lawrocket 3 #326 July 15, 2009 I think I may understand your issue. Kallend isn't really explaining thermal equilibrium very well. If you've got 100 degrees outside it can be kept to 80 degrees in you house with the air conditioner working at its maximum. The AC forces out the heat and equilibrium has been reached. The AC can be considered the earth's cooling system - pumping out the heat into space. Now cover part of the ac's radiator. It may remain a constant 100 outside but now the temperature inside is 82. It'll stay there - there is still some ability to pump out the heat but it is limited, and 82 is now the equilibrium. The CO2 operates as a cover on the AC. It limits the ability of the earth to radiate the heat out but some heat still escapes. Interestingly, increases in CO2 demonstrate heat capture on a logarithmic scale. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #327 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf you claim they are both being heated at the same time (which is what your equation shows), then that's a different argument. That is what is happening. The CO2 stops IR radiation from being radiated into space by 1) absorbing it and warming up the air, 2) re-radiating the absorbed IR either back to the earth heating it up or out into space 3) reflecting the earth emitted IR back to the earth heating it up. The temperature changes due to CO2 increases happen relatively slowly so that the system at any given instant is more or less in thermal equilibrium. There is never a big thermal discontinuity like your theory would need if it were true. QuoteDo the delta-Q calc and ask yourself what temperature the CO2 would have to reach to facilitate that? It's simply not possible. Right, it's not possible and that is because you have misunderstood the physics of the system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #328 July 15, 2009 Quote The CO2 operates as a cover on the AC. It limits the ability of the earth to radiate the heat out but some heat still escapes. I understand the argument. The CO2 is absorbing heat radiated from the earth, thus preventing its escape into space. That heat being absorbed by CO2 is going to do one of 3 things: 1) Radiate itself into space via a different frequency 2) Transfer back to earth via another heat transfer mechanism (convection). 3) Increase the temperature of the CO2, thereby promoting mechanisms 1/2 above. So, the CO2 heats up the atmosphere by 3 degrees. That's not going to do anything to the temperature of the earth/sea. The AGW argument that CO2 is dominating anything of significance is ridiculous. If it's the earth/sea that's actually being heated by 3 degrees, that's a completely different argument. There's only one place that energy is coming from, and that's an increase in the output of the sun. We have no control over that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #330 July 15, 2009 Quote Right, it's not possible and that is because you have misunderstood the physics of the system. So, what am I missing?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #331 July 15, 2009 QuoteSo, the CO2 heats up the atmosphere by 3 degrees. That's not going to do anything to the temperature of the earth/sea. What happens if you put a jug of water in an oven? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #332 July 15, 2009 Quote What happens if you put a jug of water in an oven? Where are you putting the control volume for your energy balance? If your control volume is simply the jug of water, what relevance does it have in this conversation?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #333 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote What happens if you put a jug of water in an oven? Where are you putting the control volume for your energy balance? If your control volume is simply the jug of water, what relevance does it have in this conversation? You are putting a jug of cold water into a hot oven. Assume the energy is coming from the flame at the base of the oven. What happens to the temperature of the water? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #334 July 15, 2009 Quote What happens to the temperature of the water? Ok, I'll play along with you. The temperature of the water goes up.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #335 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote What happens to the temperature of the water? Ok, I'll play along with you. The temperature of the water goes up. And where does it stop? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #336 July 15, 2009 >Do you know/think the use of Solar Power to break down CO2 . . .will >eventually work to a significant degree? Yes, but I think that our best approach there are plain ol' plants. They're free, they grow without too much supervision, and they're useful. For example, switchgrass -> cellulosic ethanol or pellet fuel is a good cycle. Switchgrass grows almost anywhere without much water or fertilizer (it's a weed) and could mitigate 12 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #337 July 15, 2009 Quote>Do you know/think the use of Solar Power to break down CO2 . . .will >eventually work to a significant degree? Yes, but I think that our best approach there are plain ol' plants. They're free, they grow without too much supervision, and they're useful. For example, switchgrass -> cellulosic ethanol or pellet fuel is a good cycle. Switchgrass grows almost anywhere without much water or fertilizer (it's a weed) and could mitigate 12 tonnes of CO2 per hectare. Under the current cap and trade proposals, could you just buy land, plant switchgrass, and claim a bunch of credits to sell on the open market (and presumably, to raise funds to buy more land and plant more)? I'm not up on the specifics of this proposal. Can you help me out?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #338 July 15, 2009 >A one degree change in air temperature will equate to 0.0009 >degree change in water temperature. Agreed - but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The air isn't warming the ocean, the sun is warming the ocean. The increase in CO2 is preventing the re-radiation of that energy from the air, the earth, the sun, pretty much anything exposed to the sky. Here's a better way to explain this: The decrease in re-radiation of IR energy is between 1.6 and 2.4 watts per square meter, so that's heat that is now being retained that was formerly radiated. If you heat a 3500 cubic meter column of water with a net input of 2.0 watts, how quickly will it warm? My (very rough) numbers say .055 degrees per year. That will be reduced as the water warms, since warmer water emits more IR radiation and thus returns to equilibrium. It will also be reduced by mitigation mechanisms such as more rapid evaporation (which cools surface water) and conduction (i.e. it will heat the air as well as the ocean.) The actual measured value of ocean temperature increase is .013 degrees per year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #339 July 15, 2009 >Under the current cap and trade proposals, could you just buy land, >plant switchgrass, and claim a bunch of credits to sell on the open >market. . . Sort of. You can claim credits for biofuel production, so presumably a biofuel company would pay the farmer, refiner, processor etc and get the credits themselves. However, the current ACES legislation is getting ever more screwed up by Congress, so I have a feeling that even that simple an implementation will end up to not be so simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #340 July 15, 2009 Quote legislation is getting ever more screwed up by Congress. Say it ain't so, Bill! ... 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
billvon 2,400 #341 July 15, 2009 >The CO2 is absorbing heat radiated from the earth, thus preventing its >escape into space. That heat being absorbed by CO2 is going to do one >of 3 things: >1) Radiate itself into space via a different frequency Well, CO2 doesn't know which direction space is. It re-radiates in all directions, both up and down. So some of that re-radiation occurs back to the earth - which is the greenhouse effect. >3) Increase the temperature of the CO2, thereby promoting mechanisms >1/2 above. That doesn't just promote mechanism 1), that IS mechanism 1). CO2 heats up and re-radiates its own longwave IR. If it's the same spectra as the impinging radiation, nothing really happens; the radiation still gets trapped. If it's in a clearer band, it radiates outwards and cools the CO2 (actually keeps it from getting much warmer in this case.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #342 July 15, 2009 Quote And where does it stop? Is the oven set above or below 212 degF?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #343 July 15, 2009 Quote The actual measured value of ocean temperature increase is .013 degrees per year. Finally, we're getting somewhere. Quote so that's heat that is now being retained that was formerly radiated. Where is this heat being retained?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #344 July 15, 2009 >Where is this heat being retained? In this case, in the ocean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #345 July 15, 2009 Quote>We donate to feel good about ourselves and not bring press to ourselves. Yea, fuck altruism. I donate to causes because they are deeply personal to me and not because I want to show what a great guy I am. I don't donate to many causes because I do not support them. Altruism is great. Altruism is consistent with self-interest. Much like the amount of time I spend with my kids is motivated by my self-interest. I love my kids and want all the time I can have with them. If that means taking them swimming on Saturday versus a round of golf or skydiving, I say that it is because I am selfish and would rather spend my time with them. QuoteAs a side point, everyone is wired to enjoy sex. Unfortunately, the christian coalition won't admit that to you. Liberals would. As a sidepoint, everyone is wired to be selfish. Unfortunately, the secular left won't admit that to you. The religious overcome it by capitalizing on selfishness by letting the followers know that they will burn in hell. Nobody wants that. So, there is a selfish reason for their selflessness. Name me an altruist who does it only for sake of altruism other than you or me. If you can name that person, then that person has let the altruism be known. Which is a species of selfishness. I've known plenty who would give you the shirt off of their backs, so long as it was properly documented with photos and video because they want others to see how good they are. QuotePlease don't but Libertarians on a mound above the rest, it is rude and arrogant. I don't. I say we are who we are and what I am. I think it's better to leave people alone and be left alone. Libertarian seems to be the party that is most in support of this thought. QuoteJust 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. Anything is feasible with enough money to keep it alive until it becomes economically feasible. Some ideas are so good and simple that they immediately take off. Others require more, such as an infrastructure. The quickly successful startup requires use of an existing infrastructure. It also is an indication of the innvoator's dilemma. Once a person has innovated and met success, they have realized their dreams. Most seek no additional dreams and instead focus on making sure they don't lose what they've got. The risk of a lone guy focusing his attention on an innovation are small with hopes of massive benefits. Hence, Sergey Brin and Larry Page can afford to risk all they've got. They were young and had little to lose. Yahoo - new but already set - would be unwilling to change its whole way of page ranking. Why risk what is already working with what isn't? So with innovation a business has to view factors: (1) Marginal benefit - What is the relative advantage of this new product? That is, what would be the benefit of this new alternative fuel? The customer base must perceive the advantage. (2) Compatibility - what must be done to change from the fossil fuels to the new product. Yep. Here's a biggie. We'd need engines that run on it. Factories to produce it. Stream of commerce to deliver it. Producers to supply the product to be refined. If you can imagine the government retooling or outright newly constructing new refinement facilities to support it you can see the issue. And changing the engines, etc. That takes a massive effort. (3) How complex is it? Computers didn't take off with the general public until Apple and MS-DOS lowered the complexity. Innovation can be merely helping make things simple. (4) Visibility of perceived advantage - Windows made a huge difference in the perception of advatage of computers. Driving cleaner fuels is a diffuse benefit that must be explained. "The glory is in doing it first. The Money is in doing it second." - Larry Bell The first shows the feasibility and takes the steps toward the adoption of the product by the public. By then, the first is either: (1) out of money; or (2) unwilling to risk the gain by further innovation. Which is why the second makes money. It takes a huge investment and a massive amount of cooperation to do this. The public, seeing no real advantage to them and an increased cost, will not buy it. Quoteyou 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. When the public perceives the need for an alternative. The groundwork is being laid right now about alternatives. It simply is not affordable to the public at this point because the costs outweigh the benefits. Quoteso what perfect balance between taxing people to fund that government but not supporting the tax structure is adequate for your utopian vision, then? I dunno. I'd probably maintain taxes at their current levels and slash outlays. Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I am not responsible. If I could cut a trillion from this year's budget we'd break even. (Scary thought, eh? Trillion dollar deficit.) Cut 10% from there the next year and we'd probably still break even. Cut another 10% and we'd have a surplus. 75% of the surplus is used for paying off national debt. 25% socked away. The next year, cut maybe 8%. Another surplus. Pay off the debt. Etc. When debt is down to, say, 10% of GDP, lower taxes. Cut the outlays some more. Pay off debt. The tax rate would be flexible but on a downward trend. QuoteMost 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 Absolutely. The subtle differences differentiate people. I'm unique - just like everyone else. QuoteHow 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?) The government is there to protect the market. Now the government IS the market. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #346 July 15, 2009 Quote In this case, in the ocean. Why the emphasis on CO2?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #347 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote And where does it stop? Is the oven set above or below 212 degF? For simplicitys sake, below. Are we are understanding the concept of thermal equilibrium yet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #348 July 15, 2009 QuoteSeriously Mike, learn to read. QuoteCO2 acts to retain heat, that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat, and that if you retain more heat in a system the temperature goes up. Must've been that OTHER JackC that wrote this, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #349 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteSeriously Mike, learn to read. QuoteCO2 acts to retain heat, that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat, and that if you retain more heat in a system the temperature goes up. Must've been that OTHER JackC that wrote this, then. First, the I didn't see the word "ALWAYS" in there, which was part of your claim. And as usual, you add 2 + 2 and make 5. Try to figure out the error in your claim. (Although there IS a situation where adding heat to a closed system doesn't change its temperature, that isn't the situation Jack was discussing.)... 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 #350 July 15, 2009 Quote Are we are understanding the concept of thermal equilibrium yet? Ok, how does CO2 come into play here?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
