Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 and Some transparency


CO2 and Some transparency02-12-2018 23:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
02-12-2018 23:54
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf



You're not hearing this from me because it's falsifiable just like the "Great Spirit". Since 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.
I have to state that I support itn and gfm7175 in that life is a phallic or fallacy. I get lost on the big words they use. I sometimes wonder if itn gets the point of gfm7175's phallic. That's a fallacy, right? I'm working at learning their ways
03-12-2018 01:10
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf



You're not hearing this from me because it's falsifiable just like the "Great Spirit". Since 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.
I have to state that I support itn and gfm7175 in that life is a phallic or fallacy. I get lost on the big words they use. I sometimes wonder if itn gets the point of gfm7175's phallic. That's a fallacy, right? I'm working at learning their ways



What you might ask yourself Wake is if the oceans can absorb 90% of the extra heat in the atmosphere. We can't even measure the temperature where I live. It could be Seattle and I might live on the hill (3rd Ave) north of the Space Needle. But that's not Westlake. All falsifiable. There is no Westlake or 3rd Ave north of the phallic-they call the Space Needle because there is no space needle. The crap people make up.

I would explain to you why there's different layers of air passing over a wing but have to wait for what you say. You know what you're talking about.

Edited on 03-12-2018 02:06
03-12-2018 02:24
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.
03-12-2018 03:23
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake, to let you know how stupid people are, some slut named Poke Her Hontas (Pocahontas) saw some European dude and jumped in bed with him.
My mother who was a similar slut, she was a direct descendant of Pocahontas did the same thing. She saw a guy from Europe and spread her legs. What is it with ignorant women who have Native American blood in them? Don't they know enough to stick to their own kind?
Kind of why every country should close it's borders. If your own kind ain't good enough for you too bad, so sad.

Itn and gfm7175, see what happens when European men hook up with an American slut? Nothing good ever comes of it.

Wake, I did let one woman I know that if she reads what I post in here offensive, I'll understand. Even though I am a disabled Veteran you won't hear me saying that I am an American. Being born in the US and serving in the US Armed Forces doesn't make someone an American. I've been told that it's the willingness to exploit everyone else is what defines what it means to be an American. Kind of why the US spies on it's allies. And the US has no shame in doing just that. Even the British can't trust us.

Edited on 03-12-2018 04:02
03-12-2018 04:31
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Our allies do make soft targets. Putin would be expecting it so it'd be more difficult.
I like the way NATO stayed out of the Ukraine. That makes it a soft target as well. Poland was given to Russia after WW II. History does repeat itself. I know some Ukrainians and feel sorry for them.
03-12-2018 19:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf


Absorption doesn't warm the Earth, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2018 19:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf



ince 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.

What the IPCC claims is wrong simply because heat is not 'contained' in anything.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2018 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have been trying to explain how CO2 hasn't the slightest effect on atmospheric temperature above a certain level at which all of the energy available in the bands in which it absorbs energy are depleted.

Since the actual energy in the bands in which CO2 is absorbed is very small, the levels of CO2 at which all of the available energy is absorbed is very small and additional amounts of CO2 have no effect.

Here is a paper saying more or less the same thing and perhaps doing a better job of it with displays and charts.

http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf



You're not hearing this from me because it's falsifiable just like the "Great Spirit". Since 1998 the IPCC apparently wrongly claims that 90% of the heat associated with global warming is in the oceans.
This simply means that the oceans are absorbing 90% of the heat content of the atmosphere caused by CO2.
I have to state that I support itn and gfm7175 in that life is a phallic or fallacy. I get lost on the big words they use. I sometimes wonder if itn gets the point of gfm7175's phallic. That's a fallacy, right? I'm working at learning their ways



What you might ask yourself Wake is if the oceans can absorb 90% of the extra heat in the atmosphere. We can't even measure the temperature where I live. It could be Seattle and I might live on the hill (3rd Ave) north of the Space Needle. But that's not Westlake. All falsifiable.

Instrument readings are not falsifiable. They are what they are.
James___ wrote:
I would explain to you why there's different layers of air passing over a wing but have to wait for what you say. You know what you're talking about.

He actually does, to a limited extent. He is describing a laminar flow wing.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2018 20:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow?

Yes it can. That is actually what happens on the back end of a venturi, behind and slightly below wing, at the tail end of a boiler injector.
James___ wrote:
With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows.

When a wing flies, air in front of it is forced to go over the top or under the wing. That decision point is somewhat ahead and slightly below the leading edge of the wing.

A typical wing has a curved top and flat bottom (what is commonly known as a 'Clark' style airfoil). Air forced over the top of the wing is forced upwards. As it passes the spar, the wing drops away from the airflow, but the air has inertia and wants to continue in a straight line. This forms a partial vacuum behind the spar of the wing. The air underneath is pushing the wing up just like it was a piece of plywood. Together, the result forces the air down as it leaves the trailing edge of the wing. The airplane flies because the air is forced down faster than the air below it can get out of the way.

The horizontal stabilizer in the back is also a wing, but it pulls down, not up.

You can describe some of this with Bernoulli's equation, but there is more to a wing's action on the air than just Bernoulli.

James___ wrote:
I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?

The moving air creates it's own partial vacuum on the top by simple inertia. It does follow the wing surface, but not as closely as regular pressure would.

If the airflow breaks away from the surface completely, it creates turbulence instead of the vacuum. The wing is stalled. It falls out of the sky like a streamlined rock.

James___ wrote:
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work.

The theory behind such nozzles is indeed a falsifiable theory. So far it has not been falsified. We design practical nozzles with that theory and they work as advertised.
James___ wrote:
Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says?
...deleted condescending rant...

As long as a theory of science survives tests designed to destroy it, you should take it for the science that it is. Discarding a theory that has no been falsified is discarding something that has better support than a simple circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 02:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.
06-12-2018 16:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.



See? You've only lived in one place, spoke one language and learned only one culture. You couldn't even say that a HiPac works using a piston that looks like a step pyramid. It has a smaller diameter piston on top of a larger diameter piston. The large diameter piston (low pressure) pressurizes the air in the inlet to the high pressure cylinder. FI (fuel injection) uses the same principle, it increases the system's pressure. Then on the intake (downward) stroke the high pressure cylinder becomes charged.
A HiPac is a high pressure air compressor. What you missed about air flowing above the wing on a plane is that even with a steam turbine rotor, even though it spins at the same rpm it will have different layers. An example of this is that one layer will be sub-sonic, one can be vibrating badly because it's traveling at the speed of sound while the out layer will be super sonic.
There will always be a layer moving at the speed of sound. What matters is how prominent it is. If it has a low enough value then the sub-sonic and super sonic layers can absorb it's stress which would be observed as waves of energy.
If you could've given a better answer this is for someone that likes getting things right.
In WW II Joe Kennedy Jr. died as a result of the improper wiring of a bomb. He was the pilot on an experimental piloted drone that had 12 tons of a powerful explosive. They were going to try and take out Hitler's Super Gun. The wiring on the explosives was to activate solenoids on the explosives if a rogue radio signal was picked up. That would prevent the explosiveves from being prematurely armed.
The guy who spotted the wiring problem went up the chain of command and was supposed to have also talked to Joe Jr. The guy didn't have a proper education. Records documented what he said was a serious flaw, his schematic shows it. The plane blew up about 10 minutes after take off.
When Canadians (I think) moved into that part of France where the Super Gun was, they found out that the guy (Barney Wallis), British) who designed the skipping bombs that took out Hitler's hydroelectric dams had also been successful with his earthquake bomb.
How did this affect American politics? That's why JFK became President in 1961.
And you want me to run with a door for what reason? As far as Hitler's Super Gun went, if they would've taken pictures of it in the morning and evening then they could've looked at how shadows were cast on the ground above it. That might've shown that Wallis' earthquake bombs were successful. But they went by 1 perspective and couldn't consider a 2nd or 3rd perspective. If they would've done that then they might've had a proper understanding of how effective those earthquake bombs were.
And when it comes to science, I like considering different perspectives. All this means is that I will go slower than someone who has only one perspective.
06-12-2018 17:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.


For what reason are you speaking gibberish? On a molecular level you have to consider "layers" because of surface friction but in general you need only calculate lift using a single constant for air. None of those "layers" make a hill of beans below the speed of sound. Tell is more about skipping bombs from WW II or steam turbines as if they in some manner have some point in your speech.

See? You've only lived in one place, spoke one language and learned only one culture. You couldn't even say that a HiPac works using a piston that looks like a step pyramid. It has a smaller diameter piston on top of a larger diameter piston. The large diameter piston (low pressure) pressurizes the air in the inlet to the high pressure cylinder. FI (fuel injection) uses the same principle, it increases the system's pressure. Then on the intake (downward) stroke the high pressure cylinder becomes charged.
A HiPac is a high pressure air compressor. What you missed about air flowing above the wing on a plane is that even with a steam turbine rotor, even though it spins at the same rpm it will have different layers. An example of this is that one layer will be sub-sonic, one can be vibrating badly because it's traveling at the speed of sound while the out layer will be super sonic.
There will always be a layer moving at the speed of sound. What matters is how prominent it is. If it has a low enough value then the sub-sonic and super sonic layers can absorb it's stress which would be observed as waves of energy.
If you could've given a better answer this is for someone that likes getting things right.
In WW II Joe Kennedy Jr. died as a result of the improper wiring of a bomb. He was the pilot on an experimental piloted drone that had 12 tons of a powerful explosive. They were going to try and take out Hitler's Super Gun. The wiring on the explosives was to activate solenoids on the explosives if a rogue radio signal was picked up. That would prevent the explosiveves from being prematurely armed.
The guy who spotted the wiring problem went up the chain of command and was supposed to have also talked to Joe Jr. The guy didn't have a proper education. Records documented what he said was a serious flaw, his schematic shows it. The plane blew up about 10 minutes after take off.
When Canadians (I think) moved into that part of France where the Super Gun was, they found out that the guy (Barney Wallis), British) who designed the skipping bombs that took out Hitler's hydroelectric dams had also been successful with his earthquake bomb.
How did this affect American politics? That's why JFK became President in 1961.
And you want me to run with a door for what reason? As far as Hitler's Super Gun went, if they would've taken pictures of it in the morning and evening then they could've looked at how shadows were cast on the ground above it. That might've shown that Wallis' earthquake bombs were successful. But they went by 1 perspective and couldn't consider a 2nd or 3rd perspective. If they would've done that then they might've had a proper understanding of how effective those earthquake bombs were.
And when it comes to science, I like considering different perspectives. All this means is that I will go slower than someone who has only one perspective.
06-12-2018 17:46
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake, all you're demonstrating is that you don't know anything. You have only one perspective and it's yours. You sound like itn and gfm who keep saying they are right. They don't understand the concept of research. It can change the way scientists think about different theories in physics. It's not about being right, it's about developing a better understanding of things. It's a work in progress.
You've shown that you have no understanding of how air flows over a wing. The vacuum between the wings surface and the flow of air will have a different interaction than where that flow of air is increasing the pressure of the air above it.
That would be at least 3 different values.
Flow 1 = creates pressure above flow 2
Flow 2 = primary flow of air
Flow 3 = creates vacuum between itself and the wing's surface.

How can an engineer like you miss something so obvious? Je ne said pourquoi. IL est vrais. Почему? Я не когда не знаю будить.

I do like my smart phone. It's easy to switch between keyboards and has the Cyrillic layout that I like.
On another historical note, the US and Great Britain gave Poland to Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's allowed to have eastern Ukraine and the Sea of Azov so that Ukraine can join NATO. Ukrainians at the moment are nothing more than pawns in a game of chess


And wake, you shouldn't put your reply in with the quote of mine that you're using. That shows just how childish you are.
@itn and gfm7175, if you're using someone else's logic, that doesn't make you right. How would anyone know that they would agree with your usage of their axioms? We can't know that because you are speaking for someone else.
Edited on 06-12-2018 18:06
06-12-2018 18:32
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.
06-12-2018 19:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.

Air does not compress around a subsonic aircraft, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 19:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake, can low pressure high velocity air flow be converted into high pressure low velocity air flow? With me I don't understand how the leading edge of a wing can compress air creating different flows. I mean fast moving air exposed to a vacuum can't react differently than fast moving air exposed to an area that can become pressurized can it?
I mean this is all falsifiable because someone can say that we can't understand how convergent / divergent nozzles work. Just not possible for us to know something like that. I mean what would we do? Accept what someone says? We should never do that. The next thing you know someone will say the "Great Spirit" is responsible for everything. But we know there is no god. Can you believe some people are stupid enough to believe that life was created when it's "is". Sure feel sorry for those fools.

Tell you what - take a door and hold it directly in front of you and then run at 20 mph. That should give you a little training in the compressibility of air. After you do that we can go to lesson 2.



See? You've only lived in one place, spoke one language and learned only one culture. You couldn't even say that a HiPac works using a piston that looks like a step pyramid. It has a smaller diameter piston on top of a larger diameter piston. The large diameter piston (low pressure) pressurizes the air in the inlet to the high pressure cylinder. FI (fuel injection) uses the same principle, it increases the system's pressure. Then on the intake (downward) stroke the high pressure cylinder becomes charged.
A HiPac is a high pressure air compressor. What you missed about air flowing above the wing on a plane is that even with a steam turbine rotor, even though it spins at the same rpm it will have different layers. An example of this is that one layer will be sub-sonic, one can be vibrating badly because it's traveling at the speed of sound while the out layer will be super sonic.
There will always be a layer moving at the speed of sound. What matters is how prominent it is. If it has a low enough value then the sub-sonic and super sonic layers can absorb it's stress which would be observed as waves of energy.
If you could've given a better answer this is for someone that likes getting things right.
In WW II Joe Kennedy Jr. died as a result of the improper wiring of a bomb. He was the pilot on an experimental piloted drone that had 12 tons of a powerful explosive. They were going to try and take out Hitler's Super Gun. The wiring on the explosives was to activate solenoids on the explosives if a rogue radio signal was picked up. That would prevent the explosiveves from being prematurely armed.
The guy who spotted the wiring problem went up the chain of command and was supposed to have also talked to Joe Jr. The guy didn't have a proper education. Records documented what he said was a serious flaw, his schematic shows it. The plane blew up about 10 minutes after take off.
When Canadians (I think) moved into that part of France where the Super Gun was, they found out that the guy (Barney Wallis), British) who designed the skipping bombs that took out Hitler's hydroelectric dams had also been successful with his earthquake bomb.
How did this affect American politics? That's why JFK became President in 1961.
And you want me to run with a door for what reason? As far as Hitler's Super Gun went, if they would've taken pictures of it in the morning and evening then they could've looked at how shadows were cast on the ground above it. That might've shown that Wallis' earthquake bombs were successful. But they went by 1 perspective and couldn't consider a 2nd or 3rd perspective. If they would've done that then they might've had a proper understanding of how effective those earthquake bombs were.
And when it comes to science, I like considering different perspectives. All this means is that I will go slower than someone who has only one perspective.


More random, disconnected crap.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake, all you're demonstrating is that you don't know anything. You have only one perspective and it's yours. You sound like itn and gfm who keep saying they are right. They don't understand the concept of research. It can change the way scientists think about different theories in physics. It's not about being right, it's about developing a better understanding of things. It's a work in progress.
You've shown that you have no understanding of how air flows over a wing. The vacuum between the wings surface and the flow of air will have a different interaction than where that flow of air is increasing the pressure of the air above it.
That would be at least 3 different values.
Flow 1 = creates pressure above flow 2
Flow 2 = primary flow of air
Flow 3 = creates vacuum between itself and the wing's surface.

How can an engineer like you miss something so obvious? Je ne said pourquoi. IL est vrais. Почему? Я не когда не знаю будить.

I do like my smart phone. It's easy to switch between keyboards and has the Cyrillic layout that I like.
On another historical note, the US and Great Britain gave Poland to Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's allowed to have eastern Ukraine and the Sea of Azov so that Ukraine can join NATO. Ukrainians at the moment are nothing more than pawns in a game of chess


And wake, you shouldn't put your reply in with the quote of mine that you're using. That shows just how childish you are.
@itn and gfm7175, if you're using someone else's logic, that doesn't make you right. How would anyone know that they would agree with your usage of their axioms? We can't know that because you are speaking for someone else.

More random, disconnected crap.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 20:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.


Volume is reduced on a closed system like an air compressor as well. That's what the piston in the compressor is doing, reducing volume.

Venturis do not compress air. The do, however, decompress air. As air travels through the venturi tube, it speeds up. This also reduces the pressure of the air. As air comes out the other side, it slows down and resumes it's normal pressure.

In carburetor venturies, fuel is introduced just after the narrowest part of the venturi (where air pressure is lowest). The low air pressure at that point pulls fuel out of the draw tube and atomizes into very small droplets, perfect for burning efficiently.


The Parrot Killer
07-12-2018 04:05
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.


Volume is reduced on a closed system like an air compressor as well. That's what the piston in the compressor is doing, reducing volume.

Venturis do not compress air. The do, however, decompress air. As air travels through the venturi tube, it speeds up. This also reduces the pressure of the air. As air comes out the other side, it slows down and resumes it's normal pressure.

In carburetor venturies, fuel is introduced just after the narrowest part of the venturi (where air pressure is lowest). The low air pressure at that point pulls fuel out of the draw tube and atomizes into very small droplets, perfect for burning efficiently.



If the volume of air in an air compressor is reduced then so is it's output pressure. Volume can be considered as "n" which is Avagrado's number which is 6.022 x 10^23.
This is what generates pressure, same volume but it occupies a smaller area. You didn't think about that, did you?
More than 1 perspective needs to be considered.


I'm just being an @sshole now. A vacuum can only exist in a container. Take a 2 liter bottle (think empty soda bottle) and pour 1 liter of hot water into it. It will collapse when the water cools because a vacuum has been created.
A venturi effect applies to any decrease of pressure caused by a flow.
And with volume, it refers to quantity. 6.022 x 10^23 is a volume. The space it occupies depends on it's pressure. That is a different volume.


This is where we could have some fun itn.
If we have 6.022 x 10^23 / 1 x 10^3 then we can say that 6.022 x 10^20 = molecules of air per centimeter.
Of course with gas we'd have to ask what pressure in kg/cm^2 is that? Then we'd have V1/V2 = pressure.
Then if we changed V2, how would that effect pressure? That's basically what science "is".

@wake, this is where we get into the compress ability of a gas. If the space a gas occupies doesn't mean that it's pressure will double. There is a ratio. If it involves a curve then it'd probably take calculus to quantify it. This is why I like you guys. You want to get details like this right.
Edited on 07-12-2018 04:36
07-12-2018 05:13
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
At standard temperature and pressure, 1 mole of any gas occupies 22.4 L

We know this isn't true. This explains why.
Avogadro's hypothesis states that equal volumes of any gas at the same temperature and pressure contain the same number of particles. At standard temperature and pressure, 1 mole of any gas occupies 22.4 L.

This is something that can hurt atmospheric chemistry and physics. Maybe we can say that a specific composition of atmospheric gases agrees with that. But if that composition changes then so does the space it occupies.
And as I've said, science is a work in progress.
07-12-2018 05:41
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
@itn and wake,
This is something that the 2 of you can point to when it comes to what scientists know. With Avagrado's number "n" it's based on a specific composition of gases at 1.003 kg/cm^3.
CO2 obviously occupies more space than oxygen (O2) does. The carbon element has what's known as a double covalent bond with the 2 oxygen elements. With O2, I think it has a single ionic bond. And the 2 of you know that's a big difference. After all, an ionic bond isn't 2 elements sharing an electron. It's like the north and south poles of 2 magnets attracting the other. It's the difference in their charge.
I'm not sure why scientists would accept something that would be defined by specific parameters as being a "law" in physics. And we all know that the laws of physics are universal.
Edited on 07-12-2018 05:42
07-12-2018 06:07
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
itn and wake,
For me this is depressing. It really is. After all, in the stratosphere at 0° C. the number of molecules in 22.4 liters of space will be less than in our atmosphere at 0° C.
The composition of atmospheric gases will also be different. This is pretty basic yet shows a significant problem. And when discussing climate change this is very important. It readily shows that heat content and temperature can be manipulated.
But to discuss climate change something like this does need to be accounted for.
And Until that happens we really can't be sure how changing the composition of our atmosphere affects anything.

The volume of one mole of CO2 produced is 24 dm^3 at room temperature and pressure.

Oxygen's atomic weight is 16.00 amu. 1 mole of oxygen is 6.02 x 10^23 atoms of oxygen 1 amu = 1.661 x 10-24g

Boltzmann's ideal gas law is supposed to account for this. Yet climate models are wrong.
Edited on 07-12-2018 06:29
07-12-2018 07:08
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
To go with the tropopause as a black body with a a value of 1/1,000,000 that of a typical black body then what is the flow of heat from 0° C. to - 56° C. to +15° C.?
How does the Stefan-Boltzmann constant allow for that?
It needs to be shown how the tropopause can radiate it's heat into our atmosphere.

You 2 know why this is a problem. What does the volume of molecules / volume of space (molecules in a given area) mean? How does available heat affect it? This is what's missing. This is probably why climate models are always wrong.
I'll probably get drunk this weekend. This is too depressing. Science isn't supposed to work this way.
Edited on 07-12-2018 07:32
07-12-2018 09:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
It's basic that when low pressure air is pressurized that volume is reduced unless it's in a closed system like an air compressor. Likewise vacuum will slow the air creating a venturi effect.


Volume is reduced on a closed system like an air compressor as well. That's what the piston in the compressor is doing, reducing volume.

Venturis do not compress air. The do, however, decompress air. As air travels through the venturi tube, it speeds up. This also reduces the pressure of the air. As air comes out the other side, it slows down and resumes it's normal pressure.

In carburetor venturies, fuel is introduced just after the narrowest part of the venturi (where air pressure is lowest). The low air pressure at that point pulls fuel out of the draw tube and atomizes into very small droplets, perfect for burning efficiently.



If the volume of air in an air compressor is reduced then so is it's output pressure.
Quite the opposite, actually.
James___ wrote:
Volume can be considered as "n" which is Avagrado's number which is 6.022 x 10^23.
That is not a measure of volume.
James___ wrote:
This is what generates pressure, same volume but it occupies a smaller area. You didn't think about that, did you?

Why would I use a constant as a measure of volume?
James___ wrote:
More than 1 perspective needs to be considered.

You have some very strange perspectives.
James___ wrote:
I'm just being an @sshole now. A vacuum can only exist in a container. Take a 2 liter bottle (think empty soda bottle) and pour 1 liter of hot water into it. It will collapse when the water cools because a vacuum has been created.

Nope. Vacuums can exist in open systems as well.
James___ wrote:
A venturi effect applies to any decrease of pressure caused by a flow.
Not what a venturi does.
James___ wrote:
And with volume, it refers to quantity. 6.022 x 10^23 is a volume.
It is not a volume.
James___ wrote:
The space it occupies depends on it's pressure. That is a different volume.
It is not a volume.
James___ wrote:
This is where we could have some fun itn.
If we have 6.022 x 10^23 / 1 x 10^3 then we can say that 6.022 x 10^20 = molecules of air per centimeter.
Of course with gas we'd have to ask what pressure in kg/cm^2 is that? Then we'd have V1/V2 = pressure.
Then if we changed V2, how would that effect pressure? That's basically what science "is".

Nope, that's what random buzzword crap is.
James___ wrote:
@wake, this is where we get into the compress ability of a gas. If the space a gas occupies doesn't mean that it's pressure will double. There is a ratio. If it involves a curve then it'd probably take calculus to quantify it. This is why I like you guys. You want to get details like this right.

More nonsense random buzzword crap.


The Parrot Killer
07-12-2018 09:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
@itn and wake,
This is something that the 2 of you can point to when it comes to what scientists know. With Avagrado's number "n" it's based on a specific composition of gases at 1.003 kg/cm^3.
CO2 obviously occupies more space than oxygen (O2) does. The carbon element has what's known as a double covalent bond with the 2 oxygen elements. With O2, I think it has a single ionic bond. And the 2 of you know that's a big difference. After all, an ionic bond isn't 2 elements sharing an electron. It's like the north and south poles of 2 magnets attracting the other. It's the difference in their charge.
I'm not sure why scientists would accept something that would be defined by specific parameters as being a "law" in physics. And we all know that the laws of physics are universal.


More random buzzword crap.


The Parrot Killer
07-12-2018 12:57
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Doesn't warm air rise? We fill hot-air balloons by burning a gas, guess that means CO2, and it will raise up into the sky... Wouldn't super-heated CO2 molecules also rise? Wouldn't be able to release the heat on the surface, only in the upper atmosphere. Stuff doesn't just sit in one place, it get's moved around, not just the hot/cold thing either. There's wind, there's gravity, the magnet field, not to mention the planet itself is rotating. There's just a lot of complex stuff going on, besides CO2 and the Sun. The atmosphere isn't the ideal laboratory, and a lot of that textbook stuff isn't going to work the same, too many other things going on. Nothing out there is constant, but we need to set some in the equations, so we can do the math. A computer model, should ever be able to give any results, because it could never complete the calculations, if all things are considered, and it's an actual simulation of what's going on. Best you can get is a partial simulation, remove a few things, stop some of the dynamics, and turned them into a set value. We can't stop the Sun from fluctuating, can't predict precise outputs for any given moment, or future flare ups. We have active times, and less active periods (current cooling trend), but every single fraction of a second, something different, on a smaller scale is going on with our heat/energy source. CO2 is a very small part of the atmosphere, and an even smaller part, in the overall equations. It's just as meaningless, as all the other forces and events being left out, so somebody's computer can do the math...
07-12-2018 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doesn't warm air rise? We fill hot-air balloons by burning a gas, guess that means CO2, and it will raise up into the sky... Wouldn't super-heated CO2 molecules also rise?

Molecules don't rise because they are heated. Air (including CO2) rises because warmer air has less molecules per cubic meter than colder air. The same is true of water (discounting ice).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't be able to release the heat on the surface, only in the upper atmosphere.

Heat is not something that is 'released'. It occurs anytime there is a difference of temperature and some form of coupling between the two regions.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Stuff doesn't just sit in one place, it get's moved around, not just the hot/cold thing either.

As far as temperature of the Earth goes, it's hot/cold thing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There's wind,
That's a hot/cold thing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
there's gravity, the magnet field, not to mention the planet itself is rotating.
None of which affect the temperature of the Earth and can be safely ignored.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There's just a lot of complex stuff going on, besides CO2 and the Sun.
CO2 is not a factor concerning the temperature of the Earth. The Sun, however, is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The atmosphere isn't the ideal laboratory, and a lot of that textbook stuff isn't going to work the same, too many other things going on.
Not as bad is it would seem. Much of the stuff can be ignored as it has no factor in determining the temperature of the Earth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nothing out there is constant, but we need to set some in the equations, so we can do the math.

There ARE such things as 'fundamental constants of nature'. These do not change...ever. They are measurements of fundamental things, like the strength of the electrostatic field of an electron. One electron is exactly like another for this measurement. They essentially serve to convert a relation to our units of measurement.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A computer model, should ever be able to give any results, because it could never complete the calculations, if all things are considered, and it's an actual simulation of what's going on.
This is not always true. Computers CAN simulate certain things. The weather is not one of them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Best you can get is a partial simulation, remove a few things, stop some of the dynamics, and turned them into a set value.
Not for things like weather or temperature of the Earth. Attempting to simulate every spot on Earth is impractical. Besides, we don't need to. We already HAVE an Earth. We can study it instead.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We can't stop the Sun from fluctuating, can't predict precise outputs for any given moment, or future flare ups.

True. Fortunately, the Sun has been a remarkably stable star.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We have active times, and less active periods (current cooling trend), but every single fraction of a second, something different, on a smaller scale is going on with our heat/energy source. CO2 is a very small part of the atmosphere, and an even smaller part, in the overall equations.

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. It has no factor in determining the temperature of the Earth. It can be ignored.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's just as meaningless, as all the other forces and events being left out, so somebody's computer can do the math...

Installing terms that have no affect on an equation into an equation is changing the equation. It doesn't matter if the equation is running in a computer program or not.


The Parrot Killer
08-12-2018 07:00
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.
08-12-2018 09:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect.
True. They are masses. They are things that have gravity. However, atoms are more effected when near each other by electromotive forces. That forms the basis of chemical bonds and all of chemistry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance.

We know a lot about chemistry. We know that some reactions require more energy to start than they give off by completing. We call these endothermic reactions. When they run the material tends to cool. What they are doing is converting kinetic energy (which has a temperature) to potential energy (which doesn't).

We also know about reactions that give off more energy than they require to start. These are exothermic reactions. Rapid versions of these are called explosives. Slower versions of these might show up as the process of rusting or corrosion. These reactions convert potential energy back into kinetic energy in the form of thermal energy.

Sunlight hitting a plant leaf can be stored by the plant by using carbon (from nearby carbon dioxide), some oxygen, and some water, to make a carbohydrate (food, both for the plant and us). That is taking energy from the Sun and low energy chemicals and storing it all as potential energy. That energy is released again when the plant dies and is eaten or decays (eaten by bacteria).

The end result of all this is nil. Energy is not saved. It eventually dissipates into the air along with everything else.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet.
Yes and no. It is a large size, that's true. The needle in a compass only points north because of the magnetic field of Earth (which points South).

A magnetic field follows electromagnetics (magnets are really electrical in nature, even permanent magnets). As with all electromagnetic fields, the distance is key. The field grows weaker by the square of the distance increased.

Thus, a nail placed near a bar magnet sees a much stronger force than the whole magnetic field of Earth. The nail therefore sticks to the magnet, not the Earth.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet.
Again, yes and no.
We have seen a lot. We have observed a lot. We have built a lot of falsifiable theories that still hold up today. Obviously, it's not perfect, but we generally know what connects to what. We know that magnets do not affect temperature, but they can be affected by temperature, for example.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.
Nor does there need to be. We can't measure the temperature of the Earth because we don't have anywhere near enough thermometers, but we also know despite the lack of thermometers that Earth does indeed have an average temperature.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.

We can safely ignore CO2. It has absolutely no capability, even in large quantities, to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
08-12-2018 15:37
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.



You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.
08-12-2018 18:29
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.
09-12-2018 19:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.

But just ask any Snowflake - if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Of course mommy and daddy were paying the bills and not them.


But there's no need to worry too much. As the millennials age they see just how much this socialist crap is costing them personally. It's amazing how many liberals are now conservative.
09-12-2018 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.



You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.


Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'Global Warming Potential'.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2018 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, my spare time, is just leisure time, I've got chores to do, also enjoy several hobbies. Reading cryptic propaganda isn't a high priority, since I don't really see a climate crisis, or evil CO2. There really isn't a physical problem, it's all in the paper, and people wanting the political power and control over our energy sources, and usage, how much we pay. I'm not filthy rich, live comfortably with my current income and savings, but this issue could potentially have a huge impact. It's a bad idea, like ObamaCare, and does have the same potential of getting shoved into place, forced on us. I've never had a fancy job, but cheap health insurance has been an option. No college degree, or even a High School diploma, suspect that you only needed to claim having a GED. Don't think anyone bothers to check, since if you can fill out forms and sign your name, you are sufficiently qualified. The insurance price increased, coverage and out of pocket, changed, yearly, but ObamaCare made what I get through work, a lot more expensive, huge deductible, and less actual coverage (don't need annual mammograms)... Moving to a 'cleaner', 'greener' world, in a few decades, to prevent a 'non-issue', is my only interest in all of this. The negative impact on the economy is going to be a lot worse, than the health care non-issue. Health insurance, isn't even heath care, just more people needing to get paid, more often. Energy won't really be more expensive, just more people expecting to be paid, for the privilege of using it.

But just ask any Snowflake - if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Of course mommy and daddy were paying the bills and not them.


But there's no need to worry too much. As the millennials age they see just how much this socialist crap is costing them personally. It's amazing how many liberals are now conservative.


Amazing what having to support yourself and be responsible for yourself does!


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2018 01:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, atoms have weight, so gravity should have some sort of effect. Maybe no one thought to look, or we don't have the tools yet to observe any influence of significance. The magnetic field has a lot more influence, than a needle in a compass, or a nail sticking to a magnet. I really believe there are a lot of things we haven't observed yet, just don't have the equipment to see it yet. We only know the things we can observe, we test it, if it's something we can repeat, then that's something that can or can't be done, doesn't mean that's all there is.

Personally, I would have excluded CO2, since it's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume, should matter significantly. Still don't believe it does all that much.



You should really consider spending some of your free time on reading. The main issue with CO2 isn't the CO2 itself. It only has a GWP of 1.


Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'Global Warming Potential'.


I wish you would stop using your silly word games but aside from that I agree with you.




Join the debate CO2 and Some transparency:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?16105-12-2018 03:22
CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?1126-11-2018 22:53
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 20:07
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 20:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact