StreetScooby 5 #301 July 15, 2009 Wrong? I just showed that at equilibrium, the net change will be 0.0009 degrees, or less.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #302 July 15, 2009 To suggest that calorimetry is not a factor in heat transfer is spurious. To suggest that it is a dominant factor is spurious. It is A factor - well, several factors. One of them is "ocean mixing." Another is convective transfer - which is the reason why many suggest that hurricanes will increase (failing to account for temperature differences.) Most SCUBA divers have experienced thermoclines. I've experienced a few skydiving. Mixing is when those thermoclines mix. We also have evidence of heat transfer in local climates like Los Angeles, where coastal influence predominates. Fog is a result of heat transfer. And it goes both ways. However - Calorimetry does not appear to be a dominant force. It is important like oregano in marinara. But greenhouse gases and sunlight are the water and tomatoes. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #303 July 15, 2009 Quote Calorimetry does not appear to be a dominant force. It is important like oregano in marinara. But greenhouse gases and sunlight are the water and tomatoes. AGW disciples claim that 3 degrees of atmospheric warming is melting ice caps. That's where the calorimetry argument comes into play. Those numbers don't add up.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #304 July 15, 2009 Let's just consider a radiative heat balance around the earth. Heat absorbed by earth = Heat from sun - (heat reflected + heat radiated). AGW disciples claim that the (heat reflected + heat radiated) are being significantly impacted by CO2. This is causing the atmosphere to warm, and melt ice caps. Those numbers do not add up. Not even close. I'm happy to learn something here. What am I missing?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #305 July 15, 2009 QuoteLet's just consider a radiative heat balance around the earth. Heat absorbed by earth = Heat from sun - (heat reflected + heat radiated). AGW disciples claim that the (heat reflected + heat radiated) are being significantly impacted by CO2. This is causing the atmosphere to warm, and melt ice caps. Those numbers do not add up. Not even close. I'm happy to learn something here. What am I missing? Thermal equilibrium for a start. You've been told several times already.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #306 July 15, 2009 Quote Thermal equilibrium for a start. You've been told several times already. That's why I did the simple heat balance. If you can actually teach something, I'm all ears. I'm having serious doubts about your ability to do so.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #307 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Thermal equilibrium for a start. You've been told several times already. That's why I did the simple heat balance. If you can actually teach something, I'm all ears. I'm having serious doubts about your ability to do so. Just pulling some simple numbers for the sake of example, you are saying (in effect) the air warmed by 3 degrees and you calculate the effect of putting, say, 20 degree air in contact with 17 degree water and doing a heat lost = heat gained calorimetry calculation. But that isn't what's going on. The Sun isn't warming the air which then warms the oceans. The solar radiation heats the land and ocean water because the radiation loss < radiation input.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #308 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Calorimetry does not appear to be a dominant force. It is important like oregano in marinara. But greenhouse gases and sunlight are the water and tomatoes. AGW disciples claim that 3 degrees of atmospheric warming is melting ice caps. That's where the calorimetry argument comes into play. Those numbers don't add up. No. Nor do they take into account the effects of water vapor and other factors, such as the local higher levels ofincreases. CO2 has the highest ability to increase warming where there is the absence of water vapor and largely stagnant air circulation, This is why Siberia is warming the most.. Local climates will find greater increases. A 1 degree increase in the temperature in Los Angeles may be a 5 degree increase in Siberia. The ice caps melting is not probable but some encroachment on the ice caps would be probable. Yes, if the icecaps melt the rise in sea level would be huge. Similarly, if the temperature drops by 6 degrees, Omaha will likely be under a sheet of ice in the coming decades. But melting the icecaps entirely? Not anytime soon... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #309 July 15, 2009 Quote But that isn't what's going on - the solar radiation heats the land and ocean water too, not just the air, on average by 3 degrees. My understanding of the AGW argument is that the heat reflected/radiated by the Earth is being absorbed by CO2, thus warming the atmosphere, thus melting ice caps. Is that a fair summary?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #310 July 15, 2009 My point here is that AGW advocates keep discussing the increase in atmospheric temperature. IMO, that's not a valid argument when it comes to justifying draconian taxes on our civilization.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #311 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote But that isn't what's going on - the solar radiation heats the land and ocean water too, not just the air, on average by 3 degrees. My understanding of the AGW argument is that the heat reflected/radiated by the Earth is being absorbed by CO2, thus warming the atmosphere, thus melting ice caps. Is that a fair summary? Other gases absorb IR too, but the calculated temperature rise quoted is NET, AFTER heat has been re-radiated to the earth and oceans. It's not the air warmed 3 degrees but then lost 2.99 degrees to the ocean which warmed 0.01 degree as your calorimetry calculation assumes. The whole lot warms 3 degrees (on average), which is plenty enough to melt a lot of arctic ice. Usual disclaimer - the numbers are for illustration purposes only.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #312 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Calorimetry does not appear to be a dominant force. It is important like oregano in marinara. But greenhouse gases and sunlight are the water and tomatoes. AGW disciples claim that 3 degrees of atmospheric warming is melting ice caps. That's where the calorimetry argument comes into play. Those numbers don't add up. No. Nor do they take into account the effects of water vapor and other factors, such as the local higher levels ofincreases. CO2 has the highest ability to increase warming where there is the absence of water vapor and largely stagnant air circulation, This is why Siberia is warming the most.. Local climates will find greater increases. A 1 degree increase in the temperature in Los Angeles may be a 5 degree increase in Siberia. The ice caps melting is not probable but some encroachment on the ice caps would be probable. Yes, if the icecaps melt the rise in sea level would be huge. Similarly, if the temperature drops by 6 degrees, Omaha will likely be under a sheet of ice in the coming decades. But melting the icecaps entirely? Not anytime soon... Latest from the Arctic. and this... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #313 July 15, 2009 >Libertarian = honest. We don't lie about our intentions like good conservatives and liberals. We like sex. We like alcohol. How cute. Aren't you a lawyer? Which is it... honest or a liar, again? >We work for outselves. Well, at least when you can. >We donate to feel good about ourselves and not bring press to ourselves. Yea, fuck altruism. As a side point, everyone is wired to enjoy sex. Unfortunately, the christian coalition won't admit that to you. Liberals would. So would Libertarians. Please don't but Libertarians on a mound above the rest, it is rude and arrogant. >So you admit that right now it isn't feasible. Not exactly. Just because something takes a few years to finally earn profit doesn't mean it isn't feasible. Cmon lawrocket. Thats a piss poor excuse for not entering a market, and you know it. >The government may get the glory and go broke doing it Of course you would need more information to say such a thing. Like for example, you would want to know precisely when such an industry could make itself a worthy substitute to petroleum fuels, and if it wouldn't in the near future, you would be more likely to be correct. You would also want to know when the world's proven oil reserves are going to peak, and when its cost would begin to get high enough that you could sell a comparable substitute for a better price. "The world's oil reserves are up to 80 percent less than predicted, a team from Sweden's University of Uppsala says. Production levels will peak in about 10 years' time, they say. "Non-fossil fuels must come in much stronger than it had been hoped," Professor Kjell Alekett told CNN. Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say. At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050" >I am not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law. I also see how the rule of law can be used as a political weapon to destroy. Great, so what perfect balance between taxing people to fund that government but not supporting the tax structure is adequate for your utopian vision, then? >Nope. Shows how fucked up government is, duddenit? It's a point we can both agree upon. Well there you go. Point made. >You know not what dwells withon my heart and mind. Oh silly you. We've discussed this before. You are no different than the rest of us drones. Most people like to think they are so different from the masses, but they aren't. There are a hundred yous out there and there are a hundred mes. The similarities far outweigh the differences, especially when you factor in the point that we all end up having the same experiences, just at different times with slight changes in setting. Didn't you say you like sex? Hmm... not very different from the libertarian lawyers (who, I suppose, really are humans) before you who enjoyed sex. >Government actually does a better job than vigilantes. Wow. Libertarians are capable of saying "government does a better job" all in the same sentence. Now, where is the line drawn? How do you consistently say that there should be a genuine free market but allow the government to intervene? (Didn't you say this was necessary given taxation?) >helluvan assumption Heh. Just like your views on the market. Time will tell if such a market is feasible in the long run. >It'd be a shame if a valid point was overlooked because some asshole deemed you unworthy. Right. Aww shucks, its just how it is. Provide some sound means of disproving other's theories on global warming and you will make history books. Oh wait, your party already tried. Looks like science didn't agree with you yet. >this aint a court of law, sir. We can assume what we want .......ooook..... Anyways. My assumptions were for the purposes of illustrating the result of a hypothetical situation. You can do this anywhere bucko. >One might actually be teaching ing Chicago or developing batteries in San Diego. Can't have that. They post on dz.com Hilarious! That means they are a qualified person. Random posters on dz.com typically aren't. Way to go lawrocket. I'm going to call you Misunderstanditron from here on out. Yes... Misunderstanditron. >That may qualify to to expoain how you destroyed the planet, but not sociopolitical issues. Unless, of course, I worked in Saudi Arabia and saw it first hand. Wait, I probably shouldn't talk about this. Forget I said that. (Who is Exxon, anyways?) >You've just lost ALL credibility Yea dude. Your still a lawyer. This would entail that you don't have a soul. But you can still not have a soul and not be an asshole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #314 July 15, 2009 Quote Other gases absorb IR too, but the calculated temperature rise quoted is NET, AFTER heat has been re-radiated to the earth and oceans. So, their not discussing atmospheric warming, then?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #315 July 15, 2009 Quote Latest from the Arctic. What's the latest from the antarctic?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #316 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Other gases absorb IR too, but the calculated temperature rise quoted is NET, AFTER heat has been re-radiated to the earth and oceans. So, their not discussing atmospheric warming, then? Non sequitur.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #317 July 15, 2009 Quote Non sequitur. How so?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #318 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Non sequitur. How so? Global climate change includes the atmosphere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #319 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Latest from the Arctic. What's the latest from the antarctic? Thanks to humans' heroic endeavors pumping CFCs into the atmosphere, the Antarctic is temporarily doing OK but it's not expected to last.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #320 July 15, 2009 We were in Chamonix recently and took a trip to the 'Mer de Glace'. On the footpath down to the glacier, they have positioned signs with the dates that the gacier was last at that position .... It's an eye opener on how the glacier has receeded in very recent times (last 20 years!!). (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #321 July 15, 2009 QuoteWrong? I just showed that at equilibrium, the net change will be 0.0009 degrees, or less. No. You worked out how much you could raise the temperature of the water given enough heat to raise the temperature of the air by 1 degree. This is all well and good but not particualrly useful since the air and water in this sytem will be in thermal equilibrium. This means that on average, if you measure a temperature rise of 1 degree in the air, the water will have equalled the temperature rise and also risen by 1 degree. What you cannot say it that because the air has raised it's temperature by 1 degree, the water will have only raised it's temperature by 0.0009 degrees. You only have to put a jug of water in an oven to see that this is rubbish. Since the system operates as a whole in thermal equilibrium, the equation you need is dQ=(c_water * m_water + c_air * m_air) * dT. Given a heat change dQ, you can then work out dT. That is, if calorimetry were the right tool for the job, which it ain't since we don't have a closed system. If you really do have a masters in chemistry, you should not need to be told this stuff, it's high school level work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #322 July 15, 2009 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #323 July 15, 2009 >Yes, if the icecaps melt the rise in sea level would be huge. Not really. Melting floating ice does not change sea level. We could lose the entire northern ice sheet (which is coming close to happening) and not see any sea level rise. Greenland is a much bigger issue, and indeed melting is going up quite a bit there. Antarctica is even bigger, but fortunately temperature rises there so far have been minor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #324 July 15, 2009 I have pictures of this if you'd like to see it- it is qu ite amazing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #325 July 15, 2009 Quote This is all well and good but not particualrly useful since the air and water in this sytem will be in thermal equilibrium. This means that on average, if you measure a temperature rise of 1 degree in the air, the water will have equalled the temperature rise and also risen by 1 degree. It depends on which side is driving the change. If you heat the body of water 1 degree, then let it equilibrate with the air, then the air will definitely increase that 1 degree. If you heat the air 1 degree, then let the body of water equilibrate with it, the air will cool down to the temperature of the body of water. If you claim they are both being heated at the same time (which is what your equation shows), then that's a different argument. If it's the Earth that's being heated, then where is that additional heat coming from? How does atmospheric CO2 play into this? Claiming it's absorbing enough energy to cause a 3 degree increase in Earth/seawater is ridiculous. Do the delta-Q calc and ask yourself what temperature the CO2 would have to reach to facilitate that? It's simply not possible. The AGW disciples claim that a 3 degree increase in atmospheric temperature is due to CO2 is simply rubbish. I'm more than happy to learn something here, but the numbers simply aren't adding up. Maybe you could show me how? As you said, it's only high school stuff.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
