Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Reg S.; you presented this link already, back a few pages about post #1669 and I replied about post #1673.

    Got it; been there and done that, yadda, yadda, ...

    Two points:
    1) Amount of energy decreases each time it passes from one molecule to another ...
    2) One molecule of CO2 doesn't acquire enough energy to pass off to the 2,499 other molecules in atmospheric ratio to it. 2 or 3 maybe, 2,499 no way.

    What works better might be to factor in the water vapor(H2O) which is about 10-20% more of total atmosphere in addition to the dry part. This works out to about 250-500 times as much material/molecules as the CO2 and is one of many more likely sources of heat in the atmosphere. Enough to render CO2 as inconsequential.
    Read it again. You have to think in terms of Quantum mechanics. not Caloric theory.
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

      OK- serious time.
      Quantum Mechanics sis sometimes 'counter intuitive.'

      In essence- the Carbon molecule absorbs energy. It then transmits the energy outwards.
      some of the energy is transmitted via collisions with other molecules. some of the energy is absorbed form the returning energy form the earths surface- then reflected back to the surface. Warming it.
      this is a much more elegant explaNATION.- HERE....

      https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxid...ared-radiation
      Here's a few more items of amusement from yourlink;
      ...
      ... a CO2 molecule would most likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule ...
      ...
      Notice parts highlighted in RED ... seems someone might be hedging their stance ...
      .......
      ...For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. ...
      .........

      The cute cartoon/animation shows the wavy IR energy being absorbed by the two oxygen atoms of the CO2 molecule, which supposedly can't do that per the text.

      Supposedly they should have shown the carbon atom absorb the IR waves, and as pointed out earlier, that results in even less volume being the active part. Also leaves one wondering how much particulate carbon such as soot floating in the air might trap a little bit of heat.

      But more to the point is that there likely are others forms of heat besides the IR and as mentioned above, maybe the hundreds of times more water vapor is the more influential "greenhouse" gas.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • Something that might be more informative; here's a quick article/link on the electromagnetic/EM spectrum, with an interesting illustration;
        EM_spectrum_atmosphere.jpg

        The Electromagnetic Spectrum

        https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienc...spectrum1.html

        As one can see, some ultraviolet and microwaves also make it through the atmosphere and these forms of energy might also be factors that apply.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • afgain- the site is a simplified explanation, - intended for secondary and junior High school students. I've listed more in depth sites in the past.
          Read - deeper.
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post
            afgain- the site is a simplified explanation, - intended for secondary and junior High school students. I've listed more in depth sites in the past.
            Read - deeper.
            Which means it should apply to the typical candidate running for office that would make policy and regulations (re: ACC/AGW) and the typical voter whom would put them there.

            Again ...
            I've yet to see in any how equal energy(heat) transfers totally from ONE molecule to the other 2,499 in the dry atmospheric ratio.

            If you know of such a passage in any of the text, please quote the excerpt.

            I've too many other things to do with my time to spend reading through the same drivel repeatedly and seeing no answers to the issue(s) I've raised.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              Which means it should apply to the typical candidate running for office that would make policy and regulations (re: ACC/AGW) and the typical voter whom would put them there.

              Again ...
              I've yet to see in any how equal energy(heat) transfers totally from ONE molecule to the other 2,499 in the dry atmospheric ratio.

              If you know of such a passage in any of the text, please quote the excerpt.

              I've too many other things to do with my time to spend reading through the same drivel repeatedly and seeing no answers to the issue(s) I've raised.
              I'm not qualified to give a course.in Quantum theory Youwill have to educate yourself
              Thank You for appreciating my humble honesty.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • Somewhat interesting but also some gaps on essential issues, costs, and other aspects;

                Can We Actually Stop Using Fossil Fuels?

                Is it smart—or crazy stupid—to rely solely on wind, solar, and hydro?

                ...
                But first, she has to help change Hawaii. The challenges are many. The state's utility consortium, Hawaiian Electric Companies, must corral the work of other utilities across the state's eight islands. With the help of ­private players like Lippert, it must develop things like battery-backed residential rooftop solar tech with voltage-smoothing inverters, wind farms, aggregated demand-response software, and peak-shifting electric-car charging. So far, it has achieved 27 percent renewable electricity.
                ...
                But any renewable future must include reliable storage that can bank surplus power from wind and solar, and then release it on command. So far grid operators have found two solutions. One is the type of storage found in batteries. Another relies on de facto storage: smart devices that control power demand on appliances, mediating between peak-production and peak-demand times. Lippert and her team are looking at both solutions. In the second bucket, they’ve backed a ­company called Shifted Energy.
                ...
                That outlook is based on a few unproven assumptions. Looking out 20 years, for example, the state's power plan says it will get hundreds of megawatts of offshore wind by using floating turbines, anchored to the sea floor. This hasn't been done anywhere at an affordable scale, but Hawaii has enough faith in the emerging technology to include it.

                And the state, like every place going 100 percent renewable, bets big on electric cars as its future transportation mode. Car batteries will play a crucial role in taking excess energy off the grid during peak solar hours and returning it at night if needed. Hawaii has the second-highest penetration of electric cars in the U.S., but it’s still under 1 percent.
                ...
                https://getpocket.com/explore/item/c...=pocket-newtab
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                Comment


                • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  Which is my point confirmed!
                  Hold up. All I'm agreeing with is that CO2 is not manufacturing energy out of whole cloth. One unit of energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is not being somehow converted into 2499 units of energy. That would be magic or something.

                  This is also not the premise for anthropogenic climate change.


                  The earth is a system. Energy is applied to the system from the sun. The earth radiates energy back into space as heat. The net difference between the two is what we call climate.

                  Most of our atmosphere is transparent to infra red energy. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are opaque to IR. Greenhouse gases are not a new discovery. They have been known for at least 200 years. Water vapor, CO2, and methane are the most significant greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

                  The greenhouse gases absorb heat radiated from the earths surface, and then re-radiate that back into the system, some of it directed back to the earth. Again, this is not a new concept. Greenhouse gases have been doing this exact thing for billions of years.

                  So, if you increase a the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, more energy must necessarily be trapped as heat, and the overall heat in the system will increase. Yet again, this is not a new concept. A Swedish scientist first proposed the link back in 1898.

                  Measurements have clearly shown that the CO2 content in our atmosphere has increased recently primarily due to the consumption of fossil fuels. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 seems to have fluctuated roughly between 180 and 280 ppm (Source NOAA). Current readings are above 400 ppm.

                  And here's where there's not a lot of wiggle room:

                  - If you accept that CO2 (and others) are greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases trap energy, then an increase from 280 to 400 ppm HAS to increase the heat in the system by some amount (assuming solar energy inputs remain relatively constant).
                  - Since human activities are the largest source of CO2 on the planet (Source NOAA) then there already IS anthropogenic contributions to the heat budget of the planet.

                  - If you do not accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or how greenhouse gases behave, then your argument isn't with climate scientists, it's with physicists. You'd win a Nobel if you could prove that the physicists are all wrong and CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

                  Now, the meat of the argument is: just how much energy is CO2 (and methane, etc) trapping? This is where there is some disagreement, but only in degree, not cause or effect.

                  SkepticalScience provides a good explanation and I'll direct you there rather than repeat it. The current best estimates of the models seem to be a range from 3-5C. I've seen more recent updates that seem to reduce that figure a bit.

                  A lot is made of the past cycles of CO2 and climate. Those examples tend to miss the point. While CO2 levels may have been much, much higher billions or millions of years ago, it doesn't matter. Humans weren't around then. The planet doesn't care if it heats up. Humans do. CO2 levels are higher than they have been for the past 800,000 years, which is why I objected to the scale of the graph posted earlier. Humans are far more sensitive to climate change than the planet is.

                  I used to be a denier. But the link from greenhouse gas to greater heat in the system is just sitting there, like a stone tablet. To deny that more heat is trapped in the atmosphere now than 100 years ago is to deny basic physics (assuming the sun's output is relatively constant). There's more CO2 therefore there is more heat.

                  In the US especially, climate change has been inextricably linked to an attack on the free market system. I've never understood that. I like my shiny new tv as much as the next guy. The free market system has been very good to me. I don't want to see it changed. But the whole point of the free market system is that it's supposed to be allowed to adapt and provide the best solution to the problem. We don't have to be oil-free, we just have to watch our carbon budget.

                  I was hoping we'd put this 1-2499 thing to bed but I sense that's not going to happen. There's probably worthwhile debate as to whether the 3-5C predictions are accurate and how they are generated, but from this point on I'll be ignoring references to the 1-2499 thing. As far as I'm concerned that's covered by existing atmospheric physics, heat transfer, thermodynamics, etc.

                  Comment


                  • Jeff Bezos says he's giving $10 billion — about 7.7% of his net worth — to fight climate change

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                      I'm not qualified to give a course.in Quantum theory Youwill have to educate yourself
                      Thank You for appreciating my humble honesty.
                      I'm not sure either Quantum Theory;
                      https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory
                      or Quantum Mechanics;
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
                      ...would really apply here.

                      After all, our current and resident "expert" has claimed it is all basic science; physics and chemistry, so exotic "quanta" may not be relevant.

                      Meanwhile, I'd be open to a more basic take from you on this subject.

                      My experience of the past couple decades or so has shown that the average citizen~taxpayer~voter has about a middle-school grasp on science basics and most of our political candidates tend to be at that level (if not lower) so placing the subject in such terms is both needed and also shouldn't be impossible for the those whom are to decide one way or another upon such.

                      For an example, here is a rather simple "at home" experiment any and all can perform to "get a clue" ...

                      Take a two liter soda bottle and fill it with two liters of water at about 70 degrees F.
                      Take about 1/8 teaspoon which equals about 0.8 milliliters of water and heat it to 75 degrees F.

                      Add that 1/8 teaspoon (0.8 milliliter) of 75 degree water to the 2000 milliliters of 70 degree water.

                      According to the hypothesis of ACC/AGW, the slightly warmer 1/8th teaspoon of water should increase the temperature of the other 2000 milliliters to about 71-72 degrees F.

                      Get back to me if you ever get documented results that conform to this ...

                      Note that since we are using just water(H2O) here, we don't have the complications of other elements and molecules with their characteristics and quirks so our test and results will be a more "pure" example of the physics and chemistry involved in the ACC/AGW hypothesis.
                      Last edited by G David Bock; 18 Feb 20, 15:10. Reason: fix a couple of typos
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                      Present Current Events are the Future's History

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                        I'm not sure either Quantum Theory;
                        https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theory
                        or Quantum Mechanics;
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
                        ...would really apply here.

                        After all, our current and resident "expert" has claimed it is all basic science; physics and chemistry, so exotic "quanta" may not be relevant.

                        Meanwhile, I'd be open to a more basic take from you on this subject.

                        My experience of the past couple decades or so has shown that the average citizen~taxpayer~voter has about a middle-school grasp on science basics and most of our political candidates tend to be at that level (if not lower) so placing the subject in such terms is both needed and also shouldn't be impossible for the those whom are to decide one way or another upon such.

                        For an example, here is a rather simple "at home" experiment any and all can perform to "get a clue" ...

                        Take a two liter soda bottle and fill it with two liters of water at about 70 degrees F.
                        Take about 1/8 teaspoon which equals about 0.8 milliliters of water and heat it to 75 degrees F.

                        Add that 1/8 milliliter of 75 degree water to the 2000 milliliters of 70 degree water.

                        According to the hypothesis of ACC/AGW, the slightly warmer 1/8th milliliter of water should increase the temperature of the other 2000 milliliters to about 71-72 degrees F.

                        Get back to me if you ever get documented results that conform to this ...

                        Note that since we are using just water(H2O) here, we don't have the complications of other elements and molecules with their characteristics and quirks so our test and results will be a more "pure" example of the physics and chemistry involved in the ACC/AGW hypothesis.
                        OK
                        Five years ago I discounted the effect of the [email protected] atmospheric loading too.
                        where I DIFFER FORM OTHER some AGW people, to a degree, is the solution paths.

                        Its a cost trade off.
                        to back up a little, picture the C02 the Ch4, and other forcing factors as short term capacitor batteries. They absorb Ir and Radiative energy, then discharge it, -either by colliding with other molecules of O2 and N2, or by photon discharge- some at other similar gas molecules, some radiated out to space - some back to the earth. This is the energy overload. Then they recharge, and the process repeats. Quickly.

                        That's a very basic description.
                        On the Macro level, you have this:

                        Have to run, more later of balancing forcing factors.
                        Hope this helps.
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          For an example, here is a rather simple "at home" experiment any and all can perform to "get a clue" ...

                          Take a two liter soda bottle and fill it with two liters of water at about 70 degrees F.
                          Take about 1/8 teaspoon which equals about 0.8 milliliters of water and heat it to 75 degrees F.

                          Add that 1/8 milliliter of 75 degree water to the 2000 milliliters of 70 degree water.

                          According to the hypothesis of ACC/AGW, the slightly warmer 1/8th milliliter of water should increase the temperature of the other 2000 milliliters to about 71-72 degrees F.
                          That actually sounds like an interesting experiment.

                          Here's another one we could try:

                          Take a two liter soda bottle and fill it with two liters of water
                          Add something thats opaque to infra red. 280 ppm should do.
                          Put a sun lamp near the bottle and let the system come to equilibrium
                          Measure the temperature
                          Add another 140 ppm of that infra red absorbing stuff
                          Wait some more
                          Measure the temperature

                          There's still a lot of flaws in that experiment, but it's a little bit closer to what a climatologist might consider an analog for climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                            OK
                            Five years ago I discounted the effect of the [email protected] atmospheric loading too.
                            where I DIFFER FORM OTHER some AGW people, to a degree, is the solution paths.
                            Which also tends to be where all the politics lie. Which is why I try to just focus on the technologies there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                              Which also tends to be where all the politics lie. Which is why I try to just focus on the technologies there.
                              Good point.
                              We may be better off, in the short run, to balance the effects of global warming with sulphate aerosol dispersion into the troposphere, which dissipates in 5- 7 yers, IIRC. This buys some time.

                              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X