It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:23 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:07 pm 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am
Posts: 231
The amount of kinetic energy and heat created by human beings, is a small fraction compared to the energy created by all living organisms combined on the earth.

It's only because of greenhouse gasses that the energy created by all living organisms on earth is enough to raise the temperature.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:05 am 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
Really? How is it that a truck's brakes can be set on fire while going downhill?

As for what you said, it doesn't matter in relation to every other living thing... it matters that it is an increase in that source of heat energy.

But the greenhouse gas comment is seriously a point made with blinders put up on your left, right, top, bottom, and... well, everywhere but the one pinprick in the middle that is greenhouse gases. It is just a way to sidestep what I do believe to be a valid point, everything contributes to the change... even our hot air in these forums.

Actually, if you think about it, the data sent over inefficient cables over many many miles is just increasing to the global warming. Geez, get off of the forums, wouldjya?! /jk


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:46 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
msomeoneelsez wrote:
Really? How is it that a truck's brakes can be set on fire while going downhill?

As for what you said, it doesn't matter in relation to every other living thing... it matters that it is an increase in that source of heat energy.

But the greenhouse gas comment is seriously a point made with blinders put up on your left, right, top, bottom, and... well, everywhere but the one pinprick in the middle that is greenhouse gases. It is just a way to sidestep what I do believe to be a valid point, everything contributes to the change... even our hot air in these forums.

Actually, if you think about it, the data sent over inefficient cables over many many miles is just increasing to the global warming. Geez, get off of the forums, wouldjya?! /jk


it takes 4.19 J to heat 1 ml of water by 1 degree. (centigrade just to be clear)
same amount of energy to heat 1 litre of water by 1 degree can heat some other substances like copper by 77 degrees. different chemicals have different properties

heat trapping gases aka. greenhouse gases have conclusive proof that they trap heat. the actual debate is whether or not human intervention is causing increasing GG to unnatural levels.

the amount of energy it takes to heat a 1x1x1m of our atmosphere significantly is extremely high. i could run a cars engine or i can have a 1x1m of black asphalt under the sun. guess what can generate more heat?
thats right, the ashphalt.
the kinetic energy released into the atmosphere quickly loses heat energy and dissipates. if you knew that temperature = energy (how much the atoms vibrate) then you would know that your "theory" is heavily flawed as it only deals with the immediate surroundings of vehicle as energy produced cannot carry between the gas atoms further up where atmosphere temperatures are taken.

the heat energy in the asphalt can be stored and builds up
green house gases retain heat. its the asphalt of the sky :D it allows life to live but it also increases temperature to unliveable extremes (venus)
basically, the chemical properties of GG allow them to store and keep heat better. the way i see it is, humans are producing vast quantities of GG. GG increase temperature. global warming is accelerated due to human influence

Greenhouse gasses GGed you.

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:39 am 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
I am entirely aware of tempurature, specific heat, etc.

My point is that our modern lifestyles have done a lot to add heat energy (by conversion from molecular bonds, etc.) to the overall system which is our planet.

mrducky wrote:
the amount of energy it takes to heat a 1x1x1m of our atmosphere significantly is extremely high. i could run a cars engine or i can have a 1x1m of black asphalt under the sun. guess what can generate more heat?
thats right, the ashphalt.


Actually you are dead wrong... the asphalt doesn't generate heat, it merely traps it by absorption of light, which is a conversion of energy from electromagnetic waves into heat.

mrducky wrote:
if you knew that temperature = energy (how much the atoms vibrate) then you would know that your "theory" is heavily flawed as it only deals with the immediate surroundings of vehicle as energy produced cannot carry between the gas atoms further up where atmosphere temperatures are taken.


Umm... are you kidding me? Why is it that it has been impossible for scientists to get to absolute zero? Heres your answer; they have no way of isolating what they are cooling completely from... well, anything else.

Sooner or later, temperature equilibrium will be reached in any sized system (using ceterus peribus, other things equal... what Im saying is just conceptual here, so calm down!) which means that there is a transfer of heat energy from atom to atom, molecule to molecule, in order to make the equilibrium come to bear. This concept still applies even when there are changes in the system, i.e. the sun warming, or the Earth venting heat into space. Eventually the heat energy from even a match will be transfered between at least a majority of the atoms in the atmosphere, it will just be at an immeasurable level when singularly cited. You cannot possibly deny, however, that the energy is not transfered and/or stored.

As for the GG, I am not denying that they have some effect here, or that those may be humanly caused either. I am saying that nearly the entire environmentalist, GG, etc. community has disregarded what could very easily also be a cause for global warming (should it actually be taking place... yes, there really is still debate on that with scientists.)

I think you have been sipping the GG koolaid a little bit too long... you deny that there may be another possibility as to why the Earth may be warming.
I think GG just GGed you.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:46 pm 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am
Posts: 231
I'm 95% sure that the amount of energy produced by all living creatures (about 80,000 million tons of biomass) is more than all the energy that humans make with our devices. (100 million ton of biomass)


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:27 pm 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
Daganev wrote:
I'm 95% sure that the amount of energy produced by all living creatures (about 80,000 million tons of biomass) is more than all the energy that humans make with our devices. (100 million ton of biomass)


And I'm 95% sure that the amount of CO2 and other GGs produced by all living creatures is more than all the CO2 and other GGs that humans make with our devices.

...

Yes, that was sarcasm btw.

1st, what relevance does that statement have? Whether it is true or not, my point is still valid, so I truly have no idea why you said that...


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:53 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
msomeoneelsez wrote:
I am entirely aware of tempurature, specific heat, etc.

My point is that our modern lifestyles have done a lot to add heat energy (by conversion from molecular bonds, etc.) to the overall system which is our planet.

mrducky wrote:
the amount of energy it takes to heat a 1x1x1m of our atmosphere significantly is extremely high. i could run a cars engine or i can have a 1x1m of black asphalt under the sun. guess what can generate more heat?
thats right, the ashphalt.


Actually you are dead wrong... the asphalt doesn't generate heat, it merely traps it by absorption of light, which is a conversion of energy from electromagnetic waves into heat.

thats why it is so much more worse, the sun radiates energy at an unfathomable rate, at the same time, energy escapes through the atmosphere. the only thing preventing sunlight just reverberating off earth is that thin layer of atmosphere and the GG. the heat energy given off by cars is near 0 in comparison with the sun, you can increase temperature by trapping the power of the sun or cool by reflecting. tell me a maximum approximate of all vehicle energy radiation. and give me the minimum approx of the sun energy radiation. if the sun is less then 10x greater, i salute you. if it is less then 100x greater then ill think slightly more. kk?

mrducky wrote:
if you knew that temperature = energy (how much the atoms vibrate) then you would know that your "theory" is heavily flawed as it only deals with the immediate surroundings of vehicle as energy produced cannot carry between the gas atoms further up where atmosphere temperatures are taken.


Umm... are you kidding me? Why is it that it has been impossible for scientists to get to absolute zero? Heres your answer; they have no way of isolating what they are cooling completely from... well, anything else.

yes yes, entropy, thermodynamics, carry on? earth isnt a closed system, sunlight comes in, sunlight comes off. energy is absorbed, energy is radiated

Sooner or later, temperature equilibrium will be reached in any sized system (using ceterus peribus, other things equal... what Im saying is just conceptual here, so calm down!) which means that there is a transfer of heat energy from atom to atom, molecule to molecule, in order to make the equilibrium come to bear. This concept still applies even when there are changes in the system, i.e. the sun warming, or the Earth venting heat into space. Eventually the heat energy from even a match will be transfered between at least a majority of the atoms in the atmosphere, it will just be at an immeasurable level when singularly cited. You cannot possibly deny, however, that the energy is not transfered and/or stored.

the temperature in the exosphere is 2500 degrees centigrade for the hydrogen atoms there, however the hydrogens collide with nothing in the near vacuum so that temperture is not a good indication of the actual mean temperature.
it wont reach an equilibrium as the things are changing. sun increases in radiance, emissions may drop.


As for the GG, I am not denying that they have some effect here, or that those may be humanly caused either. I am saying that nearly the entire environmentalist, GG, etc. community has disregarded what could very easily also be a cause for global warming (should it actually be taking place... yes, there really is still debate on that with scientists.)

there are scientists supporting this crackpot theory? LINK-AGE ME UP i want links and proof.

I think you have been sipping the GG koolaid a little bit too long... you deny that there may be another possibility as to why the Earth may be warming.
I think GG just GGed you.

there are other reasons, just not your one.
ive considered it and ive refuted it.

msomeoneelsez wrote:
Daganev wrote:
I'm 95% sure that the amount of energy produced by all living creatures (about 80,000 million tons of biomass) is more than all the energy that humans make with our devices. (100 million ton of biomass)


And I'm 95% sure that the amount of CO2 and other GGs produced by all living creatures is more than all the CO2 and other GGs that humans make with our devices.

...

Yes, that was sarcasm btw.

1st, what relevance does that statement have? Whether it is true or not, my point is still valid, so I truly have no idea why you said that...

he is saying that 1/800 radiant energy on earth is produced by human energy output (the burning of coal, the combustion in engines, the etc of breaks..

this systematically spreads fecal matter all over your "theory"

GG on the other hand rely on a small concentration of gases in the atmosphere that are responsible for trapping heat in the planet Earth.
the real debate is whether or not humans are affecting the balance of the gases and increasing GG by increasing the numbers of rural animals and CO2 emissions.

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:43 am 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
So you are denying that the processes I described add a large amount of heat to the system where there was no addition before? In other words (because it is late, I know I become confusing at this time of night) are you saying that these extra sources of heat are irrelevant in a debate about an increase in heat over a planet?

...

Once again, yes, the GG theory may be correct, but it is in no way everything. To believe that it is the end all be all is to disregard the immense complexity of the plant that we live on.

mrducky wrote:
thats why it is so much more worse, the sun radiates energy at an unfathomable rate, at the same time, energy escapes through the atmosphere. the only thing preventing sunlight just reverberating off earth is that thin layer of atmosphere and the GG. the heat energy given off by cars is near 0 in comparison with the sun, you can increase temperature by trapping the power of the sun or cool by reflecting. tell me a maximum approximate of all vehicle energy radiation. and give me the minimum approx of the sun energy radiation. if the sun is less then 10x greater, i salute you. if it is less then 100x greater then ill think slightly more. kk?


Are you saying that a bonfire will not have more to burn when a toothpick is thrown into the flames? Im sure the toothpick is thousands of times smaller than the logs that the bonfire is mainly fueled from, but to deny that a toothpick adds to the fuel source is just ignorant.

mrducky wrote:
yes yes, entropy, thermodynamics, carry on? earth isnt a closed system, sunlight comes in, sunlight comes off. energy is absorbed, energy is radiated

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.

We are now arguing between those two paragraphs. I am saying there are more sources, you are saying there is less reduction.

What I truly believe: We may be (and probably are) both correct.

My point: the majority of people who argue for GG are ignoring other possible factors and are therefor not helping the entire problem. That is a very ineffective way of battling the problem.

mrducky wrote:
it wont reach an equilibrium as the things are changing. sun increases in radiance, emissions may drop.


It may not reach it, but it moves towards it.

mrducky wrote:
there are other reasons, just not your one.
ive considered it and ive refuted it.


You have not refuted it, you have dismissed it.

mrducky wrote:
he is saying that 1/800 radiant energy on earth is produced by human energy output (the burning of coal, the combustion in engines, the etc of breaks..

this systematically spreads fecal matter all over your "theory"


Once again, 1/800 added is still more. To ignore that is to be ignorant.

Also once again, you are dismissing, not addressing. So much for fecal matter.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:28 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
msomeoneelsez wrote:
So you are denying that the processes I described add a large amount of heat to the system where there was no addition before? In other words (because it is late, I know I become confusing at this time of night) are you saying that these extra sources of heat are irrelevant in a debate about an increase in heat over a planet?

nein, ich spreche... im saying that such heat is simply radiant heat, heat that can be absorbed and kept in the earths atmosphere far better by another hectare of bare dirt. the heat you suggest now is transfered about until it leaves space. GG absorb heat and keep it in the system. yes an increase in energy from the stored energy (coal, petroleum) will increase the temperature, but its overall increase is instantly gone with the passing wind, the radiant energy is not stored, it is expended and burnt away. GG reflects the energy back and stores some in the atmosphere. im discounting it as it is not valid

...

Once again, yes, the GG theory may be correct, but it is in no way everything. To believe that it is the end all be all is to disregard the immense complexity of the plant that we live on.

i tip my hat to the sun, the ocean currents, the ice sheets, aerosol levels in the atmosphere responsible for global dimming, i also note that earth has natural temperature cycles.

mrducky wrote:
thats why it is so much more worse, the sun radiates energy at an unfathomable rate, at the same time, energy escapes through the atmosphere. the only thing preventing sunlight just reverberating off earth is that thin layer of atmosphere and the GG. the heat energy given off by cars is near 0 in comparison with the sun, you can increase temperature by trapping the power of the sun or cool by reflecting. tell me a maximum approximate of all vehicle energy radiation. and give me the minimum approx of the sun energy radiation. if the sun is less then 10x greater, i salute you. if it is less then 100x greater then ill think slightly more. kk?


Are you saying that a bonfire will not have more to burn when a toothpick is thrown into the flames? Im sure the toothpick is thousands of times smaller than the logs that the bonfire is mainly fueled from, but to deny that a toothpick adds to the fuel source is just ignorant.

ok, lets see what happens to the temperature (radiant energy) from that bonfire. heat rises so a a significant goes straight up into the atmosphere.
the rest is spread out around the camp side. touch the leaves around the campside, so much energy is released but they are still cold. the gases above said bonfire go differently. the temperature above the bonfire is amazingly hot as massive amounts of energy conversions are taking place. but go another 25m above and the heat is non existant (unless you have a nice bonfire). on a windy day where the heat is spread, the temp is even lower. the gases pass on the energy but at great loss. they are not an efficient medium for the fires energy to flow through.
so what, a couple N2 and O2 atoms are excited, they pass on this excited state to nearby atoms, omg, the energy is not transferred well, such a big surprise.


mrducky wrote:
yes yes, entropy, thermodynamics, carry on? earth isnt a closed system, sunlight comes in, sunlight comes off. energy is absorbed, energy is radiated

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.

lul what? sorry, but rephrase

We are now arguing between those two paragraphs. I am saying there are more sources, you are saying there is less reduction.

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

What I truly believe: We may be (and probably are) both correct.

My point: the majority of people who argue for GG are ignoring other possible factors and are therefor not helping the entire problem. That is a very ineffective way of battling the problem.

you are arguing that radiant energy from engines and brake pads have a visible effect on the atmosphere. im noting that the power of the sun is being ignored and that anything that helps trap such energy results in far more changes and thats where fixes should be directed at rather then at random tangents that probably have an effect, but that effect is unsubstantial.

mrducky wrote:
it wont reach an equilibrium as the things are changing. sun increases in radiance, emissions may drop.


It may not reach it, but it moves towards it.

mrducky wrote:
there are other reasons, just not your one.
ive considered it and ive refuted it.


You have not refuted it, you have dismissed it.

cause it sucks.

mrducky wrote:
he is saying that 1/800 radiant energy on earth is produced by human energy output (the burning of coal, the combustion in engines, the etc of breaks..

this systematically spreads fecal matter all over your "theory"


Once again, 1/800 added is still more. To ignore that is to be ignorant.

Also once again, you are dismissing, not addressing. So much for fecal matter.

how can i phrase this...
you are filling up buckets, your aim is to store up water.
one of them, has a fire hose, it sprays into the air and water runoffs away.
another has a swimming pool, and a firehose, they are spraying the water inside the swimming pool, yes water escapes from evaporation, but the fact that is stores water means that that person wins.

you are aiming to raise temperature, your aim is to raise temperature.
one of them, has an engine, the heat goes into the air and the heat escapes away through the atmosphere.
another has a large metal cube, and a bunsen burner, they are spraying the heat into the metal cube which as you know, is a good conductor of heat, yes heat escapes to maintain eqilibrium, but the fact that is stores heat means that that person wins. as this person has heat, the other has fast cooling atmosphere.


_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Why Plotter's always correct, Global Warming
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:54 pm 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
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.

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.

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

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.

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 :D) 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.

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...


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl