Remember me
▼ Content

Is reason for climate change correct?



Page 1 of 212>
Is reason for climate change correct?26-08-2019 18:11
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I have this crazy idea that some will see as a provocation, but i hope some will give a positive feedback no matter how they like info.
I think that oceans are the main reason for our global warming, 70% of earth surface is oceans and i guess sun in some way heat up like 10-15meter (30-45feet). During daytime sun heat up surface and during night oceans deliver a bit of heat for air. But isnt it correct that oceans are heated by lightwaves that get aborbed by water (and algaes ect), it is not heated very much by the thin air when it need to warm up heavy water. So in my mind it is more likely that our main issue is that oceans are getting heated and heat up air.
This heated air could be main cause for bad weather like hurricanes and cyclones ect. So if we could decrease temperature oceans we would - maybe . get better weather conditions with fewer and less dangerous hurricanes ect. and we might delay smelting of ice (probably to late imho).
So in my mind real solution is to create powerplants that draw out heat from ocean water and change it to electric power. We already know of water to water pumps that draw out heat, you might know of even better methods. I say if we can change this heat to electric power in a relatively efficient way, then we have a plausible way to create efficient energy while improve the world. And NASA claim they can change ambient heat to electric power efficient, so maybe we already know how to.
Im no expert I just guess that even if world get 100% renewable energy - we might still have global warming. The oceans are a huge battery, it contains huge amounts of energy ready to be extracted day and night. We never pay to much attention to this source that are being reloaded like every day.
Is it just a crazy idea, or should world do more to draw out energy from oceans?
In theory all coastal cities could build plants.
My research say that water to water heat pump is around 1kwh input to 5kwh heat output, and best possible way i find to change heat to electric power is 90% efficient - so we might be able to create solutions that will be economic viable.
Im sorry if i waste your time...I just do my best so see the world from different angles, and sometimes need a bit of feed back. Please be nice when you tell me im crazy
26-08-2019 19:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
Anders wrote: I think that oceans are the main reason for our global warming,

... or there's no Global Warming.

Anders wrote: This heated air could be main cause for bad weather like hurricanes and cyclones ect.

Yes, "heated air" is a component, but you should expect Into the Night to remind you that cold air is what drives any given event in question.

Warmizombies don't like discussing how "cold" is the driver for extreme weather. It makes their rather silly religious dogma look ... well, rather silly.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-08-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Anders wrote:
I have this crazy idea that some will see as a provocation, but i hope some will give a positive feedback no matter how they like info.
I think that oceans are the main reason for our global warming,

No. Oceans aren't able to warm the Earth at all.
Anders wrote:
70% of earth surface is oceans and i guess sun in some way heat up like 10-15meter (30-45feet).

You got it! The Sun warms the Earth, nothing else!
Anders wrote:
During daytime sun heat up surface and during night oceans deliver a bit of heat for air.

Works for both ocean and land.
Anders wrote:
But isnt it correct that oceans are heated by lightwaves that get aborbed by water (and algaes ect), it is not heated very much by the thin air when it need to warm up heavy water.

Again correct. The air doesn't heat the ocean. The Sun does.
Anders wrote:
So in my mind it is more likely that our main issue is that oceans are getting heated and heat up air.

Quite right, just as the land is heated by the Sun and heats the air.
Anders wrote:
This heated air could be main cause for bad weather like hurricanes and cyclones ect.

Nope. You need COLD air for storms, including all hurricanes and cyclones.
Anders wrote:
So if we could decrease temperature oceans we would - maybe . get better weather conditions with fewer and less dangerous hurricanes ect. and we might delay smelting of ice (probably to late imho).

The ice isn't melting. Anyone that tells you it is melting is making a bald faced lie.
Anders wrote:
So in my mind real solution is to create powerplants that draw out heat from ocean water and change it to electric power.

This would reduce entropy in a system. Not possible, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Anders wrote:
We already know of water to water pumps that draw out heat, you might know of even better methods.

Really? Where?
Anders wrote:
I say if we can change this heat to electric power in a relatively efficient way, then we have a plausible way to create efficient energy while improve the world.

You first have to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Anders wrote:
And NASA claim they can change ambient heat to electric power efficient, so maybe we already know how to.

NASA is full of shit these days. The NASA of today is NOT the NASA that went to the Moon.
Anders wrote:
Im no expert I just guess that even if world get 100% renewable energy - we might still have global warming.

Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth (or its oceans).
Anders wrote:
The oceans are a huge battery, it contains huge amounts of energy ready to be extracted day and night. We never pay to much attention to this source that are being reloaded like every day.
Is it just a crazy idea, or should world do more to draw out energy from oceans?
In theory all coastal cities could build plants.

2nd law of thermodynamics. Remember that law. Entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system.
Anders wrote:
My research say that water to water heat pump is around 1kwh input to 5kwh heat output, and best possible way i find to change heat to electric power is 90% efficient - so we might be able to create solutions that will be economic viable.

You are research perpetual motion machines of the second order.
Anders wrote:
Im sorry if i waste your time...I just do my best so see the world from different angles, and sometimes need a bit of feed back. Please be nice when you tell me im crazy



Sure. I won't insult you or even call you crazy. You are simply misinformed.

Perpetual motion 'solutions' have been around a long time. Each and every one of them violates the laws of thermodynamics.

For something to heat something else, that something must be hotter than the thing it's heating. You don't 'extract' thermal energy and concentrate it somewhere without expending more energy than what you get to do it.

To concentrate energy is to reduce entropy. It doesn't happen by itself. It can't.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-08-2019 19:48
26-08-2019 19:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
Into the Night wrote:The ice isn't melting. Anyone that tells you it is melting is making a bald faced lie.

Either you meant "bold-faced lie" or you were referring to someone who had recently shaved.

... which begs the question, if you have to lie, which is better, Bic or Gillette?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
27-08-2019 01:10
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
TY you are actually treating me nice...10 years ago you could buy a air to air heat pump that was 33% efficient then they made it better so it was 25% efficient, today i think they call it 20% efficient, but in real life it is getting better and use .20 kwh input to get 1 kwh out put. That is quite efficient.
https://www.devetec.de/images/unternehmen/downloads/en/DeVeTec_GmbH_Unternehmensbroschuere_englisch.pdf
As i read this brouchure say that 300kwh heat give you 270kwh electric out put if 300celcius.
What makes me claim that it is plausible that we somehow can find good solution. I do not claim that i have the solution.
27-08-2019 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
[quote]Anders wrote:
TY you are actually treating me nice...10 years ago you could buy a air to air heat pump that was 33% efficient then they made it better so it was 25% efficient, today i think they call it 20% efficient, but in real life it is getting better and use .20 kwh input to get 1 kwh out put. That is quite efficient. You cannot get 1kw from 0.2 kw. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

I suggest you look up how a heat pump works.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-08-2019 01:30
27-08-2019 02:06
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Why would you want to cool the oceans? There are a lot of living things in the ocean, most don't seem to tolerate the cold well, and migrate to avoid it. I don't personally think we have the power or resources to cause any drastic changes to the environment. The planet is huge, and very strong, powerful, reminds us often enough. I don't know if there is an agreed upon volume of all the surface water on earth, but it's going to be an extremely large number. How many of your coastal power plants would you need, to have any effect on that vast volume of water? What would be the cost of each? And finally, if you do happen to reach your goal, what then? Most of those power plants would need to be shut down, as there wouldn't be enough solar warming to support them anymore. Not to mention, how are you going to feed all the people, who depend almost exclusively on food they get from the oceans? It's a major food source worldwide as well, a natural renewable resource, where we don't have to do anything, other than harvest. Small investment, lot of work, basically free product.

Global Warming isn't happening, not very likely to happen. Since a jarful of CO2 in a lab can be heated with light, in theory, it could warm the planet, if there were a sufficiently high enough concentration, like in the lab jar. We'd all die from lack of oxygen, before it got that high. Plants do a lot better with much higher levels of CO2, and would be pulling out a lot more of it, if given the chance. They get by alright, with what they have to work with, but no where near their full potential.

My opinion is that CO2 warmed by light, is a real thing. Man produces CO2, which can be taxed, regulated, controlled. The reality, there will never be enough CO2, to warm the planet, but controlling the production is power, not the electric kind, the political type of power. You can easily see that 'climate change' isn't about saving the planet, by looking at the lifestyles of those who promote the fight loudest. Private jets used often, mega-yachts just to go fishing, huge mansions (own more than one), in which just one or two people stay, occasionally, and staff. They aren't going 'green' on a personal level at all, even-though they have the finances to at-least make an appearance of caring.
27-08-2019 06:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why would you want to cool the oceans? There are a lot of living things in the ocean, most don't seem to tolerate the cold well, and migrate to avoid it. I don't personally think we have the power or resources to cause any drastic changes to the environment. The planet is huge, and very strong, powerful, reminds us often enough. I don't know if there is an agreed upon volume of all the surface water on earth, but it's going to be an extremely large number. How many of your coastal power plants would you need, to have any effect on that vast volume of water? What would be the cost of each? And finally, if you do happen to reach your goal, what then? Most of those power plants would need to be shut down, as there wouldn't be enough solar warming to support them anymore. Not to mention, how are you going to feed all the people, who depend almost exclusively on food they get from the oceans? It's a major food source worldwide as well, a natural renewable resource, where we don't have to do anything, other than harvest. Small investment, lot of work, basically free product.

Global Warming isn't happening, not very likely to happen. Since a jarful of CO2 in a lab can be heated with light, in theory, it could warm the planet, if there were a sufficiently high enough concentration, like in the lab jar. We'd all die from lack of oxygen, before it got that high. Plants do a lot better with much higher levels of CO2, and would be pulling out a lot more of it, if given the chance. They get by alright, with what they have to work with, but no where near their full potential.

My opinion is that CO2 warmed by light, is a real thing. Man produces CO2, which can be taxed, regulated, controlled. The reality, there will never be enough CO2, to warm the planet, but controlling the production is power, not the electric kind, the political type of power. You can easily see that 'climate change' isn't about saving the planet, by looking at the lifestyles of those who promote the fight loudest. Private jets used often, mega-yachts just to go fishing, huge mansions (own more than one), in which just one or two people stay, occasionally, and staff. They aren't going 'green' on a personal level at all, even-though they have the finances to at-least make an appearance of caring.

Nope. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. While it does absorb infrared light from the surface, that does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 06:30
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1477)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The ice isn't melting. Anyone that tells you it is melting is making a bald faced lie.

Either you meant "bold-faced lie" or you were referring to someone who had recently shaved.

... which begs the question, if you have to lie, which is better, Bic or Gillette?


For the every day white lie a Gillette is just fine.

For the big whopper (telling someone that the earth is warmed by CO2)...Bic


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
27-08-2019 16:54
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Hi Into the night, a heat pump do not violate any laws.
I cant claim that i know all about it, but i do have one and I know how much i save on heating after I install this heat pump, so i know it is efficient.
The air to air heat pump draw in air and use a gas to seperate hot and cold air, and blow out cold air to nature and warm air into my house. It do not create more energy, it just use a electric pump and the gas to make it usefull - right?
A water to water heat pump you lay down tubes filled with gas, that are heated by surroundings and a pump draw it back where it heat your water.
The energy you add to both systems are not converted to heat, it is just used for pump i think.
27-08-2019 17:17
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Harvey I would guess that many fish ect prefer cold water, but i never really check up on that. But it was not in my mind to make oceans to cold water, but I hope it is possible to maybe decrease temp by maybe 2F-4F.
I have no idea how much energy we can draw out of ocean before it become a problem that we do it.
But i guess that a city with 1mio people might use 1000mw per hour, but ofcourse it will make more sense in warm water than up north.
And I think that the world will use many forms of energy in future too, i just see this as an option.
27-08-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Anders wrote:
Hi Into the night, a heat pump do not violate any laws.

That is correct. The problem is that you don't understand heat pumps.
Anders wrote:
I cant claim that i know all about it, but i do have one and I know how much i save on heating after I install this heat pump, so i know it is efficient.

Define 'efficient'. You really can't at this stage because you don't know how a heat pump works.
Anders wrote:
The air to air heat pump draw in air and use a gas to seperate hot and cold air, and blow out cold air to nature and warm air into my house. It do not create more energy, it just use a electric pump and the gas to make it usefull - right?

No.

You are describing two devices here, but I will describe this one first in detail.

Heat pumps are essentially air conditioners. They operate just like your refrigerator. You can use a variety of liquids as the refrigerant. Older systems used ammonia gas. This was very efficient, but the gas is dangerous. DuPont came up with a much safer substitute called Freon. They labeled it R-12 or (refrigerant 12...not exactly creative, these guys). There were losing their patents on R-12 so they got the government to pass laws to make it illegal and switched to marketing R134a, which was under a new patent. This was the crux of the 'ozone hole problem', that never was a problem.

A good refrigerant normally is a gas, but you can squish it to a liquid using a pump. This pump requires an energy source of some kind. The heat pump will not work without something squishing the gas down to a liquid.

When you squish a gas, it gets hot according generally to the ideal gas law (not all gases are ideal). You then put this hot liquid into a radiator. For your refrigerator, those are the coils on the back of the unit. For a heat pump, those are the ones in your house when the heat pump it heating your house, or the ones outside when the heat pump is cooling your house. Heat pumps can switch which is the hot radiator so they can both heat and cool. Nice feature!

As the hot liquid cools in the radiator (it takes energy to heat your house!), it is losing thermal energy. Now the liquid is introduced to a tiny orifice, that allows it to drop to atmospheric pressure again. Again, generally according to the ideal gas law, it will cool. It will cool so much it will get much colder than outside air, since it already lost a lot of thermal energy in the hot radiator.

Now the cold gas is fed to the cold 'radiator'. Here is where the thermal energy in your food is used to warm the gas again, cooling the food, or for a heat pump in heating mode, this is where the outside air is used to warm the gas again (at least up to the temperature of the outside air!).

The cycle starts anew at the pump again.

The energy required from the power company is the difference in thermal energy between the hot and cold sides of the system, plus losses (it's a machine. All machines have losses.)

Now you can define efficiency. It is the ratio of the amount of power you have to put into the pump, vs the power available between the difference of temperature of the hot and cold sides. In other words, it's a number representing how lossy the machine is.

Heat pumps like this are used to compress most any gas to liquids. Carbon dioxide is actually pretty easy to liquify in this manner. Cold water is used as the coolant to cool off the hot carbon dioxide liquid. The result is that the carbon dioxide stays liquid, and very cold.

Now you can compress the next gas (nitrogen) and use the carbon dioxide to cool it.

Now you can compress gas after gas, using the previous one as the coolant for the next.

This is how liquified gases are made. It's literally an industrial series of heat pumps!

At the bottom of your refrigerator is the motor. You'll notice is rather a beefy one. If you look inside your heat pump, it's even beefier. It takes a lot of energy to run these motors under the loads they handle.

Entropy is increasing because the system now includes the power plant to supply power to these motors. If you consider only the heat pump itself without the power plant, the heat pump will not pump heat. Entropy is still increasing. Your house becomes that of outside air temperature.
Anders wrote:
A water to water heat pump you lay down tubes filled with gas, that are heated by surroundings and a pump draw it back where it heat your water.

This is known as a radiator. The water is heated by a boiler. That takes fuel to heat that water.
Anders wrote:
The energy you add to both systems are not converted to heat,

Yes they are. In the case of the heat pump, it is converted by compressing gasses. In the case of the water radiator, it is the fire in the boiler.
Anders wrote:
it is just used for pump i think.

For the heat pump, that is true. But squishing gases down to liquid takes a lot of work. That work is converted into thermal energy so that you have a hot side to the machine.

The cold side is also thermal energy, just not as much as the hot side. The difference in thermal energy is what the pump must overcome. At the very least, that's the energy the pump requires to run.

Can it ever be 100% efficient? No. There is friction in moving the stuff through the plumbing, and the friction within the pump itself.

So you are correct. Heat pumps do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The trick is to understand just how much energy it takes to squish the refrigerant gas in the system.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2019 19:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Anders wrote:
Harvey I would guess that many fish ect prefer cold water, but i never really check up on that. But it was not in my mind to make oceans to cold water, but I hope it is possible to maybe decrease temp by maybe 2F-4F.

There are many types of fish. Some prefer cold water, others prefer warm water. Some prefer fresh water, others prefer salt water. They will often die in water that exceeds their tolerances.
Anders wrote:
I have no idea how much energy we can draw out of ocean before it become a problem that we do it.

The ocean is not one temperature. Also, unlike your heat pump, water doesn't compress. This difference of temperature does induce the ocean currents though. Guided by the difference in temperature of the air above it, warm currents will flow along the surface in regular patterns.

Cold currents flow along the bottom. They are slow and essentially return ocean water to where the warm currents started.

Like rivers in water, you can tap these for energy, just like a hydroelectric dam would. The problem is the 'dam'. There are no edges to these rivers that are solid to anchor a dam in.

You can drop anchor and chain the device to those, but as any sailor will tell you, it's quite possible to exceed the limits of your anchor and just drag it along the bottom.

So how do you keep the device from getting 'blown away' by the current?

Anders wrote:
But i guess that a city with 1mio people might use 1000mw per hour, but ofcourse it will make more sense in warm water than up north.

No, this is essentially ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. You can't decrease energy in any system, and you can't just create energy out of nothing.
Anders wrote:
And I think that the world will use many forms of energy in future too, i just see this as an option.

I don't. It's rather impractical.

Energy is a free market. We will use the energy that is the cheapest for the application we want to use it for. The free market is immortal. You can't kill it, even if an oppressive government drives it underground. It's still there. See your local drug dealer for details on how this works.

No one can dictate what kind of energy will be used in the world.

This is why wind farms and solar farms eventually fail. They require subsidies to compete against other forms of energy.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 03:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
Anders wrote:
But i guess that a city with 1mio people might use 1000mw per hour, but ofcourse it will make more sense in warm water than up north.

No, this is essentially ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. You can't decrease energy in any system, and you can't just create energy out of nothing.


For example you're a person in a room at this moment. You're body is emitting over 700 watts and then absorbing over 600 watts from the environment around you (so you don't freeze to death).

But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings! I know CRAZY so he believes that you emitt 700 watts and make up the difference with lunch??? That's over a 14,000 calorie diet by the way.

So take anything this nutter says about the 2nd law of thermodynamics with a grain of salt.

He's basically living a lie.
28-08-2019 07:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Anders wrote:
But i guess that a city with 1mio people might use 1000mw per hour, but ofcourse it will make more sense in warm water than up north.

No, this is essentially ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again. You can't decrease energy in any system, and you can't just create energy out of nothing.


For example you're a person in a room at this moment. You're body is emitting over 700 watts and then absorbing over 600 watts from the environment around you (so you don't freeze to death).

No, I'm quite alive, I assure you.
tmiddles wrote:
But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

Not of the surroundings are cooler than you. You cannot make heat flow backwards.
tmiddles wrote:
I know CRAZY so he believes that you emitt 700 watts and make up the difference with lunch??? That's over a 14,000 calorie diet by the way.

No, I am alive.
tmiddles wrote:
So take anything this nutter says about the 2nd law of thermodynamics with a grain of salt.

* You cannot make heat flow backwards. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This has already been explained to you. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
He's basically living a lie.

Lie. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-08-2019 07:04
28-08-2019 07:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot make heat flow backwards. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


With no explanation whatsoever.

pathetic
28-08-2019 15:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot make heat flow backwards. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


With no explanation whatsoever.

pathetic

You obviously don't understand how this science thing works.

Why have you not already resolved this issue with one repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object? That would resolve the issue and we could press on assuming your assertion is true.

The burden still rests on you, but the good news is that it is completely under your control and there's nothing anyone can do to stop you. (we have a phrase for this: "the ball is in your court")


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
28-08-2019 18:34
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Into the night...TY for copy/paste specific info about how a heatpump work, I did know that, but didnt find it nessesary to write 50 lines of info to tell you. But apparently you still dont understand what it is the system really do.

To simplify it, if outside temp is 32F and inside temp is 72F, then pump draw in 1000 gallons air from out side and take out the low heat that is contains, then heat is blown into house at maybe 90F (but of course not very much) and alot of cold air is blown out in nature at maybe 20F.

An average heatpump can make hot input air when outside temp go down to around 10F-20F, but the colder it is outside the more difficult it is to do it, so you get less heat into house.

The hotter the air is the more energy it contains. When you move energy from water to gas tubes, then energy increase in gas and energy decrease in the water. Water that lose energy will get colder, but in ocean water will be replaced continuesly so you wont really notice. But oceans will gain back energy from sun during daytime and lose a bit during night.

It IS possible to draw out energy from air or water, but it is NOT free energy - it sounds like you see it like that. If you get energy as output in any form you move energy from somewhere to your output. When you get energy from oceans you remove energy from oceans, and this will make oceans colder. If oceans dont get colder THEN it IS a free energy machine. But that will violate the thermodynamic laws.

And it is correct that different fish like different waters, but why do you say that? It really have no influense on my thought that 75% of worlds fish are caught in northern areas. I would name Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia. Only fish i have ever seen caught in south and sold in north are tuna.

It is really weird that you try to indicate that im the one who should prove to board how a heat pump work, just because i claim that a heat pump make heat at high efficiency. My heatpump use like 400watt/h to keep my house heated 6 months a year. That is like 7cents for me or 300dollar including 300% tax (i still use 100dollar woth of wood). If i heat with fire wood in wood stove i need like 50 cents 10hours a day or like 900dollar a year, and there is no tax on wood. So a heat pump is efficient!!

When Panasonic sell a heat pump and claim it is 20% efficient, it tell you that input electric energy is 20% of your output heat energy - not that you get 1dollar heat for 5dollar.
28-08-2019 19:07
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
IbDamann you seriously need an update on what price is on clean energy. During past 10 years price has decreased while efficiency has increased, for both wind and solar. But ofcourse there is smart ways to use it and stupid ways.

A landmill of 1mwh cost around 1.1million dollar and run like 30% of day, so real price for 1mwh is 3.7million. Then output will be 1000kwh in 25years. Today i guess you pay 7cents per kwh so you will pay 70x24x360x25= 15mio for the energy next 25years or you can pay 3.7mio for a windmill.

In china 1watt of solar panels cost 50cents and incl. installation equipement 60cents - so around 600 for 1kwh or 600000 for 1mwh. If it is sunny 8ours a day price of 1 mwh is really 1.8mio or half price of the windmill.

You can say good or bad about both solar and wind...or my thermo electric idea with oceans, but solar and wind can compeed with other energy forms today, and i just say that oceans are a battery of heat where we can get power 24/7 instead of just 8hours a day.
28-08-2019 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot make heat flow backwards. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


With no explanation whatsoever.

pathetic


Lie. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has been explained to you.

* You cannot make heat flow backwards.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 21:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Anders wrote:
Into the night...TY for copy/paste specific info about how a heatpump work,

I do not copy and paste. Everything in my posts I write myself.
Anders wrote:
I did know that, but didnt find it nessesary to write 50 lines of info to tell you. But apparently you still dont understand what it is the system really do.

I do understand what the system really does.
Anders wrote:
To simplify it, if outside temp is 32F and inside temp is 72F, then pump draw in 1000 gallons air from out side and take out the low heat that is contains, then heat is blown into house at maybe 90F (but of course not very much) and alot of cold air is blown out in nature at maybe 20F.

Heat is not something you blow around. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature. Thermal energy is not air. It is not 'blown' anywhere. It simply is. Thermal energy is what we measure using a thermometer.
Anders wrote:
An average heatpump can make hot input air when outside temp go down to around 10F-20F, but the colder it is outside the more difficult it is to do it, so you get less heat into house.

No. An average heatpump can make hot OUTPUT air when outside temps go down to around 10 deg F. The reason it is more difficult is because you are reaching the limits of the pump. It can only create so much of a temperature difference. Thus, in colder areas, you need supplemental heat in the winter.
Anders wrote:
The hotter the air is the more energy it contains.

Correct.
Anders wrote:
When you move energy from water to gas tubes, then energy increase in gas and energy decrease in the water.

You can't just move thermal energy. Heat only flows from hot to cold. You cannot use something that is colder to heat something that is warmer. You need energy from an outside source. Combined, heat from the power plant is used to drive your pump.
Anders wrote:
Water that lose energy will get colder, but in ocean water will be replaced continuesly so you wont really notice.

You can't make heat flow backwards. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
Anders wrote:
But oceans will gain back energy from sun during daytime and lose a bit during night.

You still cannot make heat flow backwards. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
Anders wrote:
It IS possible to draw out energy from air or water,

Sure. I gave two examples.
Anders wrote:
but it is NOT free energy - it sounds like you see it like that.

Never said it was. That energy comes from the Sun. Such systems are essentially solar powered.
Anders wrote:
If you get energy as output in any form you move energy from somewhere to your output.

The Sun. Remember the Sun? That's where that energy comes from!
Anders wrote:
When you get energy from oceans you remove energy from oceans, and this will make oceans colder.

You cannot make heat flow backwards. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
Anders wrote:
If oceans dont get colder THEN it IS a free energy machine.

Irrelevant. You cannot make heat flow backwards. I never suggested anything like a perpetual motion machine. YOU are. YOU are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.
Anders wrote:
But that will violate the thermodynamic laws.

True, but irrelevant. You cannot just suck energy out of the oceans unless the energy you are getting is greater than where you are 'sucking' it to.
Anders wrote:
And it is correct that different fish like different waters, but why do you say that? It really have no influense on my thought that 75% of worlds fish are caught in northern areas.

Argument from randU fallacy. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Fishing occurs in all waters.
Anders wrote:
I would name Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia. Only fish i have ever seen caught in south and sold in north are tuna.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. You will find fishing at all latitudes.
Anders wrote:
It is really weird that you try to indicate that im the one who should prove to board how a heat pump work,

You don't know how a heat pump works. I do. I just described it to you.
Anders wrote:
just because i claim that a heat pump make heat at high efficiency.

It doesn't make heat at all. A heat pump IS heat. It is designed to move thermal energy from one place to another and to concentrate thermal energy using energy from a power plant.
Anders wrote:
My heatpump use like 400watt/h to keep my house heated 6 months a year.

Okay.
Anders wrote:
That is like 7cents for me or 300dollar including 300% tax (i still use 100dollar woth of wood). If i heat with fire wood in wood stove i need like 50 cents 10hours a day or like 900dollar a year, and there is no tax on wood. So a heat pump is efficient!!

At least on the wallet! You don't seem to understand, I LIKE heat pumps. They are wonderful machines. They ARE machines, however, subject to all the laws of thermodynamics.
Anders wrote:
When Panasonic sell a heat pump and claim it is 20% efficient, it tell you that input electric energy is 20% of your output heat energy - not that you get 1dollar heat for 5dollar.

Oooooh. Marketing crap. Does not mean if I turn the heat pump off it is 0% efficient, and the output heat energy will be infinite?

There is something wrong with Panasonic's description of 'efficiency'!


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 21:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Anders wrote:
IbDamann you seriously need an update on what price is on clean energy.

Coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar are all clean energy sources.
Currently, oil and natural gas are the cheapest, followed closely by coal. Hydroelectric does pretty well too, plus it allows one to make better use of the water so dammed by the system and helps to prevent wild rivers from causing flooding downstream. Nuclear is expensive, but a lot of that is political expenses. Wind and solar cells are the most expensive energy sources watt for watt.

Ocean current systems are not practical for the reasons I have already described. Some tidal power is available in very limited locations.
Anders wrote:
During past 10 years price has decreased while efficiency has increased, for both wind and solar. But ofcourse there is smart ways to use it and stupid ways.

It has improved, but it is still the most expensive forms of energy.
Anders wrote:
A landmill of 1mwh cost around 1.1million dollar and run like 30% of day, so real price for 1mwh is 3.7million. Then output will be 1000kwh in 25years. Today i guess you pay 7cents per kwh so you will pay 70x24x360x25= 15mio for the energy next 25years or you can pay 3.7mio for a windmill.

You are forgetting the cost of the land.
Anders wrote:
In china 1watt of solar panels cost 50cents and incl. installation equipement 60cents - so around 600 for 1kwh or 600000 for 1mwh. If it is sunny 8ours a day price of 1 mwh is really 1.8mio or half price of the windmill.

You are forgetting the cost of land.
Anders wrote:
You can say good or bad about both solar and wind...

Sure. You can say good or bad about any energy source.
Anders wrote:
or my thermo electric idea with oceans,

You can't make heat flow backwards. You can't decrease entropy in any system.
Anders wrote:
but solar and wind can compeed with other energy forms today,

Yes. They are currently the most expensive forms of energy in use. That's why people are still buying and using coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants.
Anders wrote:
and i just say that oceans are a battery of heat where we can get power 24/7 instead of just 8hours a day.

It isn't free. You can't decrease entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 23:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote: But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

That is not his position. You have dishonestly misrepresented his position, an indication that you are getting desperate in the defense of your religion.

I suggest you let Into the Night speak for himself and for his position; he is quite capable of doing so. You, on the other hand, apparently cannot avoid resorting to dishonesty, being the Marxist that you are.

So let's keep the focus where it needs to be: Where is your repeatable instance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics not holding so we can presume that you are correct? After all, you are the only one making a claim here and you bear the full responsibility to support it. No one is required to somehow prove your theory false.

At the moment, the answer to your question concerning the man in the cool room is "Gee, before I can answer that correctly I first need to know if tmiddles is correct in asserting that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false."

Falsify away! I'm standing by.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
Edited on 28-08-2019 23:21
29-08-2019 00:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

That is not his position. You have dishonestly misrepresented his position,...

From: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.
29-08-2019 01:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

That is not his position. You have dishonestly misrepresented his position,...

From: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.


Read that carefully again. I never said you cannot absorb energy from your surroundings. I only specified when it's possible to do so.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 04:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

That is not his position. You have dishonestly misrepresented his position,...

From: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.


Read that carefully again. I never said you cannot absorb energy from your surroundings. I only specified when it's possible to do so.


Yeah you said they can't unless the walls are warmer. Since the temp of the walls is given you're saying they can't.

You can't explain it because your position is hopeless.
29-08-2019 05:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

That is not his position. You have dishonestly misrepresented his position,...

From: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.

What he wrote is correct. You asserted he wrote something completely different and silly, and then you mocked him for the erroneous position you assigned to him.

Par for the course.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-08-2019 05:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
You asserted he wrote something completely different and silly


I said ITN and you claim we cannot absorb energy from our surroundings. You do make that claim, both of you.

You both claim a warmer body cannot absorb energy from a cooler body.

It is silly and made up. You pulled that absurd theory out of your back pocket.

I have proven you are wrong.
29-08-2019 13:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You asserted he wrote something completely different and silly


I said ITN and you claim we cannot absorb energy from our surroundings. You do make that claim, both of you.

That is not my position. Please don't claim that it is.

People get heat stroke from absorbing energy from their surroundings. Some die from it.

So, rather than focusing your attention on misrepresenting others, you could just provide us your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body and we can press forward with this discussion under your tutelage.

I'm all ears, not in any sort of "ignore mode" like you might find in others.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-08-2019 13:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
People get heat stroke from absorbing energy from their surroundings.


Ah yes your bazaar theory is that thermal energy is ONLY absorbed from a hotter body. So, human skin being 91F, on a 92F day SUDDENLY we are absorbing. 90F day nothing.

The repeated instance is the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?
29-08-2019 14:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote: The repeated instance is the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

Nope. You need to give me a specific example that works.

I touched my walls. My fingers decreased in temperature.

I held a blue shirt near a wall. Neither changed temperature.

I need a specific repeatable instance that I promise I will perform myself, and upon achieving the results you predict, I will proclaim the 2nd law of thermodynamics defunct.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-08-2019 14:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:I need a specific repeatable instance that I promise I will perform myself,


Really! OK start by calculating your own radiance (doesn't that sound supportive!).

You'll need the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to do that. I think you know it.
Edited on 29-08-2019 14:27
29-08-2019 14:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I need a specific repeatable instance that I promise I will perform myself,


Really! OK start by calculating your own radiance (doesn't that sound supportive!).

You'll need the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to do that. I think you know it.

I don't think you ever fully grasped how this science thing works.

I will perform any and all calculations that I deem appropriate. You are to give me but one example in nature that I can witness so I can report back here the good news.


... and your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
29-08-2019 17:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: But ITN has a coo coo concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says you cannot absorb any energy from your surroundings!

That is not his position. You have dishonestly misrepresented his position,...

From: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Since the human is in the dark room at 33C and the room is 22C would the human absorb any radiance from the walls?

Only if the walls are warmer than our human.


Read that carefully again. I never said you cannot absorb energy from your surroundings. I only specified when it's possible to do so.


Yeah you said they can't unless the walls are warmer.

Correct.
tmiddles wrote:
Since the temp of the walls is given you're saying they can't.

Under your conditions, true. You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
tmiddles wrote:
You can't explain it because your position is hopeless.

I already have, liar. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 18:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You asserted he wrote something completely different and silly


I said ITN and you claim we cannot absorb energy from our surroundings. You do make that claim, both of you.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
You both claim a warmer body cannot absorb energy from a cooler body.

This is correct.
tmiddles wrote:
It is silly and made up.

No, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
You pulled that absurd theory out of your back pocket.

No, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
I have proven you are wrong.

You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. There is no 'net heat'.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 18:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
People get heat stroke from absorbing energy from their surroundings.


Ah yes your bazaar theory is that thermal energy is ONLY absorbed from a hotter body. So, human skin being 91F, on a 92F day SUDDENLY we are absorbing. 90F day nothing.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a bizarre theory. It does work in bazaars though.
tmiddles wrote:
The repeated instance is the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

No, you are helping to heat your home.
tmiddles wrote:
It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

No, you are helping to heat the room.
tmiddles wrote:
Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

Inversion fallacy. YOU deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you are radiating 700W, you are dead.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 21:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
[
I will perform any and all calculations that I deem appropriate. .


Great so what did you calculate your radiance to be?
Edited on 29-08-2019 21:57
29-08-2019 21:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
Inversion fallacy. YOU deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you are radiating 700W, you are dead.


So you claim we don't radiate over 700 watts?
29-08-2019 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[
I will perform any and all calculations that I deem appropriate. .


Great so what did you calculate you radiance to be?


Already calculated and answered for you using your randU numbers. Repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Inversion fallacy. YOU deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you are radiating 700W, you are dead.


So you claim we don't radiate over 700 watts?


I don't claim anything. YOU are the only one claiming anything.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Is reason for climate change correct?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche419-11-2019 19:43
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1226-04-2019 02:48
The reason I don't believe the hypothesis doubling CO2 increases temp by 1 C is704-02-2019 21:02
The Reason I Switched to the Republican Party6009-04-2018 17:13
▲ 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