Remember me
▼ Content

Why the Wilder Storms? It's a 'Loaded Dice' Problem



Page 2 of 2<12
21-10-2018 15:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


..and Tim, gasguzzler is a Trump supporter. What we've learned from the NFL is that if a team mortgages it's future to win today then in the future it will lose because it can't afford to pay it's players. This only means that the U.S. needs to be fiscally responsible which it isn't.
.Whether a person supports climate change or doesn't resources still need to be managed. Oil like coal is a finite resource. There's no telling for how long we'll need them.


High level atmospheric physics is going to be generally beyond me. If you can't give me a simplified explaination before I read the proper physics I will get the idea that you don't understand it and there is no point me trying to as I have been down that raod many times before with various people.

I am sure you remember the fuss about peak oil. I, and many many others said it was a load of horse shit.

There is at least 200 years supply of coal under Labridor for the world. Much more under England. Similar amounts over lots of the world. We will definately stop using coal long before we run out of it.

Oil is less abundant but we still find loads of it and f the price gets to about $110 a barrel loads more stuff that can be made into oil comes along. Canadian oil shales etc.

Just not a problem.
21-10-2018 18:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


..and Tim, gasguzzler is a Trump supporter. What we've learned from the NFL is that if a team mortgages it's future to win today then in the future it will lose because it can't afford to pay it's players. This only means that the U.S. needs to be fiscally responsible which it isn't.
.Whether a person supports climate change or doesn't resources still need to be managed. Oil like coal is a finite resource. There's no telling for how long we'll need them.


High level atmospheric physics is going to be generally beyond me. If you can't give me a simplified explaination before I read the proper physics I will get the idea that you don't understand it and there is no point me trying to as I have been down that raod many times before with various people.

I am sure you remember the fuss about peak oil. I, and many many others said it was a load of horse shit.

There is at least 200 years supply of coal under Labridor for the world. Much more under England. Similar amounts over lots of the world. We will definately stop using coal long before we run out of it.

Oil is less abundant but we still find loads of it and f the price gets to about $110 a barrel loads more stuff that can be made into oil comes along. Canadian oil shales etc.

Just not a problem.

He's just trying to ignore the laws of thermodynamics again. He doesn't understand that while there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere and the thermosphere, the density of the atmosphere is decreasing so rapidly that there is no energy inversion. Energy per cubic foot still decreases as you rise in altitude.

The stratospheric temperature inversion is caused by the create and destruction of ozone by sunlight. The thermospheric temperature inversion is caused by the increasing effect of the solar winds as the atmosphere thins.

You are quite right about coal. There is so much of the stuff we have no worries. Oil prices are related to the dollar (which is falling in value). It's a lousy way to figure out when it's better to use alternative sources. It's better to compare oil's cost to other commodities and to costs of obtaining it from various sources, not the dollar itself. I foresee $110/barrel oil, because of the falling dollar and other world currencies against commodities.

The Canadian oil shales ARE oil. It just requires a different technique to get at it. Oil is a renewable resource, just like natural gas. The Fischer-Tropsche process, which synthesizes oil from nonbiological source material, is a process very similar to what happens underground naturally.

You are correct the bit with 'peak oil' is horseshit. Like coal, we really do have all the oil we need. We have all the natural gas we need as well. We aren't running out of either of these two fuels anytime soon.


The Parrot Killer
21-10-2018 18:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


..and Tim, gasguzzler is a Trump supporter. What we've learned from the NFL is that if a team mortgages it's future to win today then in the future it will lose because it can't afford to pay it's players. This only means that the U.S. needs to be fiscally responsible which it isn't.
.Whether a person supports climate change or doesn't resources still need to be managed. Oil like coal is a finite resource. There's no telling for how long we'll need them.


High level atmospheric physics is going to be generally beyond me. If you can't give me a simplified explaination before I read the proper physics I will get the idea that you don't understand it and there is no point me trying to as I have been down that raod many times before with various people.

I am sure you remember the fuss about peak oil. I, and many many others said it was a load of horse shit.

There is at least 200 years supply of coal under Labridor for the world. Much more under England. Similar amounts over lots of the world. We will definately stop using coal long before we run out of it.

Oil is less abundant but we still find loads of it and f the price gets to about $110 a barrel loads more stuff that can be made into oil comes along. Canadian oil shales etc.

Just not a problem.



...Tim, if there are 2 rooms that are 10m x 5 m x 2.5m with a door between them and one is A and the other B then we can consider thermodynamics.
..If room A is 20° C and room B is 30° then when the door is opened the temperature will balance out at 25° C. There are no barriers between the layers of our atmosphere yet some will be warmer than others. Thermodynamics states that this can only happen if work is being performed. An example is 20° C. air flowing into a room with 30° C. air causing circulation to happen. We all know that the cooler air is denser and can move warmer, less dense air. After this it does get technical. Also something like this could be used to show if CO2 has much influence on atmospheric gases being able to increase their heat content. Heat can pass through barriers. Would the amount of CO2 affect something like that? Something like that to my knowledge hasn't been done yet.
..I live in Kentucky, US. it is the 2nd largest coal producer in the US.
https://goo.gl/images/id5SDG
..Even miners will say those jobs have been lost because it is too expensive to mine coal in Kentucky. No one has considered trying to make the mining process more efficient. The usual answer is we've always done it this way.
..In Colorado coal seems are thick and therefore easy to mine.
..Fracking in the U.S. isn't possible because it requires a lot of fresh water while at the same time there's a risk of contaminating ground water. I know with coal mining that leaching ponds have broken their dykes and have left a serious problem because of all the land that gets polluted.
..I also know that in Europe that there is ITER https://www.iter.org/.
.With me, I think it's possible to clean up emissions from coal fired power plants and make a more efficient use of coal. Someone has posted that the number of coal plants in the world is expected to increase just as the world's population and demand for energy is expected to increase.
..That kind of makes me odd man out because as an environmentalist I shouldn't be thinking about making coal fired power plants more efficient but if they're not going away any time soon then we might as well try to improve what we're using to meet the energy demands of today.
22-10-2018 00:48
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
..Fracking is being done in the US and it's highly controversial because of water issues.

..Thought I'd mention that since both rooms have a volume of 125 cubic meters and fair's mass is "1.22500 kg/m^3" the Stefan -Boltzmann constant can be considered. This is because a barrier would be heated by the warmer room.
..And if CO2 causes air to retain heat then it stands to reason that less heat would be transferred into the barrier. As the amount of CO2 is increased it would reduce the heat radiated into the barrier. This would decrease it's emissivity.
..And by knowing the mass of air, etc. then if we wanted to play around with Avagrado's number or Boltzmann's constant then we can. And for tin the Stefan-Boltzmann constant would show how 2 different volumes of air would affect it depending on the specific mixture of gases in each room.


..To simplify things. If a room is 10° C warmer than another, for the temperature to change by 5° C. would take time. If CO2 is trapping heat in the warmer room then it would take more time for the temperature to change by 5° C.. This would be using a barrier between rooms.
Edited on 22-10-2018 01:38
22-10-2018 05:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
..Fracking is being done in the US and it's highly controversial because of water issues.

..Thought I'd mention that since both rooms have a volume of 125 cubic meters and fair's mass is "1.22500 kg/m^3" the Stefan -Boltzmann constant can be considered. This is because a barrier would be heated by the warmer room.
..And if CO2 causes air to retain heat then it stands to reason that less heat would be transferred into the barrier. As the amount of CO2 is increased it would reduce the heat radiated into the barrier. This would decrease it's emissivity.
..And by knowing the mass of air, etc. then if we wanted to play around with Avagrado's number or Boltzmann's constant then we can. And for tin the Stefan-Boltzmann constant would show how 2 different volumes of air would affect it depending on the specific mixture of gases in each room.


..To simplify things. If a room is 10° C warmer than another, for the temperature to change by 5° C. would take time. If CO2 is trapping heat in the warmer room then it would take more time for the temperature to change by 5° C.. This would be using a barrier between rooms.


It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.


The Parrot Killer
22-10-2018 14:09
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.



...Even though you deny science technically you're right. It's heat content when it's trapped. If you consider that 0° C. is 273.15 kelvins then 20° C. is 293.15 kelvins. Likewise 30° C. is 300.15 kelvins.
..If room A is 20° C. then it's KE is 3/2k * 293.15. Room B would be KE = 3/2k * 300.15. What you need to remember is that
For example, air molecules at a room temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (300 kelvins, or 77 degrees Fahrenheit) are traveling at an average speed of about 500 meters per second (1,100 mph). But some are moving at 223 m/s, some at 717 m/s, and so forth, and they are all moving in different directions. Each individual property cannot be known.
[url] https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kelvin-boltzmann-constant[/url]
Heat is associated with heat content because it's the energy released by collisions. The faster the average speed of a molecule moves the more collisions it will have.
22-10-2018 17:21
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
room B would be 303.15 kelvins. The 300 kelvins in the quote is rounding off 298.15. We would need to precise if we want to consider the Sefan-Boltzmann constant and the emissivity of a barrier.
22-10-2018 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.



...Even though you deny science technically you're right. It's heat content when it's trapped. If you consider that 0° C. is 273.15 kelvins then 20° C. is 293.15 kelvins. Likewise 30° C. is 300.15 kelvins.
...deleted remaining gibberish...


There is no such thing as 'heat content'. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a constant. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-10-2018 18:20
24-10-2018 05:13
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.



...Even though you deny science technically you're right. It's heat content when it's trapped. If you consider that 0° C. is 273.15 kelvins then 20° C. is 293.15 kelvins. Likewise 30° C. is 300.15 kelvins.
...deleted remaining gibberish...


There is no such thing as 'heat content'. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a constant. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.


..Sad to say itn but an experiment like this could lead to a better understanding of if we are influencing climate change, then what is it that We're doing?
24-10-2018 10:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


..and Tim, gasguzzler is a Trump supporter. What we've learned from the NFL is that if a team mortgages it's future to win today then in the future it will lose because it can't afford to pay it's players. This only means that the U.S. needs to be fiscally responsible which it isn't.
.Whether a person supports climate change or doesn't resources still need to be managed. Oil like coal is a finite resource. There's no telling for how long we'll need them.


High level atmospheric physics is going to be generally beyond me. If you can't give me a simplified explaination before I read the proper physics I will get the idea that you don't understand it and there is no point me trying to as I have been down that raod many times before with various people.

I am sure you remember the fuss about peak oil. I, and many many others said it was a load of horse shit.

There is at least 200 years supply of coal under Labridor for the world. Much more under England. Similar amounts over lots of the world. We will definately stop using coal long before we run out of it.

Oil is less abundant but we still find loads of it and f the price gets to about $110 a barrel loads more stuff that can be made into oil comes along. Canadian oil shales etc.

Just not a problem.



...Tim, if there are 2 rooms that are 10m x 5 m x 2.5m with a door between them and one is A and the other B then we can consider thermodynamics.
..If room A is 20° C and room B is 30° then when the door is opened the temperature will balance out at 25° C.


You have assumed that the rooms are heat sealed away from the outside world. That no heat energy comes of goes out of the walls.

There are no barriers between the layers of our atmosphere yet some will be warmer than others.


You must understand how moving a bit (mass) of air from sea level upwards will reduce the pressure and thus automatically reduce the temperature of that gas without any other outside heat flow anywhere.

Thermodynamics states that this can only happen if work is being performed. An example is 20° C. air flowing into a room with 30° C. air causing circulation to happen. We all know that the cooler air is denser and can move warmer, less dense air. After this it does get technical. Also something like this could be used to show if CO2 has much influence on atmospheric gases being able to increase their heat content. Heat can pass through barriers. Would the amount of CO2 affect something like that? Something like that to my knowledge hasn't been done yet.


I have no idea what you are talking about. The degree of heat transfer between air bodies is something that atmospheric physicists look at. However, if you have a 300km wide 2 km high air pocket of warm air then the amount of heat transfer duet o it touching the other air around it will be minimal compared to the over all heat energy in that air.

..I live in Kentucky, US. it is the 2nd largest coal producer in the US.
https://goo.gl/images/id5SDG
..Even miners will say those jobs have been lost because it is too expensive to mine coal in Kentucky. No one has considered trying to make the mining process more efficient. The usual answer is we've always done it this way.


I guarantee that the management of caol mines constantly looks at how to try to make the whole process cheaper and more efficent. That is their job. That is why there are lots less people doing the mining and more coal coming out.
..In Colorado coal seems are thick and therefore easy to mine.


It is so in many places. The thing is it is even easier to mine in other places thus cheaper to do it there.
..Fracking in the U.S. isn't possible because it requires a lot of fresh water while at the same time there's a risk of contaminating ground water. I know with coal mining that leaching ponds have broken their dykes and have left a serious problem because of all the land that gets polluted.
..I also know that in Europe that there is ITER https://www.iter.org/.


Fracking is done loads in the US. The level of pollution/contamination from it is by far the lowest from any extractive industry. There are issues still with it which do need good strong regulation around it which seems to have been lacking to a large degree with it some years ago. I believe, due to the lack of recent new news on the subject, that they have tightened up on it.

.With me, I think it's possible to clean up emissions from coal fired power plants and make a more efficient use of coal. Someone has posted that the number of coal plants in the world is expected to increase just as the world's population and demand for energy is expected to increase.
..That kind of makes me odd man out because as an environmentalist I shouldn't be thinking about making coal fired power plants more efficient but if they're not going away any time soon then we might as well try to improve what we're using to meet the energy demands of today.


Cleaning up coal fired power plants is generally about removing dust from the exhaust. The efficency of these plants is almost as good as it theoretically can get.

If you want to remove the CO2 then the efficency of the plant will greatly drop. You will have to use vastly more coal to get the same power. Like twice as much. And then work out what you are going to do with the CO2.
24-10-2018 17:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.



...Even though you deny science technically you're right. It's heat content when it's trapped. If you consider that 0° C. is 273.15 kelvins then 20° C. is 293.15 kelvins. Likewise 30° C. is 300.15 kelvins.
...deleted remaining gibberish...


There is no such thing as 'heat content'. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a constant. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.


..Sad to say itn but an experiment like this could lead to a better understanding of if we are influencing climate change, then what is it that We're doing?


'We' are doing nothing. You are playing around with buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer
24-10-2018 17:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


..and Tim, gasguzzler is a Trump supporter. What we've learned from the NFL is that if a team mortgages it's future to win today then in the future it will lose because it can't afford to pay it's players. This only means that the U.S. needs to be fiscally responsible which it isn't.
.Whether a person supports climate change or doesn't resources still need to be managed. Oil like coal is a finite resource. There's no telling for how long we'll need them.


High level atmospheric physics is going to be generally beyond me. If you can't give me a simplified explaination before I read the proper physics I will get the idea that you don't understand it and there is no point me trying to as I have been down that raod many times before with various people.

I am sure you remember the fuss about peak oil. I, and many many others said it was a load of horse shit.

There is at least 200 years supply of coal under Labridor for the world. Much more under England. Similar amounts over lots of the world. We will definately stop using coal long before we run out of it.

Oil is less abundant but we still find loads of it and f the price gets to about $110 a barrel loads more stuff that can be made into oil comes along. Canadian oil shales etc.

Just not a problem.



...Tim, if there are 2 rooms that are 10m x 5 m x 2.5m with a door between them and one is A and the other B then we can consider thermodynamics.
..If room A is 20° C and room B is 30° then when the door is opened the temperature will balance out at 25° C.


You have assumed that the rooms are heat sealed away from the outside world. That no heat energy comes of goes out of the walls.

This is actually okay, since the rooms are hypothetical and he is using an isolated system (one that does not consider any outside energy sources or sinks). What is not okay is his comparison of these hypothetical rooms to the open atmosphere of the Earth. That's a false equivalence.
Tim the plumber wrote:
There are no barriers between the layers of our atmosphere yet some will be warmer than others.


You must understand how moving a bit (mass) of air from sea level upwards will reduce the pressure and thus automatically reduce the temperature of that gas without any other outside heat flow anywhere.

I don't think he does. Of course, pockets of colder air that are falling also warm up as the pressure rises. It won't be as warm as when it rose earlier (due to radiant heating into space while it's moving around), but it does warm again as it falls.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Thermodynamics states that this can only happen if work is being performed. An example is 20° C. air flowing into a room with 30° C. air causing circulation to happen. We all know that the cooler air is denser and can move warmer, less dense air. After this it does get technical. Also something like this could be used to show if CO2 has much influence on atmospheric gases being able to increase their heat content. Heat can pass through barriers. Would the amount of CO2 affect something like that? Something like that to my knowledge hasn't been done yet.


I have no idea what you are talking about. The degree of heat transfer between air bodies is something that atmospheric physicists look at. However, if you have a 300km wide 2 km high air pocket of warm air then the amount of heat transfer duet o it touching the other air around it will be minimal compared to the over all heat energy in that air.

Quite true. Air of different temperatures doesn't mix well because of this. It eventually does, of course, but it takes awhile.
Tim the plumber wrote:
..I live in Kentucky, US. it is the 2nd largest coal producer in the US.
https://goo.gl/images/id5SDG
..Even miners will say those jobs have been lost because it is too expensive to mine coal in Kentucky. No one has considered trying to make the mining process more efficient. The usual answer is we've always done it this way.


I guarantee that the management of caol mines constantly looks at how to try to make the whole process cheaper and more efficent. That is their job. That is why there are lots less people doing the mining and more coal coming out.

True. They are doing a good job too.
Tim the plumber wrote:
..In Colorado coal seems are thick and therefore easy to mine.


It is so in many places. The thing is it is even easier to mine in other places thus cheaper to do it there.

True.
Tim the plumber wrote:
..Fracking in the U.S. isn't possible because it requires a lot of fresh water while at the same time there's a risk of contaminating ground water. I know with coal mining that leaching ponds have broken their dykes and have left a serious problem because of all the land that gets polluted.
..I also know that in Europe that there is ITER https://www.iter.org/.


Fracking is done loads in the US. The level of pollution/contamination from it is by far the lowest from any extractive industry. There are issues still with it which do need good strong regulation around it which seems to have been lacking to a large degree with it some years ago. I believe, due to the lack of recent new news on the subject, that they have tightened up on it.

Fracking for water has been used for about 1200 years (first used in China). We used fracking during the War of Secession (what most people call the 'Civil' war) to break up bunkers. Fracking for oil is fairly recent. You are right. They are figuring out how to do it better with less mess. All fracking does is use hydraulic pressure to fracture rock. Usually water is used as the hydraulic fluid (these days with certain lubricants and various grits added).
Tim the plumber wrote:
.With me, I think it's possible to clean up emissions from coal fired power plants and make a more efficient use of coal. Someone has posted that the number of coal plants in the world is expected to increase just as the world's population and demand for energy is expected to increase.
..That kind of makes me odd man out because as an environmentalist I shouldn't be thinking about making coal fired power plants more efficient but if they're not going away any time soon then we might as well try to improve what we're using to meet the energy demands of today.


Cleaning up coal fired power plants is generally about removing dust from the exhaust. The efficency of these plants is almost as good as it theoretically can get.

True. The collectors are designed to collect soot and sulfur oxides. In some cases, the sulfur is sold to gypsum users to make products like wallboard.
Tim the plumber wrote:
If you want to remove the CO2 then the efficency of the plant will greatly drop. You will have to use vastly more coal to get the same power. Like twice as much. And then work out what you are going to do with the CO2.

There is also no need to collect or eliminate CO2 from the exhaust. Neither the CO2 nor the water vapor in the exhaust is capable of warming the Earth by using surface IR. They are both benign and even beneficial to the environment.


The Parrot Killer
24-10-2018 21:46
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.



...Even though you deny science technically you're right. It's heat content when it's trapped. If you consider that 0° C. is 273.15 kelvins then 20° C. is 293.15 kelvins. Likewise 30° C. is 300.15 kelvins.
...deleted remaining gibberish...


There is no such thing as 'heat content'. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a constant. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.


..Sad to say itn but an experiment like this could lead to a better understanding of if we are influencing climate change, then what is it that We're doing?


'We' are doing nothing. You are playing around with buzzwords.



..There's an old saying that goes "Trust but verify".
.It goes as much for climate change as it does you. With you there's absolutely no verification. Can't trust what you say. This means that basically you're nothing more than a common troll.
24-10-2018 22:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to trap heat.
You are still not considering density of air.



...Even though you deny science technically you're right. It's heat content when it's trapped. If you consider that 0° C. is 273.15 kelvins then 20° C. is 293.15 kelvins. Likewise 30° C. is 300.15 kelvins.
...deleted remaining gibberish...


There is no such thing as 'heat content'. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a constant. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.


..Sad to say itn but an experiment like this could lead to a better understanding of if we are influencing climate change, then what is it that We're doing?


'We' are doing nothing. You are playing around with buzzwords.



..There's an old saying that goes "Trust but verify".
.It goes as much for climate change as it does you.
No, it doesn't. You can't even define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
With you there's absolutely no verification.
Yes there is. The theories of science themselves.
James___ wrote:
Can't trust what you say.
Then look up the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law for yourself.
James___ wrote:
This means that basically you're nothing more than a common troll.

Buzzword fallacy. Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-10-2018 22:37
24-10-2018 23:44
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
Into the Night wrote:



The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a constant. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

You can't even define 'climate change'.



...I've been waiting for you to do that.
25-10-2018 02:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
...ITN,
..Can't you define climate? That's pretty basic because there are only 3 types of climate. There's tropical, temperate and arctic. And climate change is when a part of one of those regions become like the climate it's neighboring.
..This means if the Arctic around 60° North latitude starts becoming like a temperate region then climate change would be happening.
..What tends to differentiate different climates are plants, animals and trees. It's like Brown bears are now found in parts of the Arctic where only Polar bears were found.
..If you wanted you could learn but I think you lack the self discipline for that.
25-10-2018 17:12
James___
★★★☆☆
(736)
James___ wrote:
...Tim, if there are 2 rooms that are 10m x 5 m x 2.5m with a door between them and one is A and the other B then we can consider thermodynamics.
..If room A is 20° C and room B is 30° then when the door is opened the temperature will balance out at 25° C.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You have assumed that the rooms are heat sealed away from the outside world. That no heat energy comes of goes out of the walls.


...This can easily be accounted for. They can be placed in another room that has a constant temperature. If that room's temperature is controlled then the amount of heat absorbed or emitted by a test room can be known before conducting any tests.
..Even a single room inside of an outer room can show if heat is trapped by increased levels of co2. This is because the amount of heat emitted into and removed from the room can be monitored. Then as CO2 levels slowly increase does it take fewer w/m^2 to heat the room back to 25° C. or 30° C.
..And to simulate night the room can be cooled to 15° C. or 20° C. Then it can be noticed if it takes more energy to cool the room. If it does then it will take more energy to warm it as well. With such small variances it is possible that observing heat transfer using black body radiation (a barrier between 2 rooms) might be easier to consider. But this is what science is about. Then such information could be used in computer models. At the moment it seems that CO2 is being given a value that has not been verified. And this might help to explain why computer models vary so much.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You must understand how moving a bit (mass) of air from sea level upwards will reduce the pressure and thus automatically reduce the temperature of that gas without any other outside heat flow anywhere.


The link shows atmospheric pressure drops with altitude https://photos.app.goo.gl/G2gHRjeEP4TVHVo87
..In their first graph note that at 50,000 meters that the stratopopause is 0° C. and from about 13,000 to 20,000 meters the tropopause is about -56° C.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall14/atmo336/lectures/sec1/structure.html


James___ wrote:
[quote]..I live in Kentucky, US. it is the 2nd largest coal producer in the US.
https://goo.gl/images/id5SDG
..Even miners will say those jobs have been lost because it is too expensive to mine coal in Kentucky. No one has considered trying to make the mining process more efficient. The usual answer is we've always done it this way.
..With me, I think it's possible to clean up emissions from coal fired power plants and make a more efficient use of coal. Someone has posted that the number of coal plants in the world is expected to increase just as the world's population and demand for energy is expected to increase.
..That kind of makes me odd man out because as an environmentalist I shouldn't be thinking about making coal fired power plants more efficient but if they're not going away any time soon then we might as well try to improve what we're using to meet the energy demands of today.


Tim the plumber wrote:
Cleaning up coal fired power plants is generally about removing dust from the exhaust. The efficiency of these plants is almost as good as it theoretically can get.

If you want to remove the CO2 then the efficiency of the plant will greatly drop. You will have to use vastly more coal to get the same power. Like twice as much. And then work out what you are going to do with the CO2.


..I think I can do better. I have been in contact with people familiar with the coal industry here in Kentucky. A part of what I would be considering is removing heat from the exhaust gasses to preheat the coke. Cooler exhaust would also improve the efficiency of cleaning up a power plant's emissions. Also with coal fired power plants there's heavy metals like arsenic and mercury.
Look at pages 14 and 15. http://energy.ky.gov/Coal%20Facts%20Library/Kentucky%20Coal%20Facts%20-%2016th%20Edition%20(2016).pdf

..Energy like anything else is dependent on market forces. What's being overlooked is if this web page is correct. If it is then the amount of coal being used might increase quite a bit.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants


James
Edited on 25-10-2018 17:28
25-10-2018 17:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
...ITN,
..Can't you define climate? That's pretty basic because there are only 3 types of climate. There's tropical, temperate and arctic. And climate change is when a part of one of those regions become like the climate it's neighboring.
..This means if the Arctic around 60° North latitude starts becoming like a temperate region then climate change would be happening.
..What tends to differentiate different climates are plants, animals and trees. It's like Brown bears are now found in parts of the Arctic where only Polar bears were found.
..If you wanted you could learn but I think you lack the self discipline for that.


You can't define 'climate change' with 'climate change'. You can't define a word with itself! Try again.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-10-2018 17:34
25-10-2018 17:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
...Tim, if there are 2 rooms that are 10m x 5 m x 2.5m with a door between them and one is A and the other B then we can consider thermodynamics.
..If room A is 20° C and room B is 30° then when the door is opened the temperature will balance out at 25° C.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You have assumed that the rooms are heat sealed away from the outside world. That no heat energy comes of goes out of the walls.


...This can easily be accounted for. They can be placed in another room that has a constant temperature. If that room's temperature is controlled then the amount of heat absorbed or emitted by a test room can be known before conducting any tests.
..Even a single room inside of an outer room can show if heat is trapped by increased levels of co2. This is because the amount of heat emitted into and removed from the room can be monitored. Then as CO2 levels slowly increase does it take fewer w/m^2 to heat the room back to 25° C. or 30° C.
..And to simulate night the room can be cooled to 15° C. or 20° C. Then it can be noticed if it takes more energy to cool the room. If it does then it will take more energy to warm it as well. With such small variances it is possible that observing heat transfer using black body radiation (a barrier between 2 rooms) might be easier to consider. But this is what science is about. Then such information could be used in computer models. At the moment it seems that CO2 is being given a value that has not been verified. And this might help to explain why computer models vary so much.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You must understand how moving a bit (mass) of air from sea level upwards will reduce the pressure and thus automatically reduce the temperature of that gas without any other outside heat flow anywhere.


The link shows atmospheric pressure drops with altitude https://photos.app.goo.gl/G2gHRjeEP4TVHVo87
..In their first graph note that at 50,000 meters that the stratopopause is 0° C. and from about 13,000 to 20,000 meters the tropopause is about -56° C.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall14/atmo336/lectures/sec1/structure.html


James___ wrote:
[quote]..I live in Kentucky, US. it is the 2nd largest coal producer in the US.
https://goo.gl/images/id5SDG
..Even miners will say those jobs have been lost because it is too expensive to mine coal in Kentucky. No one has considered trying to make the mining process more efficient. The usual answer is we've always done it this way.
..With me, I think it's possible to clean up emissions from coal fired power plants and make a more efficient use of coal. Someone has posted that the number of coal plants in the world is expected to increase just as the world's population and demand for energy is expected to increase.
..That kind of makes me odd man out because as an environmentalist I shouldn't be thinking about making coal fired power plants more efficient but if they're not going away any time soon then we might as well try to improve what we're using to meet the energy demands of today.


Tim the plumber wrote:
Cleaning up coal fired power plants is generally about removing dust from the exhaust. The efficiency of these plants is almost as good as it theoretically can get.

If you want to remove the CO2 then the efficiency of the plant will greatly drop. You will have to use vastly more coal to get the same power. Like twice as much. And then work out what you are going to do with the CO2.


..I think I can do better. I have been in contact with people familiar with the coal industry here in Kentucky. A part of what I would be considering is removing heat from the exhaust gasses to preheat the coke. Cooler exhaust would also improve the efficiency of cleaning up a power plant's emissions. Also with coal fired power plants there's heavy metals like arsenic and mercury.
Look at pages 14 and 15. http://energy.ky.gov/Coal%20Facts%20Library/Kentucky%20Coal%20Facts%20-%2016th%20Edition%20(2016).pdf

..Energy like anything else is dependent on market forces. What's being overlooked is if this web page is correct. If it is then the amount of coal being used might increase quite a bit.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants


James


It takes energy to move heat backwards like that. That energy comes from the coal you are burning. That means that energy is not available for something useful.

Any arsenic or mercury that happens to accompany the coal (coal is just primarily elemental carbon) are captured by the same systems that capture sulfur impurities and lighter dust from components of coal that don't burn (like the fossils that are in it).


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Why the Wilder Storms? It's a 'Loaded Dice' Problem:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Current storms around the globe1104-08-2017 17:04
▲ 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