Remember me
▼ Content

Holding in heat


Holding in heat03-06-2019 23:58
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Some on this website have said that heat can't be held in.
As i understand it, heat can be held in temporarily, in this case long enough for the Ross Ice Shelf and the Greenland ice sheet to melt into the sea.
04-06-2019 00:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Some on this website have said that heat can't be held in.
As i understand it, heat can be held in temporarily, in this case long enough for the Ross Ice Shelf and the Greenland ice sheet to melt into the sea.


Nope. It is not possible to hold or trap heat.
It is not possible to trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.

Whether water is liquid, gas, or solid, it has a certain amount of thermal energy. That is what we measure as temperature.

Heat is not energy. It is not measured by temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself.

To melt ice, you must add thermal energy. The sun puts out the same energy. Where is that additional energy coming from?


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 00:15
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Do you mean to say that heat can't be trapped temporarily.
Yo're not going to give me driving lessons are you?
04-06-2019 02:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
When was the last great ice age? When did it end?

Wasn't there 'Global Warming' ever since? When did that warming stop?

When did we hit the peak of the inter-glacial period?

All those questions, don't really have an answer, we have nothing to compare to, nor was anyone around taking measurements, keeping records. This is our first interglacial, where we can observe, measure, and keep records. There is still plenty of ice left over from the ice age. Frozen bodies of animals still are found as the ice melts. It's a slow process, each winter replaces some of the snow and ice that melts. I don't think we hit the peak of the interglacial yet, we will naturally get a little warmer for a while. The amount of warming, is probably consistent with what some are blaming on CO2 production, and nothing more.

Most any plant on earth is genetical tuned to do extremely well with higher CO2 levels. Commercial greenhouse augment CO2, at levels 1200-2000 ppm. The atmosphere outdoors, is around 400 ppm (Hawaii), not even half the ideal level for plant growth. Food production has always been hard work, to grow as much as we need. Some place still struggle to get enough, crop failures can be devastating. We've developed technology to improve yields from farming, but there are still shortages. Increased CO2 would greatly improve crop yield. Wouldn't more food available around the world be a better thing? Less fighting over productive land and resources. People could more easily grow their own foods, with less work, less technology. More natural sources for food as well, for wild animals, which can also be used for food. A warmer climate, more food and fresh water, are all good things for most species on Earth. Cold kills a lot more, than summer heat. Reducing pollution is a good thing, but reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is suicide, like drinking the cult kool-aid.
04-06-2019 02:22
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I agree with a lot of what you said but - what i'm talking about is the melting of ice and the havoc that will cause as a result of sea level rise. Things like massive property damage, disruption of commerce, destruction of infrastructure, people being forced to move inland and rebuild everything from houses, to businesses, to infrastructure. All the man hours required to do this will mean those man hours won't be able to be used for other things.
I think these problems will be worse than shrinking the economy in an orderly manner.
Edited on 04-06-2019 03:15
04-06-2019 02:24
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
It is known how much anthropogenic CO2 is going into the atmosphere because it is known how much fossil fuel is being burned.
04-06-2019 02:39
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
keepit wrote:
I agree with a lot of what you said but - what i'm talking about is the melting of ice and the havoc that will cause as a result of sea level rise. Things like massive property damage, disruption of commerce, destruction of infrastructure, people being forced to move inland and rebuild everything from houses, businesses, and infrastructure. All the man hours required to do this will mean those man hours won't be able to be used for other things.
I think these problems will be worse than shrinking the economy in an orderly manner.


We have flooding ever year, and it's been going on since recorded history, long before burning fossil fuels. Ever read the Book of Genesis?

Here in Florida, we get flooding from storms. Coastal flooding from storm surge, not rising sea levels from ice melting. Yeah, it does some damage, so does the strong winds, been going on a very long time. Even the indians (native americans) have stories about spectacular storms, that came, before the whites, which would have been before the mass burning of fossil fuels.

Simple grade school level experiment: Fill a glass partially full of water (or beverage of choice), throw in a few ice cubes, and mark the water level. Ice floats, you'll notice some sticks up above the liquid. Wait until the ice melts, check the water level, and the mark you made on the glass. Did it rise at all?
04-06-2019 02:43
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
You're trying to give me "driving lessons".
What i'm saying is that anthropogenic CO2 is going to make the inevitable happen sooner. I'd rather put off the inevitable and give us time to develop better technology before too much ice melts.
04-06-2019 04:03
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
All I'm trying to point out, is that all the prophesied events have happened naturally in the past, and in the present, no reason to expect any different, regardless of what mankind does. Natural catastrophes are inevitable, and have nothing to do with manmade CO2, never did in the past. Do you really believe natural catastrophes will stop, if we reduce CO2?

I've lived through many natural catastrophes during my short lifetime, and expect to see quite a few more, before I'm done here on earth. It's a huge, planet, and nature wields a mighty sword. We do have the technology, and experience, to better deal with the effects of natural forces, but we aren't likely ever going to control those forces. Everything sort of balances out in nature, takes a long time though, external forces sometimes tips the scale a little. It's bad enough, when a space rock comes a little too close, or impacts the planet. If we try as hard as we can, to tip the scale, there would be no way of undoing that. Fortunately, it's just not possible, without destroying all life on the planet, and even then, we wouldn't know how it turns out anyway, or for how long.

It seems reckless to me, to fight a losing battle, possibly make things more difficult, just to save you ocean front vacation home. If you are so damn worried about it, put it up on stilts, or build it on floats, some people already have. We have the technology to build hurricane resistant structures, some people do, others go fast and cheap, and use their insurance and federal disaster relief money to rebuild, the same, cheap constructions, even though proven technology exists. Flooding can be reduced and managed, it's labor intensive, costly, but many areas decide those resource are better used to build parks, or larger government office buildings, since we need more elected officials... A lot of our infrastructure is decades old, some in desperate need of repair, most of it needs improvement and upgrades. No one wants to spend money on it, it's good enough to get by, and likely last long enough to be someone else's problem. When floods come, and damns are near burst, levies almost fail, do they ever do more than repair any damage? If they just barely hold up, wouldn't it be wise to improve them? Fighting CO2 is ridiculous, and never likely to happen, been a waste of money and resources, and nothing significant do in decades of pushing for it. People don't apply the knowledge and technology they've had for decades, that could greatly reduce a lot of the damage done every year by natural forces.
04-06-2019 08:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
keepit wrote: What i'm saying is that anthropogenic CO2 is going to make the inevitable happen sooner.

What is the "inevitable" of which you speak? When would it otherwise happen naturally if it weren't for the miraculous physics-defying superpowers of CO2 making "it" happen sooner?

Do you recognize a problem in your ability to define your terms, to be specific in your references and to be clear in what you express? Do you realize that you say absolutely nothing beyond "Fear! Panic! Hurry with the taxation! Rush to cede EMERGENCY power to the government!"? Do you realize the entire basis for your fear-mongering is a collection of violations of physics?

Who, exactly, do you believe is stupid enough to fall for your act? I'll tell you that the only ones stupid enough are already preaching your dogma just like you are. They are already in the choir like you are, i.e. you are wasting your time, and it doesn't matter on which forum you preach.

keepit wrote: I'd rather put off the inevitable and give us time to develop better technology before too much ice melts.

All the ice will melt. All the liquid water will freeze. Cycles. Seasons.

All you need to ask is whether the quantity of water on the planet is changing substantially and whether the orbit of the earth around the sun is changing substantially. If the answer to both is "no" then we will always have the same amount of ice and snow and rain and precipitation and sea level and average global temperature. That's why none of it has changed during our lifetimes.

Oh, ... and if you extrapolate on that, what do you think becomes the "inevitable"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-06-2019 09:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
keepit wrote:I agree with a lot of what you said but - what i'm talking about is the melting of ice and the havoc that will cause as a result of sea level rise.

The Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctica are accumulating ice mass, not losing ice mass.

Otherwise, sea ice cannot make the sea level rise when it melts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it_nx3m2qTU

Things like massive property damage, disruption of commerce, destruction of infrastructure, people being forced to move inland and rebuild everything from houses, to businesses, to infrastructure cannot happen.

What would be very bad would be to shrink the economy, and to ruin the lives of many millions of people just out of sheer panic that violations of physics will somehow occur. It takes a special type of gullible to think along those lines.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-06-2019 10:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Do you mean to say that heat can't be trapped temporarily.
I mean to say exactly that.
keepit wrote:
Yo're not going to give me driving lessons are you?

No.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 10:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
I agree with a lot of what you said but - what i'm talking about is the melting of ice and the havoc that will cause as a result of sea level rise.
Where is all the additional energy coming from to do that?
keepit wrote:
Things like massive property damage, disruption of commerce, destruction of infrastructure, people being forced to move inland and rebuild everything from houses, to businesses, to infrastructure. All the man hours required to do this will mean those man hours won't be able to be used for other things.

Yada yada...the usual doom and gloom predictions from the Church of Global Warming. Where is all that additional energy coming from to melt all that ice?
keepit wrote:
I think these problems will be worse than shrinking the economy in an orderly manner.

Who are YOU to decide how big an economy should be? You are not the dictator.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 10:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
It is known how much anthropogenic CO2 is going into the atmosphere because it is known how much fossil fuel is being burned.


Zero. We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

The amount of coal, oil, natural gas, or any other carbon based fuels being used is unknown.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 10:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
You're trying to give me "driving lessons".

Try that experiment suggested. You will find the water level doesn't change at all.
keepit wrote:
What i'm saying is that anthropogenic CO2 is going to make the inevitable happen sooner.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. Nothing is going to happen.
keepit wrote:
I'd rather put off the inevitable and give us time to develop better technology before too much ice melts.

Where is all that additional energy coming from?


The Parrot Killer
04-06-2019 11:30
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
It is known how much anthropogenic CO2 is going into the atmosphere because it is known how much fossil fuel is being burned.


Zero. We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

The amount of coal, oil, natural gas, or any other carbon based fuels being used is unknown.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


'Fossil' isn't exclusive to paleontology, it simply means very old, or ancient. The coal and petroleum we pull out of the ground, is old, been there a long time. Fossil remains are found in coal deposits, found a very detailed specimen up in Canada not too long ago, not the usual skeletal remains.

Some word you have to look at the context in which they are used. But you know that, words don't burn either, but books do...
04-06-2019 16:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
HarveyH55 wrote: 'Fossil' isn't exclusive to paleontology, it simply means very old, or ancient.

That's your usage of the word. I take the word "fossil" to mean a fossil. If you use the word "fossil" to mean something other than a fossil then I am inclined to believe that you don't say what you mean or mean what you say, unless you are clear that you are speaking figuratively.

Similarly, we already have words for "very old" and "ancient" ... and those words are "very old" and "ancient." If you want to coin a term "ancient fuels" then I'm happy to let you show how you know certain hydrocarbons are however old qualifies as "ancient."

Also, we have a technically correct word for hydrocarbons ... and that word would be "hydrocarbons."

As for coal (which is not a hydrocarbon), we have a word for the part of the coal that actually does burn ... and that word is "carbon." After all, coal is comprised of the carbon that burns and the impurities that don't burn. Sometimes, some of those impurities that don't burn are fossils ... because fossils don't burn.

I find it highly counterproductive to refer to hydrocarbons as "fossil fuels." It doesn't make any sense.

HarveyH55 wrote: The coal and petroleum we pull out of the ground, is old, been there a long time.

How do you know that?
How long is a "long time"?
Big Question: Why is age of any concern with regards to fuel? Do you factor fuel age into your fuel purchase decisions?

It is completely non-value-added but yet highly counterproductive to use the term "fossil fuels."

But really, I am interested to learn how you know how old any given petroleum is. (hint: you don't, nobody does).

HarveyH55 wrote: Fossil remains are found in coal deposits, found a very detailed specimen up in Canada not too long ago, not the usual skeletal remains.

Are you claiming that the skeletal remains are coal? Are you asserting that the skeletal remains are combustable?

Coal is not a fossil. Fossils can be impurities in coal but they do not burn. Carbon, which burns, can be mixed with impurities that don't burn. It is silly to conflate the carbon which burns with the impurities that don't burn by using the term "fossil fuels."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-06-2019 19:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
It is known how much anthropogenic CO2 is going into the atmosphere because it is known how much fossil fuel is being burned.


Zero. We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

The amount of coal, oil, natural gas, or any other carbon based fuels being used is unknown.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


'Fossil' isn't exclusive to paleontology,

Actually, they are.
HarveyH55 wrote:
it simply means very old, or ancient.

No. A fossil is an image of an animal or plant cast in solid rock.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The coal and petroleum we pull out of the ground, is old, been there a long time.

No. coal is simply carbon. Nothing but carbon. Carbon is an element, not a fossil.
Oil is a renewable resource. It is formed inside the Earth continuously. What they taught you in school was wrong.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fossil remains are found in coal deposits,

Yes they are. They are impurities in the coal that do not burn.
HarveyH55 wrote:
found a very detailed specimen up in Canada not too long ago, not the usual skeletal remains.

Impressions of animals or plants to not burn either. You cannot burn a void.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Some word you have to look at the context in which they are used.

Nope. Don't have to look it up anymore. The meaning of 'fossil' is consistent. It does not change.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But you know that, words don't burn either, but books do...

False authority fallacy. Books aren't correct simply because they are books.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Holding in heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
Record Australian heat shows soaring cost of climate change126-02-2019 18:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact