StreetScooby

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,341

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by StreetScooby

  1. StreetScooby
    My point here is that AGW advocates keep discussing the increase in atmospheric temperature. IMO, that's not a valid argument when it comes to justifying draconian taxes on our civilization. We are all engines of karma
  2. StreetScooby
    My understanding of the AGW argument is that the heat reflected/radiated by the Earth is being absorbed by CO2, thus warming the atmosphere, thus melting ice caps. Is that a fair summary? We are all engines of karma
  3. StreetScooby
    That's why I did the simple heat balance. If you can actually teach something, I'm all ears. I'm having serious doubts about your ability to do so. We are all engines of karma
  4. StreetScooby
    +1 We are all engines of karma
  5. StreetScooby
    +1 We are all engines of karma
  6. StreetScooby
    Let's just consider a radiative heat balance around the earth. Heat absorbed by earth = Heat from sun - (heat reflected + heat radiated). AGW disciples claim that the (heat reflected + heat radiated) are being significantly impacted by CO2. This is causing the atmosphere to warm, and melt ice caps. Those numbers do not add up. Not even close. I'm happy to learn something here. What am I missing? We are all engines of karma
  7. StreetScooby
    AGW disciples claim that 3 degrees of atmospheric warming is melting ice caps. That's where the calorimetry argument comes into play. Those numbers don't add up. We are all engines of karma
  8. StreetScooby
    Wrong? I just showed that at equilibrium, the net change will be 0.0009 degrees, or less. We are all engines of karma
  9. StreetScooby
    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
  10. StreetScooby
    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
  11. StreetScooby
    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
  12. StreetScooby
    You are an incredibly arrogant man. What exactly am I not understanding, in your opinion? We are all engines of karma
  13. StreetScooby
    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
  14. StreetScooby
    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
  15. StreetScooby
    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
  16. StreetScooby
    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
  17. StreetScooby
    +1 We are all engines of karma
  18. StreetScooby
    Air (Sea level, dry, 0 °C) 1.0035 J/(g·K) Water, liquid (25 °C) 4.1813 J/(g·K) Now, we just need to get a reasonable estimate of the air and water masses. We are all engines of karma
  19. StreetScooby
    What's the ratios of mass * heat capacity here? We are all engines of karma
  20. StreetScooby
    No one is disputing that putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere won't have some kind of impact on the planet. What's in dispute is the actual change in Earth's air-temperature that is due to this additional CO2. I personally doubt this additional CO2 is going to cause a 3-6 degree warming in the Earth's air-temperature. I'm extremely skeptical when someone claims that the temperature of a thin layer of gas on top of a huge water body is going to have any material effect on the huge water body's temperature. For a debt-o-crat Congress to legislative "environmental laws", that will inevitably be draconian in their nature, cannot be justified by the AGW debate, IMO. We are all engines of karma
  21. StreetScooby
    You haven't offered any proof that adding ppm of CO2 will cause any noticeable difference in the temperature. Yes, your understanding of thermo is correct. It's the degree of change that's in doubt here (...pun intended). We are all engines of karma
  22. StreetScooby
    I must have missed this. Where did you do this? We are all engines of karma
  23. StreetScooby
    You two cut it out. We are all engines of karma
  24. StreetScooby
    +1 We are all engines of karma
  25. StreetScooby
    Both political parties have failed our country. It's not about the country, it's about their party. We need to move on from these to something better. What, I don't know. We are all engines of karma