Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mrducky · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:39 am

msomeoneelsez wrote:

Lol, you are consistently disregarding conservation of energy.

Heat cannot simply be let off from Earth. Please, do tell us how heat is let off from Earth, every possible way that you can find. I am no expert on it, as you obviously* are.

entropy, earth is not a closed system.
temperature of space roughly -260 degrees
temperature of ground -roughly 20 degrees.
entropy would want to retain a balance but the incoming sunlight is a massive source of energy that the ground directly absorbs.
my example of this power? desert at day and desert at night.

My point is that everything adds up... there isnt a single engine, one bonfire, etc. but instead there are millions of cars, hundreds of college beach parties (at least in America....) and if that isnt enough, Im sure the sheer number of cigarettes burnt daily will add *something* to it.

of course they add something to it, but those energy sources dont even amount to body heat given off by animals and isnt even close to a visible sources on a pie graph if you include the suns input of energy.

And not only does everything add up, but it doesn't just "dissipate" from the Earth nearly as fast as it is added.

actually, it has to for entropy to be viable, only difference would be something on earth that is able to contain energy longer, ie. more ground less ice, more CO2. this results in a stack. (radiation rays being reflected by GG back to earth.)

Lets not forget that our rate of burning things, going faster (and slowing down) us increasing, not decreasing.

Quote:

And therefor we are at what is called "equilibrium." Where the source of energy equals the reduction of energy. When the source is increased, or there are more sources, the reduction must increase equally or net energy increases until the reduction is equalized. The same is true in reverse.

It is also true that if the reduction in energy (I really wish I remembered the term for that...) is lowered, then net energy in the system is increased.

I was attempting to say that:

more goes in, but the same goes out, the total amount within the system increases until the same goes out as in. That means "equilibrium" is higher.

or, raw energy being directly pushed into the system would quickly dissipate at the same rate into the atmosphere as it has nothing to hold it. CO2 and land absorb energy increasing equilibrium.

same goes in, less goes out, the total amount within the system increases until the same goes in as out. That also means "equilibrium" is higher.

We are arguing between those two ideas.

As for the lack of effect, I am going to actually work at this for once...

This is from http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
Gasoline: US gallon = 115,000 Btu

The US uses roughly 378 million gallons/day (that is 8,989,000 barrels/day) according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

some quick math...

43,470,000,000,000 (that is 4.347 x 10^13, or just under 43 and a half trillion) Btu's per day.

Now because the Btu is technically deprecated (makes it hard to find details

) I used wolfram alpha (great site btw) to convert to joules...
4.586x10^16 J
45,860,000,000,000,000 J (45 quadrillion)

Also from Wolfram alpha, (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sp ... rtyPhrase-)
0.7178 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1g+of+air
and at 1 atm, 1g of air is 784 L (liters) -- that is 0.784 m^3 (cubic meters)

lets just convert that up with a proportion here...

That is approx. 915.56 J/(deg C) for 1 m^3 of air at 1 atm.

Take our original 45,860,000,000,000,000 Joules converted from gasoline daily (in only America, mind you) and divide that by 915.56

You get (once again, approx.) 49,000,000,000,000 deg C for 1 m^3 of air.

But you know what?! That just looks like a lot, doesn't it?

So lets convert that a bit as well (because there is a TON more air in the atmosphere than that...)

1 deg C increase in heat for 4.9 x 10^13 m^3 of air

That is only (thank you wolfram alpha, once more for your amazing conversion abilities!) 1 deg C increase for 11,756 mi^3 (cubic miles)

---------------

So, did I do my math right? I tried to show my thought process as I went...

But really, the usage of only gasoline in america (not even taking friction, other petroleum products - let alone other fossil fuel burnings - or anything else for that matter, into account... or the gasoline of other countries...) in a single day couldn't possibly be consequential.

so that energy is converted directly into temperature, none of it is used to say create combustion and is absorbed by the pistons and converted into kinetic energy to run the engine.
if 100% of energy created is lost directly as temp then no running engine.
if 50% of energy is lost directly as temp then half efficiency engine.
this doesnt inclue the friction in the piston pumps. in fact, you account for nothing but a direct transfer of potential energy into direct energy. again, such increase is neglible when compared to the power of the sun. it hits with electromagnetic power, infrared, ultra violet, photons, helium nuclei, neutrinos.
Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×10^17 W, plus or minus 3.5%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
that doesnt include solar wind, but them neutrinoes dont affect the temp.

mrducky wrote:

im saying your other sources are as inconsequential as lighting a match will result in the end of the world.

No, that match isn't consequential either.

I mean, it couldn't be... Its not like that is a TON of heat or anything...

its inconsequential compared to other sources.

msomeoneelsez · **Joined:** Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm **Posts:** 126

Oh, thats right, I forgot that nothing adds up... like coal being burned, the fact that my calculations were based on daily gasoline usage by only Americans, in fact, I didn't even include diesel being burned, or what I previously mentioned in regards to the asphalt and cement laid down for the roads that are driven on (don't those things capture heat? ... yeah, about that... friction between tires and road... thats direct conduction there...)

I could go on... But no, its inconsequential, I forgot. Its not like air stores heat at all. Nope, couldn't possibly. Its not like air could even transfer heat anywhere either... I mean really, could a city like New York trap heat between the buildings at all? Nooooo, not at all... Buildings dont restrict air flow (thus dissipation of heat) at all.

You know what? Because air has absolutely no effect on temperature being captured, lets just through out our heating and air conditioning systems... those are absolutely useless anyways.

mrducky · **Posted:** Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:39 am

msomeoneelsez wrote:

Oh, thats right, I forgot that nothing adds up... like coal being burned, the fact that my calculations were based on daily gasoline usage by only Americans, in fact, I didn't even include diesel being burned, or what I previously mentioned in regards to the asphalt and cement laid down for the roads that are driven on (don't those things capture heat? ... yeah, about that... friction between tires and road... thats direct conduction there...)

the roads trap more heat from the sun, put the energy trapped into a piegraph, if energy from the friction that can "create fire" is visible without extreme enlargening or magnification, i will create an account on a server and be your conquer farm for a round. the coal being burned generates heat yes, what happens to this energy? it heats metal tubes to create steam that power turbines.

by the time it comes out the other end the energy lost in the process to various other sources is immensely over the top compared to energy transferred into "temperature"

I could go on... But no, its inconsequential, I forgot. Its not like air stores heat at all. Nope, couldn't possibly. Its not like air could even transfer heat anywhere either... I mean really, could a city like New York trap heat between the buildings at all? Nooooo, not at all... Buildings dont restrict air flow (thus dissipation of heat) at all.

you know what temperature is right? its the vibration of the atom. you can some solids up as they are densely packed and the atoms bounce and hit another atoms that hits another atom eventually vibrating but not hot enough to escape from each other and turn into a liquid.
many gases are incredibly hard to heat up and retain temperature as their physical (not chemical) properties mean the gases are dispersed sparsely, for them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it. this makes gases a poor storage of energy. im not saying that they cant, im saying a little square of ashphalt can outdo some gas anyday, or GG that reflect the radiation waves back to earth.

You know what? Because air has absolutely no effect on temperature being captured, lets just through out our heating and air conditioning systems... those are absolutely useless anyways.

*throw*
heat a piece of coal up to 100C and place it into a room, heat a similiar mass of gas up to 100C and place it into a room.
enjoy. i repeat, gases have little effect as the energy is dispersed quickly, solids such as.. ground when exposed by melting ice can absorb heat far better and retain it and seeing as how the sun outdoes human intervention by at least 100 000 times, reducing the effect of the sun in heating earth should be the goal.

msomeoneelsez · **Joined:** Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm **Posts:** 126

I am beginning to think you are just taking as extreme of an opposite stance to me as you possibly can.

Let me explain a few things here:

1:

mrducky wrote:

by the time it comes out the other end the energy lost in the process to various other sources is immensely over the top compared to energy transferred into "temperature"

Guess what? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every movement you make is opposed by another thing on this Earth, thus bringing net movement to zero, gravity being ignored (because either way, it will eventually become zero anyways.) My point for stating this is that friction eventually causes a removal of kinetic energy to the point of 0. Which means that any movement caused by the expansion of gases, etc. will eventually be turned into heat energy. Tada. Look at any usage for it, and there is a way that gasoline's energy that is released when burned turns into heat energy.

2:

mrducky wrote:

many gases are incredibly hard to heat up and retain temperature as their physical (not chemical) properties mean the gases are dispersed sparsely, for them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it. this makes gases a poor storage of energy.

You are speaking of density. Yes, gases are less dense than liquids and solids. Ok... so? It isn't the density that matters about gases, but rather it is the specific heat capacity of the matter itself, and how high that is per density.

As for "them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it."

umm... excuse me whilst I laugh. Really, really hard.

3 words buddy, 3 words... Conservation of Energy.

There are processes for conversion of matter to energy and vice verse, but the transfer of heat is not one of them.

mrducky wrote:

heat a piece of coal up to 100C and place it into a room, heat a similiar mass of gas up to 100C and place it into a room.
enjoy. i repeat, gases have little effect as the energy is dispersed quickly, solids such as.. ground when exposed by melting ice can absorb heat far better and retain it and seeing as how the sun outdoes human intervention by at least 100 000 times, reducing the effect of the sun in heating earth should be the goal.

Coal: Specific heat of -- 1.32 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

Air: Specific heat of -- 0.7178 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

So yes, if the conduction between coal and floor is ignored, by the same mass, a lump of coal heated to 100C will heat up the room more than the air at 100C. However, conduction is a much stronger transfer of heat between solids, so the conduction between coal and floor would transfer a huge amount of that heat outside of the room (or into the floor itself which most likely has a much higher specific heat capacity than air as well.)

As for reducing the effect of the sun... isn't that what satellites do? (yes, that was sarcasm... so just CALM DOWN) But really though, since you are such a WEALTH of knowledge, what would you presume the solution would be?

mrducky · **Posted:** Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:56 am

msomeoneelsez wrote:

I am beginning to think you are just taking as extreme of an opposite stance to me as you possibly can.

if you havent figured it out by now, this is how i keep discussions rolling rather then fail and die and fall stale, look at my israel vs palestine discussion in the old forums. man, good times... good times...

Let me explain a few things here:

1:

mrducky wrote:

by the time it comes out the other end the energy lost in the process to various other sources is immensely over the top compared to energy transferred into "temperature"

Guess what? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every movement you make is opposed by another thing on this Earth, thus bringing net movement to zero, gravity being ignored (because either way, it will eventually become zero anyways.) My point for stating this is that friction eventually causes a removal of kinetic energy to the point of 0. Which means that any movement caused by the expansion of gases, etc. will eventually be turned into heat energy. Tada. Look at any usage for it, and there is a way that gasoline's energy that is released when burned turns into heat energy.

heat energy will eventually become kinetic movement energy and vice versa of course... everything you say is slammed back at you. such small increases are near nil when compared to the power of the sun on the earth. for every drop of rain that falls, that is a photon exciting a water molecule enough to become vapour.

2:

mrducky wrote:

many gases are incredibly hard to heat up and retain temperature as their physical (not chemical) properties mean the gases are dispersed sparsely, for them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it. this makes gases a poor storage of energy.

You are speaking of density. Yes, gases are less dense than liquids and solids. Ok... so? It isn't the density that matters about gases, but rather it is the specific heat capacity of the matter itself, and how high that is per density.

As for "them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it."

umm... excuse me whilst I laugh. Really, really hard.

3 words buddy, 3 words... Conservation of Energy.

There are processes for conversion of matter to energy and vice verse, but the transfer of heat is not one of them.

i know conservation of energy, and that "loss of energy" is kinetic energy. sorry for you not interpretting what i though was obvious.

mrducky wrote:

heat a piece of coal up to 100C and place it into a room, heat a similiar mass of gas up to 100C and place it into a room.
enjoy. i repeat, gases have little effect as the energy is dispersed quickly, solids such as.. ground when exposed by melting ice can absorb heat far better and retain it and seeing as how the sun outdoes human intervention by at least 100 000 times, reducing the effect of the sun in heating earth should be the goal.

Coal: Specific heat of -- 1.32 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

Air: Specific heat of -- 0.7178 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

So yes, if the conduction between coal and floor is ignored, by the same mass, a lump of coal heated to 100C will heat up the room more than the air at 100C. However, conduction is a much stronger transfer of heat between solids, so the conduction between coal and floor would transfer a huge amount of that heat outside of the room (or into the floor itself which most likely has a much higher specific heat capacity than air as well.)

dude it has double the conductive properties of "normal air". not only that, the air that is released would disperse with the air in the room, depending on the size of the room, that gas could have a miniscule effect as it disperses nearly isntantly compared to the POWER OF ROCK!.

As for reducing the effect of the sun... isn't that what satellites do? (yes, that was sarcasm... so just CALM DOWN) But really though, since you are such a WEALTH of knowledge, what would you presume the solution would be?

cut down on GG... couldnt you figure that one out? if you cut down on GG and put measures in place that actively cool the planet (increase cloud formation) ice will build up, reflective sunlight off the tundra that could have absorbed more heat, heating earth up even more as that temperature remains into the night.

msomeoneelsez · **Joined:** Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm **Posts:** 126

mrducky wrote:

msomeoneelsez wrote:

I am beginning to think you are just taking as extreme of an opposite stance to me as you possibly can.

if you havent figured it out by now, this is how i keep discussions rolling rather then fail and die and fall stale, look at my israel vs palestine discussion in the old forums. man, good times... good times...

However, its also a great way for you to continue making yourself look rather... stupid. Maybe I should start calling out your contradictions too?

Let me explain a few things here:

1:

mrducky wrote:

by the time it comes out the other end the energy lost in the process to various other sources is immensely over the top compared to energy transferred into "temperature"

Guess what? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every movement you make is opposed by another thing on this Earth, thus bringing net movement to zero, gravity being ignored (because either way, it will eventually become zero anyways.) My point for stating this is that friction eventually causes a removal of kinetic energy to the point of 0. Which means that any movement caused by the expansion of gases, etc. will eventually be turned into heat energy. Tada. Look at any usage for it, and there is a way that gasoline's energy that is released when burned turns into heat energy.

heat energy will eventually become kinetic movement energy and vice versa of course... everything you say is slammed back at you. such small increases are near nil when compared to the power of the sun on the earth. for every drop of rain that falls, that is a photon exciting a water molecule enough to become vapour.

Slammed back at me? haha, right...

The conversions after friction are of entirely different processes. The same processes that occur with any other heat in the air/ground.

2:

mrducky wrote:

many gases are incredibly hard to heat up and retain temperature as their physical (not chemical) properties mean the gases are dispersed sparsely, for them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it. this makes gases a poor storage of energy.

You are speaking of density. Yes, gases are less dense than liquids and solids. Ok... so? It isn't the density that matters about gases, but rather it is the specific heat capacity of the matter itself, and how high that is per density.

As for "them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it."

umm... excuse me whilst I laugh. Really, really hard.

3 words buddy, 3 words... Conservation of Energy.

There are processes for conversion of matter to energy and vice verse, but the transfer of heat is not one of them.

i know conservation of energy, and that "loss of energy" is kinetic energy. sorry for you not interpretting what i though was obvious.

Kinetic energy as in the expansion of gas thanks to the direct proportion of temperature to pressure to volume in a gas which when heated expands, thus lower density, and therefor natural buoyancy causes it to rise? Yeah, this is kinetic energy, but not that is taken from the heat energy, it is a byproduct of the expansion caused by excited particles.

mrducky wrote:

heat a piece of coal up to 100C and place it into a room, heat a similiar mass of gas up to 100C and place it into a room.
enjoy. i repeat, gases have little effect as the energy is dispersed quickly, solids such as.. ground when exposed by melting ice can absorb heat far better and retain it and seeing as how the sun outdoes human intervention by at least 100 000 times, reducing the effect of the sun in heating earth should be the goal.

Coal: Specific heat of -- 1.32 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

Air: Specific heat of -- 0.7178 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

So yes, if the conduction between coal and floor is ignored, by the same mass, a lump of coal heated to 100C will heat up the room more than the air at 100C. However, conduction is a much stronger transfer of heat between solids, so the conduction between coal and floor would transfer a huge amount of that heat outside of the room (or into the floor itself which most likely has a much higher specific heat capacity than air as well.)

dude it has double the conductive properties of "normal air". not only that, the air that is released would disperse with the air in the room, depending on the size of the room, that gas could have a miniscule effect as it disperses nearly isntantly compared to the POWER OF ROCK!.

What is conduction? Isn't it the transfer of heat? What is dispersal of a different temperature gas in a room? Isn't that also a transfer of heat? It is a slight stretch to say that, but essentially that is what you are talking about. Nice contradiction.

As for what would actually happen, we are speaking mass, not volume. A certain mass of rock (much denser than air) takes up much less space than the same mass of air. As parenthetically noted, DENSITY is key. So, specific heat being measured by mass instead of volume, yes, the rock would have more of an effect on total temperature (it would be near double the effect, to be precise,) but the dispersal you speak of would not change this whatsoever.

In fact, you speak of dispersal as if it is the removal of it. A complete farse, and if you really know anything about it instead of just taking as much of an opposing side as possible just to "keep it going" then you would understand this quite clearly.

As for reducing the effect of the sun... isn't that what satellites do? (yes, that was sarcasm... so just CALM DOWN) But really though, since you are such a WEALTH of knowledge, what would you presume the solution would be?

cut down on GG... couldnt you figure that one out? if you cut down on GG and put measures in place that actively cool the planet (increase cloud formation) ice will build up, reflective sunlight off the tundra that could have absorbed more heat, heating earth up even more as that temperature remains into the night.

Do you honestly not understand sarcasm? ... Anyways... I will bite.

Once again, GG isn't everything. It isn't even close to everything. You also have economics, politics, and public opinion to face as well. Are there ways of cutting down GG? Yes, and I believe that if you let capitalism run its course (with small incentives from govt.) then the free market will find a way to get that right.

As for "measures in place that actively cool the planet" ... Why is it that people are so irrational as to propose even MORE unnatural action by us to effect our Earth as a solution to unnatural action by us which made the problem in the first place? DO NOT, EVER, make more clouds, put mirrors into space, or any other crazy scheme to actually affect what we have yet to touch to fix something that broke because we touched it. It just makes MORE problems, because once again the Earth is SO complicated that there is no way any human, or group of humans for that matter, could collectively understand it in its entirety.

That is actually my same reasoning for why govt. shouldn't be involved in the market (cough* the fed cough*) but that is for a different day.

mrducky · **Posted:** Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:24 pm

I am beginning to think you are just taking as extreme of an opposite stance to me as you possibly can.

if you havent figured it out by now, this is how i keep discussions rolling rather then fail and die and fall stale, look at my israel vs palestine discussion in the old forums. man, good times... good times...

However, its also a great way for you to continue making yourself look rather... stupid. Maybe I should start calling out your contradictions too?

oarsum :3

Let me explain a few things here:

1:

mrducky wrote:

by the time it comes out the other end the energy lost in the process to various other sources is immensely over the top compared to energy transferred into "temperature"

Guess what? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every movement you make is opposed by another thing on this Earth, thus bringing net movement to zero, gravity being ignored (because either way, it will eventually become zero anyways.) My point for stating this is that friction eventually causes a removal of kinetic energy to the point of 0. Which means that any movement caused by the expansion of gases, etc. will eventually be turned into heat energy. Tada. Look at any usage for it, and there is a way that gasoline's energy that is released when burned turns into heat energy.

who said that it turns into heat energy? who said that the heat energy does give it massive kinetic properties like the hydrogen in earths exosphere getting pumped up on photons and radiation from the sun?

do you seriously think minute fluctuations of energy given off would affect the global average temperature?
you know what does affect temp?
10^17 Joules hitting the earth day in day out.
any minute changes that dont allow this vast amount of energy to go back into space would increase temperature.

heat energy will eventually become kinetic movement energy and vice versa of course... everything you say is slammed back at you. such small increases are near nil when compared to the power of the sun on the earth. for every drop of rain that falls, that is a photon exciting a water molecule enough to become vapour.

Slammed back at me? haha, right...

The conversions after friction are of entirely different processes. The same processes that occur with any other heat in the air/ground.

whats that? MOVEMENT?!?! this is large weather cycles experiencing large amounts of kinetic energy as heat rises. the air rises, cools as it is no longer near a heat source that can transfer energy across, then heats up upon REENTRY.

2:

mrducky wrote:

many gases are incredibly hard to heat up and retain temperature as their physical (not chemical) properties mean the gases are dispersed sparsely, for them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it. this makes gases a poor storage of energy.

You are speaking of density. Yes, gases are less dense than liquids and solids. Ok... so? It isn't the density that matters about gases, but rather it is the specific heat capacity of the matter itself, and how high that is per density.

As for "them to transfer energy would mean the atoms lose more energy to transfer it."

umm... excuse me whilst I laugh. Really, really hard.

3 words buddy, 3 words... Conservation of Energy.

There are processes for conversion of matter to energy and vice verse, but the transfer of heat is not one of them.

i know conservation of energy, and that "loss of energy" is kinetic energy. sorry for you not interpretting what i though was obvious.

Kinetic energy as in the expansion of gas thanks to the direct proportion of temperature to pressure to volume in a gas which when heated expands, thus lower density, and therefor natural buoyancy causes it to rise? Yeah, this is kinetic energy, but not that is taken from the heat energy, it is a byproduct of the expansion caused by excited particles.

excited particles have a high temp? therefore you just stated that kinetic energy is the product of temperature?

mrducky wrote:

heat a piece of coal up to 100C and place it into a room, heat a similiar mass of gas up to 100C and place it into a room.
enjoy. i repeat, gases have little effect as the energy is dispersed quickly, solids such as.. ground when exposed by melting ice can absorb heat far better and retain it and seeing as how the sun outdoes human intervention by at least 100 000 times, reducing the effect of the sun in heating earth should be the goal.

Coal: Specific heat of -- 1.32 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

Air: Specific heat of -- 0.7178 J/(g deg C) (joules per gram degree Celsius)

So yes, if the conduction between coal and floor is ignored, by the same mass, a lump of coal heated to 100C will heat up the room more than the air at 100C. However, conduction is a much stronger transfer of heat between solids, so the conduction between coal and floor would transfer a huge amount of that heat outside of the room (or into the floor itself which most likely has a much higher specific heat capacity than air as well.)

dude it has double the conductive properties of "normal air". not only that, the air that is released would disperse with the air in the room, depending on the size of the room, that gas could have a miniscule effect as it disperses nearly isntantly compared to the POWER OF ROCK!.

What is conduction? Isn't it the transfer of heat? What is dispersal of a different temperature gas in a room? Isn't that also a transfer of heat? It is a slight stretch to say that, but essentially that is what you are talking about. Nice contradiction.

[color=#40FF00]but which can retain heat and hold it into the night when the main source of energy (sun) doesnt shine? like i said, coal can retain heat from conduction 2 times better then the gas. i still dont see my contradiction.

As for what would actually happen, we are speaking mass, not volume. A certain mass of rock (much denser than air) takes up much less space than the same mass of air. As parenthetically noted, DENSITY is key. So, specific heat being measured by mass instead of volume, yes, the rock would have more of an effect on total temperature (it would be near double the effect, to be precise,) but the dispersal you speak of would not change this whatsoever.

In fact, you speak of dispersal as if it is the removal of it. A complete farse, and if you really know anything about it instead of just taking as much of an opposing side as possible just to "keep it going" then you would understand this quite clearly.[/color]

you speak of dispersal as if its a term used here, the correct term is conduction. if im wrong then i dont understand this quite clearly. if you are moaning about the properties of gas then thats a flaw on your part believing gas can conduct heat well.

As for reducing the effect of the sun... isn't that what satellites do? (yes, that was sarcasm... so just CALM DOWN) But really though, since you are such a WEALTH of knowledge, what would you presume the solution would be?

cut down on GG... couldnt you figure that one out? if you cut down on GG and put measures in place that actively cool the planet (increase cloud formation) ice will build up, reflective sunlight off the tundra that could have absorbed more heat, heating earth up even more as that temperature remains into the night.

Do you honestly not understand sarcasm? ... Anyways... I will bite.

[color=#40FF00]sarcasm is hard to pick up from the internets.
"what would you presume the solution would be?" i gave my view cause you asked, when you noted it was sarcasm, i didnt argue that point.

Once again, GG isn't everything. It isn't even close to everything. You also have economics, politics, and public opinion to face as well. Are there ways of cutting down GG? Yes, and I believe that if you let capitalism run its course (with small incentives from govt.) then the free market will find a way to get that right.

lol thats the dumbest talk ever. dumber then me

"let capitalism stop global warming"
the main reason why moves arent being taken is due to CAPITALISM. oil companies have been working for ages to maintain their moneys. there is no incentive to keep a rainforest when it can be used as farmland, there is no incentive for a cleaner car when it costs the consumer more.

As for "measures in place that actively cool the planet" ... Why is it that people are so irrational as to propose even MORE unnatural action by us to effect our Earth as a solution to unnatural action by us which made the problem in the first place? DO NOT, EVER, make more clouds, put mirrors into space, or any other crazy scheme to actually affect what we have yet to touch to fix something that broke because we touched it. It just makes MORE problems, because once again the Earth is SO complicated that there is no way any human, or group of humans for that matter, could collectively understand it in its entirety.

no, but you can understand enough. there are many instances where human intervention has resulted in a good fix.

That is actually my same reasoning for why govt. shouldn't be involved in the market (cough* the fed cough*) but that is for a different day.[/color]

msomeoneelsez · **Joined:** Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm **Posts:** 126

Wow, you totally destroyed the formatting in that post... Hard to follow there...

mrducky wrote:

do you seriously think minute fluctuations of energy given off would affect the global average temperature?
you know what does affect temp?
10^17 Joules hitting the earth day in day out.
any minute changes that dont allow this vast amount of energy to go back into space would increase temperature.

My point (since you need rerereiteration...) is that it is an added source of heat, and yes, it is quite substantial when all of human activity is being observed as a part of the equation.

mrducky wrote:

whats that? MOVEMENT?!?! this is large weather cycles experiencing large amounts of kinetic energy as heat rises. the air rises, cools as it is no longer near a heat source that can transfer energy across, then heats up upon REENTRY.

That is exactly what I described later in the post. Wow, just wow.

mrducky wrote:

excited particles have a high temp? therefore you just stated that kinetic energy is the product of temperature?

I have no idea how you derived that from what I said... I even reread what I said 3 times, the last time was trying to dumb myself down as far as I could let myself go just to see if there was something that you saw where a sane person would miss it.

mrducky wrote:

but which can retain heat and hold it into the night when the main source of energy (sun) doesnt shine? like i said, coal can retain heat from conduction 2 times better then the gas. i still dont see my contradiction

Retention and specific heat are two totally different ideas. You would want to look for the insulation properties of the coal vs. air in this case, and I did a quick search (very quick) and couldn't find it, so I will leave that work to you.

What coal CAN do is absorb nearly twice as much heat energy per actual degree increase in temperature. That is what specific heat measures.

mrducky wrote:

you speak of dispersal as if its a term used here, the correct term is conduction. if im wrong then i dont understand this quite clearly. if you are moaning about the properties of gas then thats a flaw on your part believing gas can conduct heat well.

I speak of dispersal as a term that you used there. Check back in the posts for confirmation of that.

What I am talking about is that gases are fluid, and so they don't need to conduct the heat well... they just move around so that much more surface area (so to speak) of the gas is transferring heat to the surrounding particles than the coal can ever transfer with on its own. So yes, I am speaking of the properties of the gas, certain properties which you overlooked, I presume?

mrducky wrote:

lol thats the dumbest talk ever. dumber then me You said it, not me, but hey, at least you now admit it.
"let capitalism stop global warming"
the main reason why moves arent being taken is due to CAPITALISM. oil companies have been working for ages to maintain their moneys. there is no incentive to keep a rainforest when it can be used as farmland, there is no incentive for a cleaner car when it costs the consumer more.

Are there negative forces in capitalism? Yes. But do those negative forces overcome the smart businesses who are actually innovating, and therefor increasing efficiency? Hell no.

Here is a little piece about business for you... Efficiency = higher profit. It has been proven time and time again. That is why factories that have found ways to recycle their own waste to use again, or to use for fueling their own production have become more profitable, not less.

In fact, I remember a news story a month or so back about some onion ring factory that used its own waste to power the entire factory and I believe it put some power back into the grid as well.

So yes, capitalism can solve these problems. If govt. gives (small) incentives to companies for investing in waste reuse or recycling then this trend of efficiency will only increase.

It truly amazes me how many people attack capitalism without anything even close to a substantial understanding of how it works.

mrducky wrote:

no, but you can understand enough. there are many instances where human intervention has resulted in a good fix.

Why do those sound like famous last words?

...

Anyways! Yes, human intervention has resulted in good fixes before... but how many of those fixes have to come after human intervention broke it in the first place? That is my point. If we intervene in something, limit it to something that we have already intervened in so as to limit the further damaging of other planetary processes.

mrducky · **Posted:** Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:36 pm

msomeoneelsez wrote:

Wow, you totally destroyed the formatting in that post... Hard to follow there...

Wow... i am (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) or something, just noticed O_O

i tried to clean it up a bit.. :/

mrducky wrote:

do you seriously think minute fluctuations of energy given off would affect the global average temperature?
you know what does affect temp?
10^17 Joules hitting the earth day in day out.
any minute changes that dont allow this vast amount of energy to go back into space would increase temperature.

My point (since you need rerereiteration...) is that it is an added source of heat, and yes, it is quite substantial when all of human activity is being observed as a part of the equation.

not if it instantly balances out with equilibrium because human activity (heat generating) provides no base nor medium for the said heat to retain on earth.

mrducky wrote:

whats that? MOVEMENT?!?! this is large weather cycles experiencing large amounts of kinetic energy as heat rises. the air rises, cools as it is no longer near a heat source that can transfer energy across, then heats up upon REENTRY.

That is exactly what I described later in the post. Wow, just wow.

thats kinetic properties, not necessarily human interaction involved.

mrducky wrote:

excited particles have a high temp? therefore you just stated that kinetic energy is the product of temperature?

I have no idea how you derived that from what I said... I even reread what I said 3 times, the last time was trying to dumb myself down as far as I could let myself go just to see if there was something that you saw where a sane person would miss it.

ok... the amount an atom vibrates is its temperature. despite this is the realm of quantam crap, this is kinetic energy. a solid would be heated until the atoms have enough energy to unbond and become a liquid. that would be kinetic as would the change from liquid to gas, these arent chemical changes but physical.

mrducky wrote:

but which can retain heat and hold it into the night when the main source of energy (sun) doesnt shine? like i said, coal can retain heat from conduction 2 times better then the gas. i still dont see my contradiction

Retention and specific heat are two totally different ideas. You would want to look for the insulation properties of the coal vs. air in this case, and I did a quick search (very quick) and couldn't find it, so I will leave that work to you.

What coal CAN do is absorb nearly twice as much heat energy per actual degree increase in temperature. That is what specific heat measures.

i dont think google would find the insulation properties of coal vs air as neither are used as insulators.

after that i think you helped my side since you didnt distinguish why air was better then coal.

mrducky wrote:

you speak of dispersal as if its a term used here, the correct term is conduction. if im wrong then i dont understand this quite clearly. if you are moaning about the properties of gas then thats a flaw on your part believing gas can conduct heat well.

I speak of dispersal as a term that you used there. Check back in the posts for confirmation of that.

What I am talking about is that gases are fluid, and so they don't need to conduct the heat well... they just move around so that much more surface area (so to speak) of the gas is transferring heat to the surrounding particles than the coal can ever transfer with on its own. So yes, I am speaking of the properties of the gas, certain properties which you overlooked, I presume?

i assumed that such movements were kinetic on a small scale. friction would be the transfer of kinetic to heat as the atoms bounce and rub and all in all, such energy would be split. from heat with kinetic and the properties of friction.

mrducky wrote:

lol thats the dumbest talk ever. dumber then me You said it, not me, but hey, at least you now admit it.
"let capitalism stop global warming"
the main reason why moves arent being taken is due to CAPITALISM. oil companies have been working for ages to maintain their moneys. there is no incentive to keep a rainforest when it can be used as farmland, there is no incentive for a cleaner car when it costs the consumer more.

Are there negative forces in capitalism? Yes. But do those negative forces overcome the smart businesses who are actually innovating, and therefor increasing efficiency? Hell no.

they have really efficient turbines, but still burn coal. they ceebs getting energy efficient light bulbs as the reduction in energy use isnt on scale with costs saved.

Here is a little piece about business for you... Efficiency = higher profit. It has been proven time and time again. That is why factories that have found ways to recycle their own waste to use again, or to use for fueling their own production have become more profitable, not less.

alright then. if governments are trying to save the planet to keep popular votes what with this whole SAVE THE WORLD HIPPYNESS, and industry is trying to save the planet to keep profits. why is there no reduction?
either the government isnt putting down measures or industry isnt putting down measures.

In fact, I remember a news story a month or so back about some onion ring factory that used its own waste to power the entire factory and I believe it put some power back into the grid as well.

So yes, capitalism can solve these problems. If govt. gives (small) incentives to companies for investing in waste reuse or recycling then this trend of efficiency will only increase.

then why must the govt provide big incentives, look to germany where solar power is heavily subsidized then look to australia where the government has left a "small" incentive. carbon trading schemes are in the talks and as are heavily funded renewable energy sectors. if the government does nothing, we continue to burn coal and oil, but at a slightly slower exponential growth due to efficiency.

It truly amazes me how many people attack capitalism without anything even close to a substantial understanding of how it works.

capitalism is run by the bottom line, its about the ch-ching. the mighty dollar. many systems are cheaper to run and the only thing stoppinga total degredation of earth would be the public.

mrducky wrote:

no, but you can understand enough. there are many instances where human intervention has resulted in a good fix.

Why do those sound like famous last words?

...

Anyways! Yes, human intervention has resulted in good fixes before... but how many of those fixes have to come after human intervention broke it in the first place? That is my point. If we intervene in something, limit it to something that we have already intervened in so as to limit the further damaging of other planetary processes.

remember who i said something that you didnt understand.

"If we intervene in something, limit it to something that we have already intervened in so as to limit the further damaging of other planetary processes"

may you try again? for my sake?

Plotter · **Posted:** Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:31 pm

Plotter has to revive this thread, but I found this amusing, the leader of Greenpeace admits the Arctic Ice Cap melting in 20-30 years is exaggerated.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012021.html

Props to the BBC interviewer for nailing the Greenpeace leaders arse to the wall

Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming