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

James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


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

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


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

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

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

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

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

Just not a problem.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


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

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

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

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

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

Just not a problem.

James___ wrote:
..Fracking is being done in the US and it's highly controversial because of water issues.

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

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

Into the Night wrote:

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

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

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

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

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


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

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

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

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

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

Just not a problem.

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

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

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

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

..In Colorado coal seems are thick and therefore easy to mine.

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

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

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

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

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

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:
..Tim, consider this, the tropopause and the stratopause are not trying to reach an equilibrium with the layers of the atmosphere above and below them. Thermodynamics requires this to happen unless work is being performed.
There's more but no one considers stuff like this.
https://goo.gl/images/QAyKUy


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

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

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

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

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

Just not a problem.

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

..In Colorado coal seems are thick and therefore easy to mine.

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:

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

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

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

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

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

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

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.

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

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

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

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

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

It is YOU that denies science. Inversion fallacy.

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

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

..There's an old saying that goes "Trust but verify".
.It goes as much for climate change as it does you.

James___ wrote:
With you there's absolutely no verification.

James___ wrote:
Can't trust what you say.

James___ wrote:
This means that basically you're nothing more than a common troll.

Into the Night wrote:



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

You can't even define 'climate change'.

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

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

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

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

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

James___ wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


James