Remember me
▼ Content

Greenman



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
16-08-2017 02:15
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Oh dude, you are gettin old!
Best I could do was 89 cents in high school...then Iraq invaded Kuwait. Went up to 1.40. I was so hacked off!
16-08-2017 04:13
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:...Like all racists litebeer wants to pretend that it's someone else that's the racist.

Its important to say of what racists are proud. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is proud that it is racist.... more accurately, an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
16-08-2017 06:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Gas is not more expensive, the dollar has crashed that far. Gas is actually pretty cheap right now, when compared to other commodities.

The changes made in engine design had little to do with the Clean Air Act. EGR systems, which were already being developed at the time BEFORE the Clean Air Act, did most of the contribution to removing smog from our cities. That system consists of a piece of plumbing running from the exhaust to the induction system and a simple reed valve. It's about as simple a system as you could ask for.

The catalytic converters WERE required by the Clean Air Act. They don't reduce pollution. They convert one form of pollution into another. I call them pollution to pollution converters.

The FADEC engines that cars use today were not required by the Clean Air Act. That came about simply as a cheaper and more precise way to control the engine. Jet aircraft had been using FADEC systems since the 60's. The cheap microcontroller made it practical for cars. FADEC produces are more precise burn, wasting less fuel. Fuel economy is already a marketing point. They didn't need a government law for that!

The ethanol in gas was not part of the Act, but from a later implementation by fiat by the EPA.


You should learn something about relativity. If I went back to work today I would make 30% less than as a lower level engineer back in 2008.

What has this got to do with relativity??

Markets change, dude. Or weren't you aware of that?

Wake wrote:
Gas in the meantime went all over the place because of the Clean Air Act.

No, it went all over the place because of attempts at price controls.
Wake wrote:
California was the hardest hit as usual because they enacted highly restrictive regulations that weren't necessary in any other state.

California is it's own unique set of problems. I don't even consider it a State of the Union anymore. They no longer honor their own constitution, nor the Constitution of the United States.

They are really f**ked up in Sacramento.

As far as I'm concerned, they are a foreign country that happens to have representation in our Congress.
Wake wrote:
But STILL on 11/24/2008 gas was $1.70 or roughly half of what it is today. In Arizona gas is presently less than $2.50/gal at the company gas stations. At cut rate places it can hit as low as $1.50.

That's about right. Pretty cheap compared to other commodities.
Wake wrote:
Methanol decreases mileage about 10% while generating more pollutants.

It does not generate more pollutant. It does not by itself reduce mileage. It is a moderator for gasoline. It isn't as good a moderator as tetra-ethyl lead, but it does adequately do the job. The biggest problem is gasket compatibility and the hydroscopic nature of the stuff, causing corrosion.
Wake wrote:
Why did that ever come along except to hand out money to corn farmers?

People had an unnatural fear of lead. The corn farmers were only to willing to go along with the gag to get the subsidies (government handouts).

Personally, I prefer TEL as a moderator. It does a better job, it acts as a lubricant for the engine, and the lead oxides precipitate quickly out of the air. People don't understand that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway. They are walking on it all their lives. The gasket material requirements are simpler too.

This isn't the first time we used ethanol as a moderator for gasoline. It was used during WWII when shortages of TEL occurred.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2017 06:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Despite gov regs, here's what still amazes me...
They can go to the other side of the globe, stick a drill bit in the ground, extract the oil, send back to our side of the globe, refine it into something that packs amazing power, send it 2,000 miles across the country to my little small town gas station, for only $2.25 a gallon.


Amazing little molecule, isn't it?

It's cheap, it's easily refined, and it packs a wallop of energy in it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2017 06:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Despite gov regs, here's what still amazes me...
They can go to the other side of the globe, stick a drill bit in the ground, extract the oil, send back to our side of the globe, refine it into something that packs amazing power, send it 2,000 miles across the country to my little small town gas station, for only $2.25 a gallon.


I once filled the tank of my '49 Pontiac for $0.10/gal.


Heh. When ten cents meant something. You can't even buy a stick of gum for that now.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2017 06:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh dude, you are gettin old!
Best I could do was 89 cents in high school...then Iraq invaded Kuwait. Went up to 1.40. I was so hacked off!


I remember the ten cents a gallon too. I even have the 'old man' beard to match!



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2017 18:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" barfed: I remember the ten cents a gallon too. I even have the 'old man' beard to match!

Did you have the white pointy hat & robes before the beard?
18-08-2017 10:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.
18-08-2017 16:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.
18-08-2017 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Sunlight heats the surface of the ocean. This extends down to about 700 to 1000m depending on the turbidity of the water. After that, there is no sunlight.

The sunlight loses energy as it travels through the water. Infrared, which does most of the heating, disappears first, leaving higher energy light to go deeper (which is why red is such a great camouflage color in the oceans).

Although visible light, particularly blue, does penetrate that far, infrared light, which does most of the heating, penetrates only about 10m into the water.

Water has a high specific heat and good heat conductivity. This added energy will warm the water from the top down. Due to mixing and conducted heat, you will see warmer water as much as 1200m deep. The lower water acts like a thermal anvil. It has so much mass it just doesn't change much.

Since the amount of heating varies due to angle of the sun changing through the seasons, and due to cloud cover moving across the sky, and since the turbidity of the ocean changes, and due to water entering the oceans as cooled rain, the total effect is basically something that you can't calculate. Heat in fluids like air and water tend to rise, so warmer water stays on top.

Warmer water also puts more humidity into the air, since that warmer water also heats the air, allowing more water vapor in it. This is why tropical depressions form near the equator and move toward the poles slightly as they move westward following the equatorial counter currents in the air. When they reach the subtropical jet stream, they will shift northward and eastward, producing the path you typically see of hurricanes hitting the United States.

Hurricanes and tropical storms are a way to cool the ocean water. The western flowing portion of the Gulf Stream is also due to this same counter flow the storms use. These storms continue to build as long as they hang over water, especially the Gulf Stream.

The practical upshot? It's not really possible to calculate how much warmer the oceans would get to some fixed depth if you fed a certain amount of power into them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2017 20:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2017 21:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone. There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there. Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above. What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Haven't we gone through this before? I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators. The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar. Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation. Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.
18-08-2017 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.
Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.
Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.
Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.
Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?
Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.
Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.
Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.
Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.
Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-08-2017 23:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.
Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.
Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.
Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.
Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?
Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.
Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.
Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.
Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.
Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.


Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.



I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate. Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection. That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.
19-08-2017 10:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.
Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.
Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.
Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.
Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?
Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.
Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.
Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.
Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.
Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.


Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.

Sunlight isn't filtered out in 100 meters. Indeed, the colors that travel deepest in ocean water is green and blue, red is filtered out first. So there goes that theory of yours. Turns out that people who actually understand photosynthesis (not you) already know that green light is not used. Photosynthesis occurs with blue and red light. Green is reflected away (which is why plants appear green!).

Wake wrote:
I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

That's right. I don't believe your claim of a patent. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums. You do not seem to understand much about power plants.
Wake wrote:
Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate.

Oooooh. On top of a tectonic plate, eh? That means every power station in the world is at risk. They are ALL built on top of tectonic plates! YOU are walking on top of a tectonic plate!
Wake wrote:
Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

No, you're just being dumb.
Wake wrote:
Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Again, I don't believe you. Your statements indicate you have little experience with sailing at all.
Wake wrote:
Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection.

Yup. Just like any fluid.
Wake wrote:
That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

It is why warm water stays near the top, but it DOES go down to 1200 meters deep for some warm currents, including the Gulf Stream.
Wake wrote:
I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.

I suggest you stop showing everyone how illiterate and pompous you are and look up:

1) temperature profile of the ocean, including the temperature profile of the Gulf Stream.
2) Absorption profile of ocean water. These studies were done in Hawaii and other places.
3) Ocean currents and their causes.
4) Hydrodynamics.
5) Photosynthesis.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 19-08-2017 10:20
19-08-2017 23:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.
Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.
Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.
Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.
Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?
Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.
Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.
Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.
Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't know what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.
Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, the collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.


Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.

Sunlight isn't filtered out in 100 meters. Indeed, the colors that travel deepest in ocean water is green and blue, red is filtered out first. So there goes that theory of yours. Turns out that people who actually understand photosynthesis (not you) already know that green light is not used. Photosynthesis occurs with blue and red light. Green is reflected away (which is why plants appear green!).

Wake wrote:
I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

That's right. I don't believe your claim of a patent. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums. You do not seem to understand much about power plants.
Wake wrote:
Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate.

Oooooh. On top of a tectonic plate, eh? That means every power station in the world is at risk. They are ALL built on top of tectonic plates! YOU are walking on top of a tectonic plate!
Wake wrote:
Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

No, you're just being dumb.
Wake wrote:
Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Again, I don't believe you. Your statements indicate you have little experience with sailing at all.
Wake wrote:
Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection.

Yup. Just like any fluid.
Wake wrote:
That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

It is why warm water stays near the top, but it DOES go down to 1200 meters deep for some warm currents, including the Gulf Stream.
Wake wrote:
I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.

I suggest you stop showing everyone how illiterate and pompous you are and look up:

1) temperature profile of the ocean, including the temperature profile of the Gulf Stream.
2) Absorption profile of ocean water. These studies were done in Hawaii and other places.
3) Ocean currents and their causes.
4) Hydrodynamics.
5) Photosynthesis.


I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.
20-08-2017 03:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


Warmer water can be seen as deep as 1200m. A lot depends on the turbidity of the water, the color of light (sunlight heats the oceans primarily by infrared light), and the mixing potential of any currents you might come across.


Anything below 200 meters is called the Dysphotic or Twilight Zone.

True.
Wake wrote:
There is so little light and hence power that there is no photosynthesis there.

There is a very slight amount. But generally correct.
Wake wrote:
Light that reaches below that level has been robbed of all of it's energy by the ocean above.

Obviously not. You can still see it.
Wake wrote:
What would give the idea that a material with a high specific heat would not retain the largest part of injected energy near surface levels?

The high heat conductivity of water.
Wake wrote:
Ocean currents do not accomplish mixing but rather move the ocean layers as a whole.

Guess you don't sail much, do ya?https://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Wake wrote:
Haven't we gone through this before?

Not with me. Perhaps with someone else.
Wake wrote:
I told you I have a patent for ocean current power generators.

I don't believe this statement any more than any of your other claims of credentials. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums.
Wake wrote:
The problem with that is there is very little power in ocean currents except in extremely limited areas such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is tremendous power.
Wake wrote:
Even the Caribbean Current and Gulf Stream has power per sq meter so slight as to be impractical for power generation.

I think the problem is that you don't knowhttps://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 what power is or what it takes to extract it from something like an ocean current.
Wake wrote:
Power extraction would necessarily cover so much area as to cause environment damage far above the value of the power.

Partially right.

Power generation systems work by using TWO speeds, not one. An anchoring reference point (the speed of the Earth) and the impeller (the speed of the fluid).

It is difficult to anchor a power station in the middle of the ocean, even in the Gulf, where it is shallow. Assuming you've done that, thehttps://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 collection impellers form a hazard to shipping, fish, etc.

The Gulf Stream may be slow, but it is wide. There is tremendous power in it. Building an impeller system for that wide a stream is not practical.

Gibraltar has a fast moving stream through a narrow channel. A tidal generator is practical there without consuming the entire channel.


Whacko as they come. photosynthesis occurs with light in the green and blue. The energy in red light and below is insufficient to trigger photosynthesis. All of the energy in the Sunlight is filtered out BECAUSE of photosynthesis in the top 100 meters.

Sunlight isn't filtered out in 100 meters. Indeed, the colors that travel deepest in ocean water is green and blue, red is filtered out first. So there goes that theory of yours. Turns out that people who actually understand photosynthesis (not you) already know that green light is not used. Photosynthesis occurs with blue and red light. Green is reflected away (which is why plants appear green!).

Wake wrote:
I'm the one with a patent on ocean current power generation and you're the one telling me I don't know anything about it. Real bright.

That's right. I don't believe your claim of a patent. Remember, credentials mean nothing on forums. You do not seem to understand much about power plants.
Wake wrote:
Gibralter isn't practical because the only area shallow enough to install and service such a generator is directly on top of a tectonic plate.

Oooooh. On top of a tectonic plate, eh? That means every power station in the world is at risk. They are ALL built on top of tectonic plates! YOU are walking on top of a tectonic plate!
Wake wrote:
Do you think that you're so intelligent and everyone else in the world is so dumb?

No, you're just being dumb.
Wake wrote:
Several times here I have mentioned that I have owned many sailboats, am a life member of the second oldest yacht club in the San Francisco area and have raced very large ocean racing sailboats up and down the Pacific Coast. Apparently you are having increasing memory problems.

Again, I don't believe you. Your statements indicate you have little experience with sailing at all.
Wake wrote:
Apparently you don't seem to even listen to yourself. Increased heating via absorption of visible light and heating in water via conduction causes convection.

Yup. Just like any fluid.
Wake wrote:
That means that warm water is at and near the upper layers and not deep as you seem to think.

It is why warm water stays near the top, but it DOES go down to 1200 meters deep for some warm currents, including the Gulf Stream.
Wake wrote:
I suggest you cease and decease while you're still only two miles behind.

I suggest you stop showing everyone how illiterate and pompous you are and look up:

1) temperature profile of the ocean, including the temperature profile of the Gulf Stream.
2) Absorption profile of ocean water. These studies were done in Hawaii and other places.
3) Ocean currents and their causes.
4) Hydrodynamics.
5) Photosynthesis.


I know very well oceanography.

Don't think so.
Wake wrote:
The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

Check that link again...real close.
Wake wrote:
I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

Since you can't even understand the links you referenced, have fun sulking.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-08-2017 10:52
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:

I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.


Sounds like Wake Me Up sacrificed himself. Too bad, because the Climate gods aren't interested in sacrificial retards. They prefer to munch on the good unblemished brains.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 20-08-2017 10:53
23-08-2017 21:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.


Sounds like Wake Me Up sacrificed himself. Too bad, because the Climate gods aren't interested in sacrificial retards. They prefer to munch on the good unblemished brains.


So you aren't even bright enough to follow a conversation? That's no surprise.
24-08-2017 02:40
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

I know very well oceanography. The question is - why would you suggest that I look up something that proves you wrong?

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/ocean-temperature-profiles/compare-contrast-connect-vertical-profiles-ocean

I'm done with sheer stupidity. You four can sit around and tell each other how smart you are.

You can all sit around and take that poll that shows that you morons think that a public popularity poll will surely answer all of the questions about AGW.


Sounds like Wake Me Up sacrificed himself. Too bad, because the Climate gods aren't interested in sacrificial retards. They prefer to munch on the good unblemished brains.


So you aren't even bright enough to follow a conversation? That's no surprise.


No problem following the conversation, you idiot. Was commenting on you getting pissed off and leaving. Having a good laugh, actually.

What's your beef guy? You come off like some kind of know it all, billy bad ass, idiot, all rolled into one. What's up with that? Do you do that shit on purpose, or does it just come natural?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 03:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:

No problem following the conversation, you idiot. Was commenting on you getting pissed off and leaving. Having a good laugh, actually.

What's your beef guy? You come off like some kind of know it all, billy bad ass, idiot, all rolled into one. What's up with that? Do you do that shit on purpose, or does it just come natural?


And yet another demonstration that you're a high school dope. Go ask your fellow classmates what to say next.
24-08-2017 06:42
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

No problem following the conversation, you idiot. Was commenting on you getting pissed off and leaving. Having a good laugh, actually.

What's your beef guy? You come off like some kind of know it all, billy bad ass, idiot, all rolled into one. What's up with that? Do you do that shit on purpose, or does it just come natural?


And yet another demonstration that you're a high school dope. Go ask your fellow classmates what to say next.


Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school. That was over 40 years ago. Many of my fellow classmates are dead now. Some of them because they went beyond good ole dope [pot]. And of course, some just died of the regular things, like car crashed, homicide, suicide, and poor health. They don't talk much anymore.

So tell us big bad cyber bully, do you intentionally present yourself as a smart assed know it all, billy bad ass idiot on purpose, or does it just come natural?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 06:52
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1731)
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?

Edited on 24-08-2017 06:52
24-08-2017 07:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.
24-08-2017 12:27
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.


You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 17:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.


You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.


Well now we know what happened to your mind.
24-08-2017 23:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.
24-08-2017 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.


Is it? I was unaware of that particular claim. I do know the warm waters of the Gulf Stream can be found 1200m deep.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 23:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.


Is it? I was unaware of that particular claim. I do know the warm waters of the Gulf Stream can be found 1200m deep.


Yes, but only in a few places. The general ocean stays at a very constant temperature due to the physics of how the density of water changes with temperature. It is very strange compaired to other materials.
25-08-2017 00:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.


Is it? I was unaware of that particular claim. I do know the warm waters of the Gulf Stream can be found 1200m deep.


Yes, but only in a few places. The general ocean stays at a very constant temperature due to the physics of how the density of water changes with temperature. It is very strange compaired to other materials.


Well...it IS a fluid, just like the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.


The oceans are extremely strange. There is a break at something like 200 meters. Below that is minimal convection. Dead plant and animal matter from above that level falls down to the great depths of the oceans and feeds animals and bacteria down there in the total absence of light. These areas do not have currents and as I said, they do not have convection. They are an almost stone like layering of increasing density and nearly equal temperature.

I used to dive and so took at interest in this. Off of Monterey, Ca, there is a wall that falls into the deeps abruptly. At least 200 feet. We would hunt abalone along this wall and try not to go any deeper than 60 feet. Otherwise you'd have to be careful to decompress on the way up.
25-08-2017 01:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
They did teach basic heat energy calculations both in my high school and in my plumbing course.

If you add heat at 100W to a pan and it takes 3 minutes to boil then it will take 1 mimute if you add heat at 300W. Specific heat capacity and all.

There is no reason to expect that the ocean currents would stop. None at all. I have never seen any evidence that they have ever done so. It would mean that the rules of physics would have been different if they did.

Just to show that you are not talking out of your arse, which I strongly suspect, what would the temperature rise from a zettajoule of energy being added to the surface of the world's oceans over 1 year assuming an even distributiona and to a depth of 700m?

Very high school physics.


Since the oceans are being heated from above simple physics tell you that the oceans are unlikely to heat below the 10 meter level.


True but the circulation of them will take the heat somewhat lower although I agree not much.

The 700m number I have used is because this is the cherry picked number that the alarmists use to maximise the "hiding energy" trouble they have when trying to explain the lack of warming or the lack of ocean expansion.


The oceans are extremely strange. There is a break at something like 200 meters. Below that is minimal convection. Dead plant and animal matter from above that level falls down to the great depths of the oceans and feeds animals and bacteria down there in the total absence of light. These areas do not have currents and as I said, they do not have convection. They are an almost stone like layering of increasing density and nearly equal temperature.

I used to dive and so took at interest in this. Off of Monterey, Ca, there is a wall that falls into the deeps abruptly. At least 200 feet. We would hunt abalone along this wall and try not to go any deeper than 60 feet. Otherwise you'd have to be careful to decompress on the way up.


Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 25-08-2017 01:13
25-08-2017 01:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.


In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity. As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters. This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces. The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all. Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain. The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.
25-08-2017 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.


In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity.

Not true. Most are counter currents from some other current elsewhere.
Wake wrote:
As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters.

You can get some pretty different temperatures as you descend through the depths. Submarines use this to hide themselves. Sonar is masked by these temperature differences. Whales use it to communicate to their buddies far away like using a waveguide.
Wake wrote:
This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces.

You're in California. Have you even looked at some of your cliff faces??
Wake wrote:
The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all.

They can stand the current. It's how many of them move from place to place.
Wake wrote:
Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain.

When they are anchored, yes.
Wake wrote:
The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

This tends to happen near the shore. Probably why you figure it happens out across the ocean as well.
Wake wrote:
Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.

We actually know a lot. A few things 'global warming' related:

We know what causes currents and where the larger ones are. We sail by them...even engine driven ships (saves fuel). We know how deep they go. We know where the major counter currents are.

We know what causes the El Nino and Las Nina cycles. It is a very minor shift in Pacific equatorial currents.

We know how shellfish get the carbon they need for their shells. Turns out we NEED that carbon dioxide in the water for them!

We know what happens to sea level when an iceberg melts (Nothing!).

We know the relative changes in sea level due to storms and other barometric and temperature changes to a high degree of accuracy. We do not know the absolute average sea level.

We know what colors of light penetrate most deeply into seawater (at least in Hawaii). We know what happens when that light is absorbed by seawater (conversion to thermal and chemical energy).

We know that colder water is capable of storing more carbon dioxide, as long as it remains liquid. We know that ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. We know that only a very small amount of carbon dioxide converts to carbonic acid in water (the rest remains dissolved CO2). We also know that carbonic acid is absolutely necessary for the survival of shellfish.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 18:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.


In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity.

Not true. Most are counter currents from some other current elsewhere.
Wake wrote:
As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters.

You can get some pretty different temperatures as you descend through the depths. Submarines use this to hide themselves. Sonar is masked by these temperature differences. Whales use it to communicate to their buddies far away like using a waveguide.
Wake wrote:
This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces.

You're in California. Have you even looked at some of your cliff faces??
Wake wrote:
The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all.

They can stand the current. It's how many of them move from place to place.
Wake wrote:
Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain.

When they are anchored, yes.
Wake wrote:
The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

This tends to happen near the shore. Probably why you figure it happens out across the ocean as well.
Wake wrote:
Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.

We actually know a lot. A few things 'global warming' related:

We know what causes currents and where the larger ones are. We sail by them...even engine driven ships (saves fuel). We know how deep they go. We know where the major counter currents are.

We know what causes the El Nino and Las Nina cycles. It is a very minor shift in Pacific equatorial currents.

We know how shellfish get the carbon they need for their shells. Turns out we NEED that carbon dioxide in the water for them!

We know what happens to sea level when an iceberg melts (Nothing!).

We know the relative changes in sea level due to storms and other barometric and temperature changes to a high degree of accuracy. We do not know the absolute average sea level.

We know what colors of light penetrate most deeply into seawater (at least in Hawaii). We know what happens when that light is absorbed by seawater (conversion to thermal and chemical energy).

We know that colder water is capable of storing more carbon dioxide, as long as it remains liquid. We know that ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. We know that only a very small amount of carbon dioxide converts to carbonic acid in water (the rest remains dissolved CO2). We also know that carbonic acid is absolutely necessary for the survival of shellfish.


You are unbelievable. Submarines hide in the depths? The deepest driving military submarine can only dive something like 500 meters. A beaked whale as found around the Galapagos is considered to be extremely peculiar because it can dive to 3,000 meters. This could only be a defensive mechanism and hardly any other whales go below 1,000 meters.

There is little to no light below 1200 meters let alone 12,000 meters of the great depths.

In the great depths there are no shellfish that I'm aware of - there is too little O2 available to support them.

You know NOTHING about ocean currents. Why are you pretending to?

Why are you arguing about this? This is all a matter of common knowledge. It is recorded in the encyclopedia for crying out loud. Or do you believe them to be inaccurate as well?
25-08-2017 21:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Our waters here are generally too turbid to bother diving in them. There just isn't much to see except an occasional octopus materializing out of the gloom and disappearing off again. We still have those that enjoy the sport though.

Ocean currents can be found extremely deep. Those are cold currents, driven by warm currents from above, like a counter current. There are also the tidal effects as the oceans respond to the gravity of the Moon.


In the great depths of the oceans any currents are almost always driven by tectonic activity.

Not true. Most are counter currents from some other current elsewhere.
Wake wrote:
As I said, the water vary in temperature below 1000 meters only by fractions of a degree per 1000 meters.

You can get some pretty different temperatures as you descend through the depths. Submarines use this to hide themselves. Sonar is masked by these temperature differences. Whales use it to communicate to their buddies far away like using a waveguide.
Wake wrote:
This layering is just like the stones you see on cliff faces.

You're in California. Have you even looked at some of your cliff faces??
Wake wrote:
The animal life in the great depths are not the sort of thing that moves around nor can most of them stand any current at all.

They can stand the current. It's how many of them move from place to place.
Wake wrote:
Some look like plants since they must gather their food sources sort of like gathering rain.

When they are anchored, yes.
Wake wrote:
The slight currents that are there are colder water falling into the next deeper layer of water and this loses heat by the unlikely means of less rotting organic matter falling through it.

This tends to happen near the shore. Probably why you figure it happens out across the ocean as well.
Wake wrote:
Man hasn't even a small understanding of the oceans which cover 60% of the Earth let alone the other 10% covered by freshwater.

We actually know a lot. A few things 'global warming' related:

We know what causes currents and where the larger ones are. We sail by them...even engine driven ships (saves fuel). We know how deep they go. We know where the major counter currents are.

We know what causes the El Nino and Las Nina cycles. It is a very minor shift in Pacific equatorial currents.

We know how shellfish get the carbon they need for their shells. Turns out we NEED that carbon dioxide in the water for them!

We know what happens to sea level when an iceberg melts (Nothing!).

We know the relative changes in sea level due to storms and other barometric and temperature changes to a high degree of accuracy. We do not know the absolute average sea level.

We know what colors of light penetrate most deeply into seawater (at least in Hawaii). We know what happens when that light is absorbed by seawater (conversion to thermal and chemical energy).

We know that colder water is capable of storing more carbon dioxide, as long as it remains liquid. We know that ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. We know that only a very small amount of carbon dioxide converts to carbonic acid in water (the rest remains dissolved CO2). We also know that carbonic acid is absolutely necessary for the survival of shellfish.


You are unbelievable. Submarines hide in the depths?

Yup.
Wake wrote:
The deepest driving military submarine can only dive something like 500 meters.

You don't consider that the depths?
Wake wrote:
A beaked whale as found around the Galapagos is considered to be extremely peculiar because it can dive to 3,000 meters. This could only be a defensive mechanism and hardly any other whales go below 1,000 meters.

Bully for it.
Wake wrote:
There is little to no light below 1200 meters let alone 12,000 meters of the great depths.

Never said there was (other than what we take with us).
In the great depths there are no shellfish that I'm aware of - there is too little O2 available to support them.[/quote]
Did you forget the crabs hanging around the volcanic vents? Did you forget the tubeworms? They are both shellfish.
Wake wrote:
You know NOTHING about ocean currents.

But I do.
Wake wrote:
Why are you pretending to?

I'm not pretending.
Wake wrote:
Why are you arguing about this?

I've been meaning to ask YOU that question.
Wake wrote:
This is all a matter of common knowledge.

What is?
Wake wrote:
It is recorded in the encyclopedia for crying out loud.

What is? Could you be a little more vague about that statement?
Wake wrote:
Or do you believe them to be inaccurate as well?

Many encyclopedias are inaccurate (notably the World Book encyclopedia which has articles that are outright wrong). There are some inaccuracies in the Britannica as well. It is the best one out there though. I enjoy my set.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-08-2017 22:32
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.


You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.


Well now we know what happened to your mind.


And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 22:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.


You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.


Well now we know what happened to your mind.


And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.


What was that druggy? Dude that stuff you're smokin is like perfectly OK. Man it's even legal in many states. But most of us are laughing at you. No employer will keep you around for long.
26-08-2017 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.


You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.


Well now we know what happened to your mind.


And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.


What was that druggy? Dude that stuff you're smokin is like perfectly OK. Man it's even legal in many states. But most of us are laughing at you. No employer will keep you around for long.


Besides, smoking paint chips doesn't produce a high. It just might give you a good case of lead poisoning.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-08-2017 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenery wrote;
Yup, I smoked a lot of dope in high school.


I can hear that signature sign off in my head even now....

...and now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey, good day?


My brother died of drugs and I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a puppy who only used maryjane. I always find it entertaining when people show why they have such mental problems and even brag about it.


You can't really blame him, with a brother like you. Studies have shown that cannabis is not harmful at all, and that it is actually beneficial. Your cousin also has a cousin that has the mental capacity of a puppy. Musta been the second hand smoke.


Well now we know what happened to your mind.


And we can conclude that paint chips is what happened to yours.


What was that druggy? Dude that stuff you're smokin is like perfectly OK. Man it's even legal in many states. But most of us are laughing at you. No employer will keep you around for long.


Besides, smoking paint chips doesn't produce a high. It just might give you a good case of lead poisoning.


Greenman believes that they are going to be able to sue employers for firing druggies like him because "It's like legal man".
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate Greenman:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
GreenMan's Climate Model4001-03-2018 21:16
Greenman and Education909-11-2017 04:08
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact