TomAiello 26 #276 July 15, 2009 Quote>>> Communal transport You already are breathing the communal air/transport. I know. I'd prefer to stop doing so. Or rather, I'd prefer to have people stop putting stuff into the air I breathe. Having them pay into some fund doesn't seem to me to be the best way to go about this.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #277 July 15, 2009 QuoteI was looking for something that could be used within a vehicle, to remove the carbon from the exhaust before it was released into my breathing air. It might be feasible to build gardens onto industrial complexes to fix the carbon, but I don't think it will scale well to individual users. The problem with using the "communal atmosphere" as a transport device for waste byproducts is that I have to breathe the communal atmosphere. But of itself, CO2 is not poisonous to humans or animals so what's the problem with breathing it? Especially if it saves carting a rain forest around on your roof rack. Now if it was carbon monoxide or carbon tetrachloride your car was belching out, I'd be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #278 July 15, 2009 Is CO2 the only gas being released into the atmosphere? Plus, how do we know it's not harmful to breathe increased concentrations of it? People thought cigarette smoke wasn't harmful for a long time, too. Heck, the government approved Thalidomide for pre-natal use because it was "safe."-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #279 July 15, 2009 QuoteIs CO2 the only gas being released into the atmosphere? Plus, how do we know it's not harmful to breathe increased concentrations of it? People thought cigarette smoke wasn't harmful for a long time, too. Heck, the government approved Thalidomide for pre-natal use because it was "safe." No. Typically hydrocarbons get burnt to form water and carbon dioxide, with some carbon monoxide and some stray hydrocarbons for incomplete combustion. Plus anyother crap you get in fuels like traces of sulphur and lead (now largely removed). Now hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide are all pretty nasty and want removing but that's why people invented catalytic converters, to complete the combustion cycle and clean up the exhaust gasses. Volvo for example claim the air that comes out of their engines is cleaner than when it went in. I dunno if that is true though. Plus CO2 has been around in the atmosphere for millenia and it is inert. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #280 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre there any processes to quickly remove the Carbon from CO2? Or is it theoretically possible to create one? You mean like photosynthesis? I was looking for something that could be used within a vehicle, to remove the carbon from the exhaust before it was released into my breathing air. It might be feasible to build gardens onto industrial complexes to fix the carbon, but I don't think it will scale well to individual users. . Well, those pesky old laws of thermodynamics say it would take as much energy to do this as you got from burning the carbon in the first place. Where would you get the energy? (Trees get it from the Sun). It takes around 18,000 kilojoules to breakdown the CO2 produced by burning 1 pound of gasoline).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #281 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs CO2 the only gas being released into the atmosphere? Plus, how do we know it's not harmful to breathe increased concentrations of it? People thought cigarette smoke wasn't harmful for a long time, too. Heck, the government approved Thalidomide for pre-natal use because it was "safe." No. Typically hydrocarbons get burnt to form water and carbon dioxide, with some carbon monoxide and some stray hydrocarbons for incomplete combustion. Plus anyother crap you get in fuels like traces of sulphur and lead (now largely removed). Now hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide are all pretty nasty and want removing but that's why people invented catalytic converters, to complete the combustion cycle and clean up the exhaust gasses. Volvo for example claim the air that comes out of their engines is cleaner than when it went in. I dunno if that is true though. Plus CO2 has been around in the atmosphere for millenia and it is inert. Don't forget the NOx... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #282 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote>>> Communal transport You already are breathing the communal air/transport. I know. I'd prefer to stop doing so. Or rather, I'd prefer to have people stop putting stuff into the air I breathe. Having them pay into some fund doesn't seem to me to be the best way to go about this. If the fund goes to plant trees which DO remove C from CO2 and release oxygen into the atmosphere, what's the problem? That technology has existed for hundreds of millions of years and is proven to work without any harmful side effects.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #283 July 15, 2009 QuoteWell, those pesky old laws of thermodynamics say it would take as much energy to do this as you got from burning the carbon in the first place. Where would you get the energy? (Trees get it from the Sun). Don't forget the second law of thermodynamics - "you can't break even". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #284 July 15, 2009 Found mass estimates here: http://blog.phiffer.org/post/27344630/left-all-the-water-in-the-world-1-4087-billion air mass = 5.148 * 10^18 kg water mass = 1.35 * 10^21 kg Using the following equation: Delta Air Temp * Mass Air * Air Heat Capacity = Delta Water Temp * Mass Water * Water Heat Capacity A one degree change in air temperature will equate to 0.0009 degree change in water temperature. Water covers 75% of the earth, so the effect of air temperature changes will be even less than this number. Here's my point: * There are many other factors effecting the earth's weather than how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. * While I don't condone wanton pollution, CO2 increases will have a insignificant impact on the earth's weather due to any increase in temperature. * The current AGW debate does _NOT_ justify draconian laws that will seriously and adversely effect our current way of life.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #285 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote>A gallon of avgas (or 100 octane low-lead gasoline) weights 6 pounds. Where >do the 20 pounds come from? Air. (Think about the O2 part of CO2.) Are there any processes to quickly remove the Carbon from CO2? Or is it theoretically possible to create one? Doesn't nature have one? - Photosynthesis (quick is relative I guess). (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #286 July 15, 2009 QuoteFound mass estimates here: http://blog.phiffer.org/post/27344630/left-all-the-water-in-the-world-1-4087-billion air mass = 5.148 * 10^18 kg water mass = 1.35 * 10^21 kg Using the following equation: Delta Air Temp * Mass Air * Air Heat Capacity = Delta Water Temp * Mass Water * Water Heat Capacity A one degree change in air temperature will equate to 0.0009 degree change in water temperature. Water covers 75% of the earth, so the effect of air temperature changes will be even less than this number. Here's my point: * There are many other factors effecting the earth's weather than how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. * While I don't condone wanton pollution, CO2 increases will have a insignificant impact on the earth's weather due to any increase in temperature. * The current AGW debate does _NOT_ justify draconian laws that will seriously and adversely effect our current way of life. You miss the point ENTIRELY. It isn't about calorimetry.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #287 July 15, 2009 Quote You miss the point ENTIRELY. So, what is your point? My point is the current AGW debate does _NOT_ justify draconian laws that will seriously and adversely effect our current way of life. There has to be a more rational approach we can take in this matter, such as increasing the number of nuclear power plants, and others that will have a material impact.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #288 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote You miss the point ENTIRELY. So, what is your point? . Thje effectiveness of an overcoat does not depend on the heat capacity of the material it's made of compared with your heat capacity. Your calculation is irrelevant to the discussion. And since you obviously don't understand the science, the rest of your point is irrelevant too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #289 July 15, 2009 Quote And since you obviously don't understand the science, the rest of your point is irrelevant too. In very simple terms, go f--k yourself. Having a masters in Che, and 10 years of experience modelling large scale systems, I do understand the science. You have proven yourself incapable of engaging in reasoned debate. The best you seem able to do is quote your belief that you're smarter than everyone else.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #290 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote You miss the point ENTIRELY. So, what is your point? The point is that the earth absorbs visible and UV light, which makes it heat up and emit IR light which in turn gets absorbed and reflected back to earth by atmospheric CO2 instead of being allowed to escape into space. This is the greenhouse effect. You conclusion based on calorimetry is invalid because calorimetry is not how the system works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #291 July 15, 2009 Quote The point is that the earth absorbs visible and UV light, which makes it heat up and emit IR light which in turn gets absorbed and reflected back to earth by atmospheric CO2 instead of being allowed to escape into space. This is the greenhouse effect. You conclusion based on calorimetry is invalid because calorimetry is not how the system works. Yes, this is yet another driving force in a very dynamic system, which we do not fully understand. I'm very aware that the earth is only capable of cooling itself by radiation back into space. All you hear AGW disciples quoting is the increase in atmospheric temperature. If the argument isn't about calorimetry, then they should really base their arguments on albedo.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #292 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote And since you obviously don't understand the science, the rest of your point is irrelevant too. In very simple terms, go f--k yourself. Having a masters in Che, and 10 years of experience modelling large scale systems, I do understand the science. You have proven yourself incapable of engaging in reasoned debate. The best you seem able to do is quote your belief that you're smarter than everyone else. I'm sure you can do calorimetry very well. It's STILL irrelevant to the issue and shows a lack of basic understanding on your part.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #293 July 15, 2009 QuoteYes, this is yet another driving force in a very dynamic system, which we do not fully understand. I'm very aware that the earth is only capable of cooling itself by radiation back into space. All you hear AGW disciples quoting is the increase in atmospheric temperature. If the argument isn't about calorimetry, then they should really base their arguments on albedo. What happens if I put two thermally conductive objects in contact with each other and then heat one of them up? The heat flows through both until they are in thermal equilibrium. One does not heat up bu 0.0002 degrees for every degree the other heats up. I thought you said you understood the sicence? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #294 July 15, 2009 Quote It's STILL irrelevant to the issue and shows a lack of basic understanding on your part. You are an incredibly arrogant man. What exactly am I not understanding, in your opinion?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #295 July 15, 2009 Quote What happens if I put two thermally conductive objects in contact with each other and then heat one of them up? The heat flows through both until they are in thermal equilibrium. One does not heat up bu 0.0002 degrees for every degree the other heats up. I thought you said you understood the sicence? In this case, the air cools down. In the calorimetry discussion, the water heats up a little bit, while dramatically cooling the air. If the discussion is really about albedo, let's discuss that. Arguing that a 3 degree rise in air temperature is going to melt ice caps doesn't add up.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #296 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote It's STILL irrelevant to the issue and shows a lack of basic understanding on your part. You are an incredibly arrogant man. What exactly am I not understanding, in your opinion? You could try reading your text book from the heat and mass transfer course that you seem to have forgotten about. It ISN'T a calorimetry experiment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #297 July 15, 2009 Quote You could try reading your text book from the heat and mass transfer course that you seem to have forgotten about. Your arrogance is simply breath taking. Q = UA * Delta T That covers convective heat transfer, and with minor changes in symbology, conductive heat transfer also. From http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as q = emissivity * Boltzmann constant * (Th4 - Tc4) Ac where Th = hot body absolute temperature (K) Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K) Ac = area of the object (m2) To claim that calorimetry won't be a driving force in this system is simply a ridiculous statement. What reference would you like to use to discuss the effective impact on the Earth's albedo due to CO2 absorption? Or, would you rather sit in your little high chair and continue to claim your smarter than everyone else?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #298 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote What happens if I put two thermally conductive objects in contact with each other and then heat one of them up? The heat flows through both until they are in thermal equilibrium. One does not heat up bu 0.0002 degrees for every degree the other heats up. I thought you said you understood the sicence? In this case, the air cools down. In the calorimetry discussion, the water heats up a little bit, while dramatically cooling the air. Right, so for every degree the air temperature goes up, how many degrees does the water temperature go up? Remember that heat will flow until they are in thermal equilibrium. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #299 July 15, 2009 Quote Right, so for every degree the air temperature goes up, how many degrees does the water temperature go up? Remember that heat will flow until they are in thermal equilibrium. As shown in the calculation above, a one degree change in air temperature will equate to 0.0009 degree change in sea temperature, probably less.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #300 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Right, so for every degree the air temperature goes up, how many degrees does the water temperature go up? Remember that heat will flow until they are in thermal equilibrium. As shown in the calculation above, a one degree change in air temperature will equate to 0.0009 degree change in sea temperature, probably less. Wrong. Heat flows until they are in thermal equilibrium. What does thermal equilibrium mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
