depressing.
I scored at 93% better than and 7% the same as in the General Public.
I’ve got only a couple years of community college education.
I had thought I wouldn’t crack the top 15% at best
Trillons of dollars wsted on Public Education and THIS is the result?
Madness......madness...
I think those were the two that stumped me also. I know for sure the electron question did. Wouldn’t know an electron from a proton or anything else. lol
Not a geeky science person even though Star Trek is my all-time fave show along with The X-Files.
Al gore would probably get one right....or maybe a negative number if that is possible.
I saw your post before I scored 13 of 13. However I probably would have said Hydrogen and missed that one.
Is hydrogen the most abundant element in the universe?
I keep mentioning fluorescence because that is the name of the physical process involved when an atom or molecule absorbs a photon of light and re-emits it. It does not matter if the fluorescence takes place above (in the UV) or below (in the IR) the range of visible light; the process is still called "fluorescence." For practical purposes, the process is instantaneous. While there is a small output of IR (heat) involved with fluorescence (due to the small energy loss of the emitted photon being retained by the absorbing atom/molecule and emitted as IR), in the case of CO2, this does not change the heat content of the system. This is because the entire fluorescence process takes place within the IR range, so that there is no conversion of visible light energy to IR as occurs with fluorescence within the visible light range.
I have done a number of biological imaging studies. For these studies, I prefer to use fluorescent dyes that absorb and emit within the IR range, because biological tissues tend to be strongly fluorescent within the visible range of light. Mostly, I use dyes whose emission spectra are centered around 600, 680, or 700 nm.
So do younger people and college grads. The 65+ contingent did poorer than the rest on virtually every question.
“I thought nannertechnology was banana research.”
You misread it.
It is “Nanotechnology” which is research into Robin William’s roles in early television series.
Jeez, I gotta tell you guys everything!
You seem to be ignoring the green-house system in your argument. The idea is that IR energy (that enters the system at a higher state), is not reradiated into space, and is intercepted by atmospheric CO2 because of its opacity to long-wave radiation. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the overall interception rate goes up. That heat can then be reradiated into the surrounding atmosphere.
I got 13/13 which was top 7%. I’m surprised. Science is my weak suit, yet 93% of the population did worse.
That planted axiom would seem to be the whole point of the quiz. The answer is nonsense because the question implies a lie that the respondent must agree with before he can choose an answer.
Perhaps the percentages are weighted and 3/4 of everyone is in the 7%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.