mnealtx 0 #351 July 15, 2009 QuoteFirst, the I didn't see the word "ALWAYS" in there, which was part of your claim. Try to figure out what "it WILL" means. We can play your bullshit sematics games ALL DAY long, John.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #352 July 15, 2009 >Why the emphasis on CO2? Because that's what we are changing. Note that that is not, by far, the biggest factor in maintaining the temperature of the ocean (or anything else for that matter.) Below are two diagrams. One is incoming shortwave energy, one is outgoing energy. The units are in percentages. The only thing we are significantly affecting by changing CO2 concentrations is atmospheric absorption of surface emission, which is why the 'forcing' is only a few watts per square meter. The vast majority of the energy balance is relatively unaffected by greenhouse gases. (Note that we are also changing atmospheric absorption of incoming radiation, but since most of that energy is not in-band it's a much smaller percentage overall.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #353 July 15, 2009 >Altruism is great. Altruism is consistent with self-interest HAH!!!! Oh dude you are funny. "Unselfish regard for the benefit of others" is not consistent with self-interest. Sorry. Cmon dude, I know you want to think differently, but do it in an interesting way, please. >As a sidepoint, everyone is wired to be selfish That would be a important for an ethical egoist, wouldnt it. Unfortunately, Psychological egoism isn't the same thing as ethical egoism, and psychological egoism is still up for debate. I spent an entire semester studying this. >So, there is a selfish reason for their selflessness. Stop it, please!!! LOL! oh man. ok. How can you be both selfish and selfless at the same time? Wouldn't you just revert to being one again? If you act in a selfless way for the purposes of acting for yourself, then you are acting selfishly. If you are selfless, and you do it for selfish reasons... you aren't selfless. Game over. >Name me an altruist who does it only for sake of altruism other than you or me. Jesus. Still playing? Ghandi. Mother Theresa. The people who responded in the Hudson river when U.S. airways Flight 1549 crashed into it. No one there had time to think about self-interest when it happened. They just responded. >If you can name that person, then that person has let the altruism be known. Let altruism be known! >Which is a species of selfishness. Or so you think. Actually, the U.S. was founded on individualistic goals. So, Americans typically are selfish. You've been reading way, way too much Ayn Rand. You should slow that down a little bit. >I've known plenty who would give you the shirt off of their backs, so long as it was properly documented with photos and video because they want others to see how good they are. Of course. Alot of people act in self-interested ways. Thieves do, lawyers do, alot of people do. Does that mean everyone is? MMMMMMMM no. >I don't. I say we are who we are and what I am. Really? It sure looked like you were putting youself on a pedestal back there. Mr. genuine honest libertarian man. Yea yea of course you do. What brand of clothes are you wearing right now? What kind of car do you drive? Who's political philosophy are you adoptring right now? That doesn't sound like you are your own man. Thanks for playing though. >I think it's better to leave people alone and be left alone. Libertarian seems to be the party that is most in support of this thought. I completely agree. Well done. As much as I think the greenpeace guys around my school have good intentions, i'm fucking annoyed that they don't leave me the hell alone and that they feel like they have to intrude on me every 5 seconds. Enough. Back the fuck off. Ill take your message, but leave me alone about petitioning congressmembers to force people to change their ways. >Absolutely. The subtle differences differentiate people. I'm unique - just like everyone else. In the sense that no two trees are alike, yes. There are small differences. However, you are still a human-and your just like the rest of us. All of us sheep. Sheople. You are sheople, just like us sheople. (In other words, your differences don't really matter-sorry man) >The government is there to protect the market. Now the government IS the market. Great, so now we both agree that the government is necessary even to a free-market. (making it NOT a free market) Where do we place the limits on what the government can do? Why? Are the reasons why consistent with your thesis? Is your thesis still applicable? >It takes a huge investment and a massive amount of cooperation to do this. The public, seeing no real advantage to them and an increased cost, will not buy it. The public will "have to" eventually. Just like you will "have to" find some other method of transportation. Given enough time not even you will be able to afford gasoline. When it becomes profitable, the government could use it to eliminate part of the tax structure. Fascinating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #354 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteSeriously Mike, learn to read. QuoteCO2 acts to retain heat, that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat, and that if you retain more heat in a system the temperature goes up. Must've been that OTHER JackC that wrote this, then. You wrote: QuoteYou may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase. Then read again what I wrote bearing in mind that heat and temperature are not the same thing. What I have said is correct but if you are so desparate to get something over on me, I take back any mention I may have made that says CO2 always leads to a temperature increase. CO2 in and of itself does not always lead to a temperature increase. Retaining more heat always leads to a temperature increase. In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. Happy now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #355 July 15, 2009 Quote >Why the emphasis on CO2? Because that's what we are changing. Outstanding charts, billvon. Very helpful. I'm going to look these over and start phrasing questions in those terms. Thank you. Quote The only thing we are significantly affecting by changing CO2 concentrations is atmospheric absorption of surface emission, which is why the 'forcing' is only a few watts per square meter. The vast majority of the energy balance is relatively unaffected by greenhouse gases. Again, why the emphasis on CO2?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #356 July 15, 2009 Quote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #357 July 15, 2009 >Again, why the emphasis on CO2? In terms of the energy balance, there is no special emphasis on CO2. In terms of what we can do to affect the climate, there's a big emphasis on greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is the major one) because it's our biggest influence on the worldwide climate. Take smoking. Your body is an incredibly complex machine, and requires thousands upon thousands of systems to work together to keep you healthy. Why would a doctor harp on smoking as a problem if there are so many other systems within your body that are working just fine, and aren't even affected by smoking? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #358 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Are we are understanding the concept of thermal equilibrium yet? Ok, how does CO2 come into play here? Before we get to CO2 lets go back to the oven. If the oven is set to 80degC, the water heats up until it reaches 80degC right? Now the heat source (the flame in the oven) will remain constant and the reason the oven sits at 80degC is because the heat going in from the flame matches the heat leaking out through the oven door. Now if I stop some of the heat leaking out by wrapping my oven in a thermal insulator, the temperature must rise until the heat going in matches the heat leaking out again*. Then the whole oven, water and all, must settle at some higher temperature. In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Really, this is high school stuff. Are you sure you have a chem degree? * remember: the amount of heat that can flow though a thermal insulator is dependent on the temperature gradient across the insulator, the higher the temperature gradient the greater the flow and the more the insulating boundary layer is, the less heat can flow. So to get the same heat flow across a more insulating layer, the temperature gradient must be larger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #359 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFirst, the I didn't see the word "ALWAYS" in there, which was part of your claim. Try to figure out what "it WILL" means. We can play your bullshit sematics games ALL DAY long, John. You wrote: Quote "You may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase." (red emphasis mine) I mean, why did you put "ALWAYS" in capitals if you didn;t think it important? If you can't even remember what you're claiming and resort to bluster when called on it, there's no point in having a discussion with you.... 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 #360 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How? Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? The sun heats up the earth. The earth radiates IR back into space. The CO2 either absorbs the IR and reemits it back to the earth (or out into space) or the CO2 reflects it directly back to earth. It happens slowly enough for the whole system to be largely in thermal equilibrium. Or rather than send us round chasing our tails explaining high school physics for the umpteenth time, you can always drive google and take some personal responsibility for your own education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #361 July 15, 2009 Quote In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Tell me more about your insulator. How thick is it? How much does it weigh? How well does it conduct heat? How well does it radiate heat?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #362 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How? Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? It's just a game they play. All their bogus science and questions will come up again in about 3 weeks.... 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 #363 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Tell me more about your insulator. How thick is it? How much does it weigh? How well does it conduct heat? How well does it radiate heat? It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #364 July 15, 2009 >How thick is it? About 40 miles. >How much does it weigh? About 3x10^12 tons. >How well does it conduct heat? If you mean "how well does it conduct heat from the surface to space?" the answer is "it doesn't." The earth is in a vacuum, and cannot conduct heat anywhere. >How well does it radiate heat? Pretty well. CO2 (and the rest of the atmosphere) do most of the "radiating away" of our heat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #365 July 15, 2009 Quote Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? The sun heats up the earth. The earth radiates IR back into space. The CO2 either absorbs the IR and reemits it back to the earth (or out into space) or the CO2 reflects it directly back to earth. It happens slowly enough for the whole system to be largely in thermal equilibrium. No one is disagreeing with this description of the physics. You have been unable to provide an estimate on the actual effect one might expect from this feedback loop. I think I've made my point that arguing AGW based upon a 3 degree rise in atmospheric temperature is hogwash. So, you're arguing that a feedback loop has been going on, and we are enhancing that feedback loop by putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Somewhere in that feedback mechanism, there is an open thermodynamic system. It's not closed. Q accumulated = Q input - Q output. The earth, sea, and air all have their own control volumes around which to do this dynamic balance. Each of the Q input/output variables will have multiple driving forces. The dominant forces here will be evaporation, convection, and radiation. Since we are basically at equilibrium, Q accumulated is zero. Therefore, Q input = Q output. Again, you have not been able to explain why CO2 in practice will have a significant impact. I fully understand its insulating properties, but as far as I can see, it seems to be insignificant. Since this seems to be high school to you, why don't you whip up some calculations, and share the numbers with us.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #366 July 15, 2009 QuoteHow can you be both selfish and selfless at the same time? You cannot. Who does something without a benefit? Nobody. People may go work at the soup kitchen to make them feel better about themselves. A selfish reason. Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective. QuoteJesus. Still playing? Jesus was a deity. Of course, he wanted to be loved and worshipped, but for the sake of others. QuoteGhandi. He was sick of discimination and troubles that he himself faced. He made South Africa/India better for him and his people. And he was their leader. They haven't made movies about the Indians shot dead in South Africa. QuoteMother Theresa Mother Theresa privately despaired that she did not get out of religion what she wanted. She was intensely proud, and deliberately fought against her pride her entire life. In a sense, she was fighting against herself to be, in her eyes, better. QuoteThe people who responded in the Hudson river when U.S. airways Flight 1549 crashed into it. No one there had time to think about self-interest when it happened. They just responded. Good point. My favorite example of an altruist and hero is Lenny Skutnik. Interesting point. QuoteActually, the U.S. was founded on individualistic goals. So, Americans typically are selfish. You've been reading way, way too much Ayn Rand. You should slow that down a little bit. I've never read Ayn Rand. QuoteIt sure looked like you were putting youself on a pedestal back there. Mr. genuine honest libertarian man. Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. Quoteyour differences don't really matter-sorry man) I really don't think I can make much of a difference in the world. My differences also matter little. I can understand that. Quoteso now we both agree that the government is necessary even to a free-market. (making it NOT a free market) Yes. Freedom involves disputes, and arbiters for those disputes are necessary for efficiency. There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. QuoteThe public will "have to" eventually. Just like you will "have to" find some other method of transportation. Given enough time not even you will be able to afford gasoline. Yes. Given enough time I shall also be dead. I would prefer that such a thing not be prematurely forced via external political force. Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Especially considering that I am far from convinced that global warming - the reason for the proposal - will be headed off or even stalled by it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #367 July 15, 2009 Quote It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. What a nonsense statement. Quote But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. What an arrogant reply. At this point in time you've just admitted that you can't do the math.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #368 July 15, 2009 Ok. The question still stands. Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? I'm not looking for theory. I'm looking to see numbers.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #369 July 15, 2009 Quote Ok. The question still stands. Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? I'm not looking for theory. I'm looking to see numbers. Gee, I wonder why we never discussed THAT before.... 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 #370 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. What a nonsense statement. Quote But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. What an arrogant reply. At this point in time you've just admitted that you can't do the math. You're a chemical engineer, you do the math to disprove the climate models that already exist.... 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 billvon 2,991 #371 July 15, 2009 >Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? Both are important; indeed, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is less important in AGW because: -there is much less of it in the atmosphere (1.7ppm vs 380ppm for CO2) -its half life is much shorter in the atmosphere (7 years vs 30 years for CO2) -we have reduced our increase in methane emissions (went from .7 to 1.7ppm but has leveled off)* -its total contribution to AGW forcing is much less (.4w/sq m vs 1.4w/sq m) (* - unfortunately it has started rising again in the past few years; let's hope this is just a blip) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #372 July 15, 2009 >You cannot Bingo. So that means that If you act in selfless way simply to come to a selfish result, you are acting selfishly. That is not altruism. >Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective Interesting. That kind of depends on there being a self-interested motive within that selflessness. In that case, there is no selflessness. It is selfishness. >I've never read Ayn Rand If you want to be hard-core about free-marketism, you definitely will want to read read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. You really depend on it. She considers the only way te be capitalist is to also be an ethical egoist, rational, and free. Warning: She hated libertarians. She also hated anarchists. >Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. I have found that every time a person is arrogant, they end up getting themselves into trouble. Don't get yourself into trouble. >There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. Right. Because when we say we want "minimal" government intervention in our lives or the market, we rely on subjectivity in our determination of what is "minimal." >Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Ok. I'm sure you will also admit, when the time comes, that we won't have that option.. What do we have till, 2050? I might be alive that long. By then we will also know if todays predictions regarding global warming were correct. We shall see if Indonesia is still above water level at that point. >global warming - the reason for the proposal And petroleum costs/availability edit: Jesus also warned us against self-interest because it resulted in Greed, War, Lust, and so on... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #373 July 15, 2009 You're contributions to these discussions are worthless. The smartest guys I know are always able to simply communicate what others perceive to be difficult. For whatever reason(s), you have not shown that ability. You, you're not as smart as you think your are. QED? Show us your good stuff. How about an equation that we can discuss.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #374 July 15, 2009 My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up, with any argument that I've seen. I love to see numbers, and I'm not talking IPCC numbers. Simple thermo will suffice just fine.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #375 July 15, 2009 >My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents >don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up . . . Here are the basic numbers, then. Preindustrial CO2 level: 280ppm Today's CO2 levels: 380ppm Radiative forcing for a 50% increase in CO2: 1.8 watts/sq m Temperature increase for increase in heating by 1.8 watts/sq m (blackbody only): .8 deg C Actual temperature change over the past 100 years: .74C What doesn't add up for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Page 15 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,991 #352 July 15, 2009 >Why the emphasis on CO2? Because that's what we are changing. Note that that is not, by far, the biggest factor in maintaining the temperature of the ocean (or anything else for that matter.) Below are two diagrams. One is incoming shortwave energy, one is outgoing energy. The units are in percentages. The only thing we are significantly affecting by changing CO2 concentrations is atmospheric absorption of surface emission, which is why the 'forcing' is only a few watts per square meter. The vast majority of the energy balance is relatively unaffected by greenhouse gases. (Note that we are also changing atmospheric absorption of incoming radiation, but since most of that energy is not in-band it's a much smaller percentage overall.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #353 July 15, 2009 >Altruism is great. Altruism is consistent with self-interest HAH!!!! Oh dude you are funny. "Unselfish regard for the benefit of others" is not consistent with self-interest. Sorry. Cmon dude, I know you want to think differently, but do it in an interesting way, please. >As a sidepoint, everyone is wired to be selfish That would be a important for an ethical egoist, wouldnt it. Unfortunately, Psychological egoism isn't the same thing as ethical egoism, and psychological egoism is still up for debate. I spent an entire semester studying this. >So, there is a selfish reason for their selflessness. Stop it, please!!! LOL! oh man. ok. How can you be both selfish and selfless at the same time? Wouldn't you just revert to being one again? If you act in a selfless way for the purposes of acting for yourself, then you are acting selfishly. If you are selfless, and you do it for selfish reasons... you aren't selfless. Game over. >Name me an altruist who does it only for sake of altruism other than you or me. Jesus. Still playing? Ghandi. Mother Theresa. The people who responded in the Hudson river when U.S. airways Flight 1549 crashed into it. No one there had time to think about self-interest when it happened. They just responded. >If you can name that person, then that person has let the altruism be known. Let altruism be known! >Which is a species of selfishness. Or so you think. Actually, the U.S. was founded on individualistic goals. So, Americans typically are selfish. You've been reading way, way too much Ayn Rand. You should slow that down a little bit. >I've known plenty who would give you the shirt off of their backs, so long as it was properly documented with photos and video because they want others to see how good they are. Of course. Alot of people act in self-interested ways. Thieves do, lawyers do, alot of people do. Does that mean everyone is? MMMMMMMM no. >I don't. I say we are who we are and what I am. Really? It sure looked like you were putting youself on a pedestal back there. Mr. genuine honest libertarian man. Yea yea of course you do. What brand of clothes are you wearing right now? What kind of car do you drive? Who's political philosophy are you adoptring right now? That doesn't sound like you are your own man. Thanks for playing though. >I think it's better to leave people alone and be left alone. Libertarian seems to be the party that is most in support of this thought. I completely agree. Well done. As much as I think the greenpeace guys around my school have good intentions, i'm fucking annoyed that they don't leave me the hell alone and that they feel like they have to intrude on me every 5 seconds. Enough. Back the fuck off. Ill take your message, but leave me alone about petitioning congressmembers to force people to change their ways. >Absolutely. The subtle differences differentiate people. I'm unique - just like everyone else. In the sense that no two trees are alike, yes. There are small differences. However, you are still a human-and your just like the rest of us. All of us sheep. Sheople. You are sheople, just like us sheople. (In other words, your differences don't really matter-sorry man) >The government is there to protect the market. Now the government IS the market. Great, so now we both agree that the government is necessary even to a free-market. (making it NOT a free market) Where do we place the limits on what the government can do? Why? Are the reasons why consistent with your thesis? Is your thesis still applicable? >It takes a huge investment and a massive amount of cooperation to do this. The public, seeing no real advantage to them and an increased cost, will not buy it. The public will "have to" eventually. Just like you will "have to" find some other method of transportation. Given enough time not even you will be able to afford gasoline. When it becomes profitable, the government could use it to eliminate part of the tax structure. Fascinating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #354 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteSeriously Mike, learn to read. QuoteCO2 acts to retain heat, that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat, and that if you retain more heat in a system the temperature goes up. Must've been that OTHER JackC that wrote this, then. You wrote: QuoteYou may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase. Then read again what I wrote bearing in mind that heat and temperature are not the same thing. What I have said is correct but if you are so desparate to get something over on me, I take back any mention I may have made that says CO2 always leads to a temperature increase. CO2 in and of itself does not always lead to a temperature increase. Retaining more heat always leads to a temperature increase. In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. Happy now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #355 July 15, 2009 Quote >Why the emphasis on CO2? Because that's what we are changing. Outstanding charts, billvon. Very helpful. I'm going to look these over and start phrasing questions in those terms. Thank you. Quote The only thing we are significantly affecting by changing CO2 concentrations is atmospheric absorption of surface emission, which is why the 'forcing' is only a few watts per square meter. The vast majority of the energy balance is relatively unaffected by greenhouse gases. Again, why the emphasis on CO2?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #356 July 15, 2009 Quote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #357 July 15, 2009 >Again, why the emphasis on CO2? In terms of the energy balance, there is no special emphasis on CO2. In terms of what we can do to affect the climate, there's a big emphasis on greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is the major one) because it's our biggest influence on the worldwide climate. Take smoking. Your body is an incredibly complex machine, and requires thousands upon thousands of systems to work together to keep you healthy. Why would a doctor harp on smoking as a problem if there are so many other systems within your body that are working just fine, and aren't even affected by smoking? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #358 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote Are we are understanding the concept of thermal equilibrium yet? Ok, how does CO2 come into play here? Before we get to CO2 lets go back to the oven. If the oven is set to 80degC, the water heats up until it reaches 80degC right? Now the heat source (the flame in the oven) will remain constant and the reason the oven sits at 80degC is because the heat going in from the flame matches the heat leaking out through the oven door. Now if I stop some of the heat leaking out by wrapping my oven in a thermal insulator, the temperature must rise until the heat going in matches the heat leaking out again*. Then the whole oven, water and all, must settle at some higher temperature. In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Really, this is high school stuff. Are you sure you have a chem degree? * remember: the amount of heat that can flow though a thermal insulator is dependent on the temperature gradient across the insulator, the higher the temperature gradient the greater the flow and the more the insulating boundary layer is, the less heat can flow. So to get the same heat flow across a more insulating layer, the temperature gradient must be larger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #359 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFirst, the I didn't see the word "ALWAYS" in there, which was part of your claim. Try to figure out what "it WILL" means. We can play your bullshit sematics games ALL DAY long, John. You wrote: Quote "You may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase." (red emphasis mine) I mean, why did you put "ALWAYS" in capitals if you didn;t think it important? If you can't even remember what you're claiming and resort to bluster when called on it, there's no point in having a discussion with you.... 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 #360 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How? Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? The sun heats up the earth. The earth radiates IR back into space. The CO2 either absorbs the IR and reemits it back to the earth (or out into space) or the CO2 reflects it directly back to earth. It happens slowly enough for the whole system to be largely in thermal equilibrium. Or rather than send us round chasing our tails explaining high school physics for the umpteenth time, you can always drive google and take some personal responsibility for your own education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #361 July 15, 2009 Quote In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Tell me more about your insulator. How thick is it? How much does it weigh? How well does it conduct heat? How well does it radiate heat?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #362 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How? Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? It's just a game they play. All their bogus science and questions will come up again in about 3 weeks.... 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 #363 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Tell me more about your insulator. How thick is it? How much does it weigh? How well does it conduct heat? How well does it radiate heat? It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #364 July 15, 2009 >How thick is it? About 40 miles. >How much does it weigh? About 3x10^12 tons. >How well does it conduct heat? If you mean "how well does it conduct heat from the surface to space?" the answer is "it doesn't." The earth is in a vacuum, and cannot conduct heat anywhere. >How well does it radiate heat? Pretty well. CO2 (and the rest of the atmosphere) do most of the "radiating away" of our heat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #365 July 15, 2009 Quote Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? The sun heats up the earth. The earth radiates IR back into space. The CO2 either absorbs the IR and reemits it back to the earth (or out into space) or the CO2 reflects it directly back to earth. It happens slowly enough for the whole system to be largely in thermal equilibrium. No one is disagreeing with this description of the physics. You have been unable to provide an estimate on the actual effect one might expect from this feedback loop. I think I've made my point that arguing AGW based upon a 3 degree rise in atmospheric temperature is hogwash. So, you're arguing that a feedback loop has been going on, and we are enhancing that feedback loop by putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Somewhere in that feedback mechanism, there is an open thermodynamic system. It's not closed. Q accumulated = Q input - Q output. The earth, sea, and air all have their own control volumes around which to do this dynamic balance. Each of the Q input/output variables will have multiple driving forces. The dominant forces here will be evaporation, convection, and radiation. Since we are basically at equilibrium, Q accumulated is zero. Therefore, Q input = Q output. Again, you have not been able to explain why CO2 in practice will have a significant impact. I fully understand its insulating properties, but as far as I can see, it seems to be insignificant. Since this seems to be high school to you, why don't you whip up some calculations, and share the numbers with us.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #366 July 15, 2009 QuoteHow can you be both selfish and selfless at the same time? You cannot. Who does something without a benefit? Nobody. People may go work at the soup kitchen to make them feel better about themselves. A selfish reason. Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective. QuoteJesus. Still playing? Jesus was a deity. Of course, he wanted to be loved and worshipped, but for the sake of others. QuoteGhandi. He was sick of discimination and troubles that he himself faced. He made South Africa/India better for him and his people. And he was their leader. They haven't made movies about the Indians shot dead in South Africa. QuoteMother Theresa Mother Theresa privately despaired that she did not get out of religion what she wanted. She was intensely proud, and deliberately fought against her pride her entire life. In a sense, she was fighting against herself to be, in her eyes, better. QuoteThe people who responded in the Hudson river when U.S. airways Flight 1549 crashed into it. No one there had time to think about self-interest when it happened. They just responded. Good point. My favorite example of an altruist and hero is Lenny Skutnik. Interesting point. QuoteActually, the U.S. was founded on individualistic goals. So, Americans typically are selfish. You've been reading way, way too much Ayn Rand. You should slow that down a little bit. I've never read Ayn Rand. QuoteIt sure looked like you were putting youself on a pedestal back there. Mr. genuine honest libertarian man. Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. Quoteyour differences don't really matter-sorry man) I really don't think I can make much of a difference in the world. My differences also matter little. I can understand that. Quoteso now we both agree that the government is necessary even to a free-market. (making it NOT a free market) Yes. Freedom involves disputes, and arbiters for those disputes are necessary for efficiency. There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. QuoteThe public will "have to" eventually. Just like you will "have to" find some other method of transportation. Given enough time not even you will be able to afford gasoline. Yes. Given enough time I shall also be dead. I would prefer that such a thing not be prematurely forced via external political force. Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Especially considering that I am far from convinced that global warming - the reason for the proposal - will be headed off or even stalled by it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #367 July 15, 2009 Quote It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. What a nonsense statement. Quote But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. What an arrogant reply. At this point in time you've just admitted that you can't do the math.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #368 July 15, 2009 Ok. The question still stands. Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? I'm not looking for theory. I'm looking to see numbers.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #369 July 15, 2009 Quote Ok. The question still stands. Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? I'm not looking for theory. I'm looking to see numbers. Gee, I wonder why we never discussed THAT before.... 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 #370 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. What a nonsense statement. Quote But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. What an arrogant reply. At this point in time you've just admitted that you can't do the math. You're a chemical engineer, you do the math to disprove the climate models that already exist.... 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 billvon 2,991 #371 July 15, 2009 >Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? Both are important; indeed, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is less important in AGW because: -there is much less of it in the atmosphere (1.7ppm vs 380ppm for CO2) -its half life is much shorter in the atmosphere (7 years vs 30 years for CO2) -we have reduced our increase in methane emissions (went from .7 to 1.7ppm but has leveled off)* -its total contribution to AGW forcing is much less (.4w/sq m vs 1.4w/sq m) (* - unfortunately it has started rising again in the past few years; let's hope this is just a blip) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chasteh 0 #372 July 15, 2009 >You cannot Bingo. So that means that If you act in selfless way simply to come to a selfish result, you are acting selfishly. That is not altruism. >Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective Interesting. That kind of depends on there being a self-interested motive within that selflessness. In that case, there is no selflessness. It is selfishness. >I've never read Ayn Rand If you want to be hard-core about free-marketism, you definitely will want to read read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. You really depend on it. She considers the only way te be capitalist is to also be an ethical egoist, rational, and free. Warning: She hated libertarians. She also hated anarchists. >Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. I have found that every time a person is arrogant, they end up getting themselves into trouble. Don't get yourself into trouble. >There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. Right. Because when we say we want "minimal" government intervention in our lives or the market, we rely on subjectivity in our determination of what is "minimal." >Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Ok. I'm sure you will also admit, when the time comes, that we won't have that option.. What do we have till, 2050? I might be alive that long. By then we will also know if todays predictions regarding global warming were correct. We shall see if Indonesia is still above water level at that point. >global warming - the reason for the proposal And petroleum costs/availability edit: Jesus also warned us against self-interest because it resulted in Greed, War, Lust, and so on... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #373 July 15, 2009 You're contributions to these discussions are worthless. The smartest guys I know are always able to simply communicate what others perceive to be difficult. For whatever reason(s), you have not shown that ability. You, you're not as smart as you think your are. QED? Show us your good stuff. How about an equation that we can discuss.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #374 July 15, 2009 My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up, with any argument that I've seen. I love to see numbers, and I'm not talking IPCC numbers. Simple thermo will suffice just fine.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #375 July 15, 2009 >My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents >don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up . . . Here are the basic numbers, then. Preindustrial CO2 level: 280ppm Today's CO2 levels: 380ppm Radiative forcing for a 50% increase in CO2: 1.8 watts/sq m Temperature increase for increase in heating by 1.8 watts/sq m (blackbody only): .8 deg C Actual temperature change over the past 100 years: .74C What doesn't add up for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next Page 15 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JackC 0 #360 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How? Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? The sun heats up the earth. The earth radiates IR back into space. The CO2 either absorbs the IR and reemits it back to the earth (or out into space) or the CO2 reflects it directly back to earth. It happens slowly enough for the whole system to be largely in thermal equilibrium. Or rather than send us round chasing our tails explaining high school physics for the umpteenth time, you can always drive google and take some personal responsibility for your own education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #361 July 15, 2009 Quote In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Tell me more about your insulator. How thick is it? How much does it weigh? How well does it conduct heat? How well does it radiate heat?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #362 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote In the case of AGW, CO2 causes more heat to be retained. How? Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? It's just a game they play. All their bogus science and questions will come up again in about 3 weeks.... 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 #363 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote In my analogy, the earth is the oven, the sun is the flame and the CO2 acts as a thermal insulator by stopping heat from leaking off into space. Tell me more about your insulator. How thick is it? How much does it weigh? How well does it conduct heat? How well does it radiate heat? It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #364 July 15, 2009 >How thick is it? About 40 miles. >How much does it weigh? About 3x10^12 tons. >How well does it conduct heat? If you mean "how well does it conduct heat from the surface to space?" the answer is "it doesn't." The earth is in a vacuum, and cannot conduct heat anywhere. >How well does it radiate heat? Pretty well. CO2 (and the rest of the atmosphere) do most of the "radiating away" of our heat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #365 July 15, 2009 Quote Jeez, haven't we gone through this already? The sun heats up the earth. The earth radiates IR back into space. The CO2 either absorbs the IR and reemits it back to the earth (or out into space) or the CO2 reflects it directly back to earth. It happens slowly enough for the whole system to be largely in thermal equilibrium. No one is disagreeing with this description of the physics. You have been unable to provide an estimate on the actual effect one might expect from this feedback loop. I think I've made my point that arguing AGW based upon a 3 degree rise in atmospheric temperature is hogwash. So, you're arguing that a feedback loop has been going on, and we are enhancing that feedback loop by putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Somewhere in that feedback mechanism, there is an open thermodynamic system. It's not closed. Q accumulated = Q input - Q output. The earth, sea, and air all have their own control volumes around which to do this dynamic balance. Each of the Q input/output variables will have multiple driving forces. The dominant forces here will be evaporation, convection, and radiation. Since we are basically at equilibrium, Q accumulated is zero. Therefore, Q input = Q output. Again, you have not been able to explain why CO2 in practice will have a significant impact. I fully understand its insulating properties, but as far as I can see, it seems to be insignificant. Since this seems to be high school to you, why don't you whip up some calculations, and share the numbers with us.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #366 July 15, 2009 QuoteHow can you be both selfish and selfless at the same time? You cannot. Who does something without a benefit? Nobody. People may go work at the soup kitchen to make them feel better about themselves. A selfish reason. Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective. QuoteJesus. Still playing? Jesus was a deity. Of course, he wanted to be loved and worshipped, but for the sake of others. QuoteGhandi. He was sick of discimination and troubles that he himself faced. He made South Africa/India better for him and his people. And he was their leader. They haven't made movies about the Indians shot dead in South Africa. QuoteMother Theresa Mother Theresa privately despaired that she did not get out of religion what she wanted. She was intensely proud, and deliberately fought against her pride her entire life. In a sense, she was fighting against herself to be, in her eyes, better. QuoteThe people who responded in the Hudson river when U.S. airways Flight 1549 crashed into it. No one there had time to think about self-interest when it happened. They just responded. Good point. My favorite example of an altruist and hero is Lenny Skutnik. Interesting point. QuoteActually, the U.S. was founded on individualistic goals. So, Americans typically are selfish. You've been reading way, way too much Ayn Rand. You should slow that down a little bit. I've never read Ayn Rand. QuoteIt sure looked like you were putting youself on a pedestal back there. Mr. genuine honest libertarian man. Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. Quoteyour differences don't really matter-sorry man) I really don't think I can make much of a difference in the world. My differences also matter little. I can understand that. Quoteso now we both agree that the government is necessary even to a free-market. (making it NOT a free market) Yes. Freedom involves disputes, and arbiters for those disputes are necessary for efficiency. There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. QuoteThe public will "have to" eventually. Just like you will "have to" find some other method of transportation. Given enough time not even you will be able to afford gasoline. Yes. Given enough time I shall also be dead. I would prefer that such a thing not be prematurely forced via external political force. Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Especially considering that I am far from convinced that global warming - the reason for the proposal - will be headed off or even stalled by it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #367 July 15, 2009 Quote It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. What a nonsense statement. Quote But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. What an arrogant reply. At this point in time you've just admitted that you can't do the math.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #368 July 15, 2009 Ok. The question still stands. Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? I'm not looking for theory. I'm looking to see numbers.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #369 July 15, 2009 Quote Ok. The question still stands. Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? I'm not looking for theory. I'm looking to see numbers. Gee, I wonder why we never discussed THAT before.... 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 #370 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote It doesn't matter what the numbers are. Do the algebra not the arithmetic. What a nonsense statement. Quote But I sense you are just trolling at this point so there is no point in continuing. What an arrogant reply. At this point in time you've just admitted that you can't do the math. You're a chemical engineer, you do the math to disprove the climate models that already exist.... 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
billvon 2,991 #371 July 15, 2009 >Why is CO2 important in the AGW debate? Why not some other gas (CH4)? Both are important; indeed, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is less important in AGW because: -there is much less of it in the atmosphere (1.7ppm vs 380ppm for CO2) -its half life is much shorter in the atmosphere (7 years vs 30 years for CO2) -we have reduced our increase in methane emissions (went from .7 to 1.7ppm but has leveled off)* -its total contribution to AGW forcing is much less (.4w/sq m vs 1.4w/sq m) (* - unfortunately it has started rising again in the past few years; let's hope this is just a blip) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #372 July 15, 2009 >You cannot Bingo. So that means that If you act in selfless way simply to come to a selfish result, you are acting selfishly. That is not altruism. >Selflessness is selfishness from a different perspective Interesting. That kind of depends on there being a self-interested motive within that selflessness. In that case, there is no selflessness. It is selfishness. >I've never read Ayn Rand If you want to be hard-core about free-marketism, you definitely will want to read read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. You really depend on it. She considers the only way te be capitalist is to also be an ethical egoist, rational, and free. Warning: She hated libertarians. She also hated anarchists. >Perhaps. They are my observations on myself and on others. I have found that every time a person is arrogant, they end up getting themselves into trouble. Don't get yourself into trouble. >There is an irreconcilable tension between freedom and order. I admit that. Right. Because when we say we want "minimal" government intervention in our lives or the market, we rely on subjectivity in our determination of what is "minimal." >Nor would I prefer to have alternative fuels not yet commercially viable forced upon us. Ok. I'm sure you will also admit, when the time comes, that we won't have that option.. What do we have till, 2050? I might be alive that long. By then we will also know if todays predictions regarding global warming were correct. We shall see if Indonesia is still above water level at that point. >global warming - the reason for the proposal And petroleum costs/availability edit: Jesus also warned us against self-interest because it resulted in Greed, War, Lust, and so on... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #373 July 15, 2009 You're contributions to these discussions are worthless. The smartest guys I know are always able to simply communicate what others perceive to be difficult. For whatever reason(s), you have not shown that ability. You, you're not as smart as you think your are. QED? Show us your good stuff. How about an equation that we can discuss.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #374 July 15, 2009 My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up, with any argument that I've seen. I love to see numbers, and I'm not talking IPCC numbers. Simple thermo will suffice just fine.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #375 July 15, 2009 >My basic point in this entire discussion has been that AGW proponents >don't have a leg to stand on. The numbers aren't adding up . . . Here are the basic numbers, then. Preindustrial CO2 level: 280ppm Today's CO2 levels: 380ppm Radiative forcing for a 50% increase in CO2: 1.8 watts/sq m Temperature increase for increase in heating by 1.8 watts/sq m (blackbody only): .8 deg C Actual temperature change over the past 100 years: .74C What doesn't add up for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
