|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 15, 2018 14:14:31 GMT
yeah, and there are no places that will produce less food if the summers get a little hotter and dryer, and air conditioning doesn't consume any energy. According to OziRiS' theory, those areas should get a lot more rain because of all the additional water that is evaporating into the atmosphere. In fact, another advantage is that California could get washed away into the sea. maybe they will, maybe they won't. hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2018 14:26:45 GMT
According to OziRiS' theory, those areas should get a lot more rain because of all the additional water that is evaporating into the atmosphere. In fact, another advantage is that California could get washed away into the sea. maybe they will, maybe they won't. hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating. We're talking climate change here. It doesn't have to be based on any scientific evidence, just sound plausible to be considered fact. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 15, 2018 14:29:04 GMT
Right... Because less land to live and produce food on only creates problems for the people who used to be fed and housed where that land once was... We have a whole lot of land in the U.S. that could produce a lot more food if the growing season was just a little longer. And every degree-day increase in temperature reduces heating fuel consumption by millions of barrels of oil. Of course, you won't hear this from Al Gore. Which is great for certain parts of the US, but the US is not the entire world and is not detatched from the rest of us. You think there's a refugee crisis now? Just wait until some of the world's biggest coastal cities and countries become uninhabitable. And before you even start worrying about refugees from other countries, remember that many of the biggest coastal cities in the world are in your own country, so the first waves of refugees will be "internally displaced", as the UN calls them. A longer growing season sounds great in the short term, but how much good will that do you in the long term if the land you were supposed to farm on is suddenly needed to house millions of displaced people...? It's the surface area that increases evaporation, not volume. Water under the surface doesn't evaporate. Now you have a valid point that warmer water will increase the evaporation rate. I didn't say volume increased evaporation. I said more water = more water vapor. Okay, I guess I see how that's a bit vague and could have been misinterpreted as meaning volume rather than surface area... Point taken. I'll try to be clearer in the future. And you're absolutely right. Surface area is the deciding factor and as more ice melts and ocean water expands onto what used to be land, surface area increases, leading to more evaporation at a faster rate. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 15, 2018 14:44:41 GMT
maybe they will, maybe they won't. hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating. We're talking climate change here. It doesn't have to be based on any scientific evidence, just sound plausible to be considered fact. like the claim that a hotter climate will result in the whole world turning into a tropical paradise? |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 15, 2018 14:53:33 GMT
maybe they will, maybe they won't. hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating. We're talking climate change here. It doesn't have to be based on any scientific evidence, just sound plausible to be considered fact. Wait, what...? Heat causes water to evaporate, cold causes water vapor to condensate. That's basic chemistry. Taking that to the logical next level and saying, "hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating," isn't based on scientific evidence...? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2018 15:00:04 GMT
We're talking climate change here. It doesn't have to be based on any scientific evidence, just sound plausible to be considered fact. Wait, what...? Heat causes water to evaporate, cold causes water vapor to condensate. That's basic chemistry. Taking that to the logical next level and saying, "hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating," isn't based on scientific evidence...? More basic chemistry, evaporation causing cooling. But let's ignore that because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's part of the NEGATIVE feedback loop. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2018 15:01:38 GMT
We're talking climate change here. It doesn't have to be based on any scientific evidence, just sound plausible to be considered fact. like the claim that a hotter climate will result in the whole world turning into a tropical paradise? Not my idea, but the global warming folks keep talking about this greenhouse effect. Most greenhouses I've ever been in were pretty tropical feeling. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 15, 2018 15:21:47 GMT
Wait, what...? Heat causes water to evaporate, cold causes water vapor to condensate. That's basic chemistry. Taking that to the logical next level and saying, "hotter air holds a lot more water vapor before it starts precipitating," isn't based on scientific evidence...? More basic chemistry, evaporation causing cooling. But let's ignore that because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's part of the NEGATIVE feedback loop. No, let's ignore it because it's irrelevant to the discussion of climate. You're making the logical error of equating a short term local phenomenon with a long term global one. It's true that evaporation causes cooling. But that vapor has to go somewhere and where it goes, it traps heat. If you walk into a greenhouse wearing soaked clothes on a hot day, the water will evaporate from your clothing, causing you to cool down. That's the immediate local effect and it feels nice as long as it's going on, but once all the water has evaporated off your body (and assuming there aren't a lot of holes in the greenhouse that will let the vapor out), the temperature inside the greenhouse will go up because of the added vapor in the air. That's the "global" effect. And before you say, "Yeah, but you introduced water that wasn't there to begin with," we're doing the same by melting ice at the poles, so the argument stands. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 15, 2018 15:23:02 GMT
like the claim that a hotter climate will result in the whole world turning into a tropical paradise? Not my idea, but the global warming folks keep talking about this greenhouse effect. Most greenhouses I've ever been in were pretty tropical feeling. now that my parents are retired, they move all the plants they want to keep out of theirs in August, close the doors and turn off the ventilators. it provides great organic insect control. they melted their heating thermostat and telephone, the first year, because they didn't realize it would get THAT hot inside it. (with the ventilators on, it tends to be 20 degrees above ambient temperature in the summer) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2018 16:00:15 GMT
More basic chemistry, evaporation causing cooling. But let's ignore that because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's part of the NEGATIVE feedback loop. No, let's ignore it because it's irrelevant to the discussion of climate. You're making the logical error of equating a local phenomenon with a global one. It's true that evaporation causes cooling. But that vapor has to go somewhere and where it goes, it traps heat. If you walk into a greenhouse wearing soaked clothes on a hot day, the water will evaporate from your clothing, causing you to cool down. That's the immediate local effect and it feels nice as long as it's going on, but once all the water has evaporated off your body (and assuming there aren't a lot of holes in the greenhouse that will let the vapor out), the temperature inside the greenhouse will go up because of the added vapor in the air. That's the "global" effect. And before you say, "Yeah, but you introduced water that wasn't there to begin with," we're doing the same by melting ice at the poles, so the argument stands. No, let's not ignore it because it is very relevant. First, it you have wet clothing in a very humid environment, the water will NOT evaporate. This is the reason evaporative cooling systems (swamp coolers) only work in low humidity environments. In fact, when the air reaches saturation (100% relative humidity) there is no further evaporation possible. It's not the water vapor in a green house that keeps it warm, it's the insulation of the glass that allows solar energy in but keeps the heat from escaping. If you have a perfectly dry greenhouse it will get hotter than one that has a lot of water in it. The dry greenhouse will "feel" cooler because your sweat can evaporate faster, but the actual temperature of a greenhouse with a lot of water will be lower. At least until all the water evaporates, at which point, the two greenhouses will be at the same temperature although the dry one will still feel cooler. When they refer to the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere, they are talking about how the water vapor and other pollutants, create a layer in the upper atmosphere that acts like the glass in a greenhouse. The pollutants allow solar energy to pass through but keep radiant energy trapped below. Another fact, the earth uses negative feedback to keep the environment in equilibrium. That's not to say that some changes will not produce warming, but the Earth's environmental system tries to prevent that through negative feedback. I'm not saying that the negative feedback will completely prevent long term warming, but the effects of that warming are greatly reduced. This is why, in spite of the global warning folks warnings that the polar ice caps would have melted years ago, they are still there. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 15, 2018 22:26:53 GMT
This is why, in spite of the global warning folks warnings that the polar ice caps would have melted years ago, they are still there. Just a lot smaller - along with most Ski resorts. The problem is that when the sea turns even warmer, methane-ice will start to "melt" and release tremendous amounts of natural gas which will cause more warming. But the real problem isn't so much the warmer climate. The real problem is the change of weather patterns. More storms, more floods. In Germany there is a huge pile of dinosaur bones which was discovered recently. The dinosaur population was wiped out due to an immense storm. A storm much bigger than what mankind has ever seen, caused by the warmer climate back then. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 15, 2018 22:45:51 GMT
This is why, in spite of the global warning folks warnings that the polar ice caps would have melted years ago, they are still there. Just a lot smaller - along with most Ski resorts. The problem is that when the sea turns even warmer, methane-ice will start to "melt" and release tremendous amounts of natural gas which will cause more warming. But the real problem isn't so much the warmer climate. The real problem is the change of weather patterns. More storms, more floods. In Germany there is a huge pile of dinosaur bones which was discovered recently. The dinosaur population was wiped out due to an immense storm. A storm much bigger than what mankind has ever seen, caused by the warmer climate back then. I think I read about that storm. Something like 40 days of rain. That will teach those dinosaurs for driving all those big SUVs. Or was the global warming back then caused by dinosaur farts? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 16, 2018 3:16:28 GMT
it occurred to me today that you make your living selling air conditioning equipment for ambulances.
maybe that's why you are seeing the bright side of the potential for a permanent heat wave.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 16, 2018 4:27:31 GMT
it occurred to me today that you make your living selling air conditioning equipment for ambulances. maybe that's why you are seeing the bright side of the potential for a permanent heat wave. We also make heating systems for ambulances, so either way, I win.  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 16, 2018 7:25:59 GMT
Melting ice that is floating on water, or in water, I suspect a melted ice berg only has the same volume of water as it displaces? I used to think that too, but it's actually wrong. As water heats up, it expands in volume, meaning sea levels won't just rise by the amount of ice that's melted into the oceans. They'll rise even further as that added water reaches higher and higher temperatures. Not only that, but with all the talk of CO 2 and methane, people tend to forget that the most potent greenhouse gas we have on this planet is water vapor. Heat up the planet and you melt more ice. Melt more ice and you get more water. More water gives you more water vapor. More water vapor traps more heat. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's called a positive feedback loop. Water Expands when frozen. The polar caps are still at the triple point of water, 0.01degC, most of the time, therefore it can exist in Fluid Solid and cold steam vapour humidity at the same time. As much of the time the air around there is less than freezing, its still going to be cold... If the ice melts, it does not have enough energy in it to expand as its heated up, whilst its still at the polar caps. Unless the world increases in temp to within the range that standing water is hot enough to make tea in other places, like the equator, the polar caps will still be around the freezing mark for quite a while, the water will therefore remain at less than 1degC, so wont expand as ice melts?. Icebergs melt mostly where the water is less than 10degC, therefore the water wont expand as much as you may think. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 16, 2018 7:35:51 GMT
Just a lot smaller - along with most Ski resorts. The problem is that when the sea turns even warmer, methane-ice will start to "melt" and release tremendous amounts of natural gas which will cause more warming. But the real problem isn't so much the warmer climate. The real problem is the change of weather patterns. More storms, more floods. In Germany there is a huge pile of dinosaur bones which was discovered recently. The dinosaur population was wiped out due to an immense storm. A storm much bigger than what mankind has ever seen, caused by the warmer climate back then. I think I read about that storm. Something like 40 days of rain. That will teach those dinosaurs for driving all those big SUVs. Or was the global warming back then caused by dinosaur farts? Interesting discussion, but, there is increasing evidence that our own solar system was "Influenced" recently, by a huge solar storm, emanating from the centre of our own galaxy, Sagittarius A Star, that may have "burped" around that time, and heated the whole galaxy, maybe as much as ripping the entire atmosphere from Mars, but out own magnetic field protected earth, but not so much that it may have influenced the thermal activity inside the planet, to create a lot of volcanic activity, therefore, it wasnt Dino farts, but more volcano farts. Too much Volcano, too much dust, to little sunlight, "Global winter", and ice age. This is a theory under investigation at this time, so may be discounted, but may not. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 16, 2018 12:02:53 GMT
Just a lot smaller - along with most Ski resorts. The problem is that when the sea turns even warmer, methane-ice will start to "melt" and release tremendous amounts of natural gas which will cause more warming. But the real problem isn't so much the warmer climate. The real problem is the change of weather patterns. More storms, more floods. In Germany there is a huge pile of dinosaur bones which was discovered recently. The dinosaur population was wiped out due to an immense storm. A storm much bigger than what mankind has ever seen, caused by the warmer climate back then. I think I read about that storm. Something like 40 days of rain. That will teach those dinosaurs for driving all those big SUVs. Or was the global warming back then caused by dinosaur farts? Must have been like the part about Noah in the Bible. Maybe Noah was Herpetophob... The problem is that plants (and animals) filtered out all the "greenhouse gasses" and deposited them underground. The climate improved dramatically over a very long time. Now mankind is digging up all this stuff and releasing it back into the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 16, 2018 12:14:18 GMT
I think I read about that storm. Something like 40 days of rain. That will teach those dinosaurs for driving all those big SUVs. Or was the global warming back then caused by dinosaur farts? Interesting discussion, but, there is increasing evidence that our own solar system was "Influenced" recently, by a huge solar storm, emanating from the centre of our own galaxy, Sagittarius A Star, that may have "burped" around that time, and heated the whole galaxy, maybe as much as ripping the entire atmosphere from Mars, but out own magnetic field protected earth, but not so much that it may have influenced the thermal activity inside the planet, to create a lot of volcanic activity, therefore, it wasnt Dino farts, but more volcano farts. Too much Volcano, too much dust, to little sunlight, "Global winter", and ice age. This is a theory under investigation at this time, so may be discounted, but may not. This is an alternative explanation to the KT-line event. This is a visible thin layer inside the ground with no Dinosaur remains above it and many right below or inside the line. The line itself was created by the catastrophe which wiped out the Dinosaurs. The Bone-pile event in the area of Rüthen Germany had happened a very long time earlier than the final KT event. While the KT event has a very likely cosmic cause, the Rüthen incident was more local and had a "natural" cause by the climate. This indicates where global warming may lead to (man-made or not). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 16, 2018 15:08:33 GMT
the point to be made is that some people think of the "just a little chilly" times when they think of global warming (or more accurately climate change) and don't think of the "too hot" times, of which there will be more. they don't think about the times it is too cold for snow - and realize it may no longer be too cold to snow.
and most importantly, they don't consider that what we think of as "nice" weather is defined as not being extreme - and it is our particular current balance of climate that gives us less extreme weather than a shift in either direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jul 8, 2018 9:28:24 GMT
I was revisiting this thread and found the original question was not really answered: I was going to open a new thread as a Myth, but, decided I needed to run it past the lot of us, in order to sort out truth from fiction. Waste plastic. If its burnt, it produces "Toxic" gasses. How toxic, and could a catalytic converter deal with it?. I ask, as I am wondering, Plastics come from the petrol-chemical industry, yes?. So therefore, they are e heavy oil product?. Correct me as we go along here, we need clarification. So why can not plastics be incinerated if you had the right exhaust filters on the incinerator?. I know it cant be as simple as just sticking a catalytic converter from a car exhaust up the chimney on a standard home fire to deal with the problem of waste plastic, but, what if it was?. Instead of consigning huge amounts of very slow degrading plastic problems to landfill, why not a home incinerator, and convert the cr@p to heat, and maybe a few bits of residue, that take up a LOT less space in landfill?. If you have ideas, let me know. Final intent, send out a fleet of fishing vessels to catch all the waste plastic in the ocean, and harvest the fuel with intent of converting it to energy and cleaning up the oceans as we go. True, plastic is currently made from oil. Plastic is just hydrocarbon molecules altered in a way to become plastic. This is done by heating and cooling while mixing various acids and other chemicals in. You don't need oil to do that, most hydrocarbons can do the trick, the waste from making gasoline is just the most cheapest way to do that. You can also use natural gas or biological waste products to make plastic, it is just much more expensive to do. Before mankind started to use plastic excessively, the waste products of oil refineries was simply burned, either just wasted in a big flame on top of the refinery or burned in boilers inside factories or large ships. This was also really bad for the environment so making plastic was not a bad idea at all. Nowadays, most of the waste products from a simple refinery process can be broken up to make "natural" gas, gasoline and diesel. Boilers and heavy-oil engines are not used any more in factories and ships. Almost all cargo ships are now retrofitted to run on Diesel. A modern turbo-Diesel is less than half the size and much more powerful than a classic heavy-oil engine. So cargo ships can have more payload and also can reach much higher speeds. Usually they cut the cargo ship in half right in front of the engine room, swap the heavy-oil engines with diesel engines and then add some sections to stretch the ship. This makes the cargo ship even more economic since it now can haul up to 1/3 more cargo in up to 40% less time. A catalytic converter doesn't do any miracle at all. A catalytic converter is a material which can cause a chemical reaction without changing itself. Most catalytic converters are doing something which a simple flame would do. A car catalytic converter just ignites exhaust fumes, that's all. In the 1970s, some car manufacturers used a different way to "clean" the exhaust fumes. While some of those systems worked really great and were in fact superior to a catalytic converter, environmental laws rated cars in three categories: "Diesel, with catalytic converter and without catalytic converter" so the alternative ways were doomed. What happens inside an engine is that a fuel/air mixture is ignited under very high pressure. While still burning, the pressure rises even higher, over 1000 PSI! Early engines had a very low compression ratio. The pressure inside the engine was low. A big part of the fuel didn't properly burn and aromatic hydrocarbons (toxic) were produced in large quantities. This is why very old cars smell so "funny". To increase fuel economy, the compression ratio (and overall pressure) inside the engine was increased a lot. Also the quality of fuels had improved dramatically. Now engines fully burned most of the fuel the toxic aromatic hydrocarbons were gone. On the other hand, excessive oxygen reacted to nitrogen due to the high pressure, NO₁ and NO₂ was produced in large quantities. Since Nitrogen is an inert gas, is a result of a forced marriage under pressure. So NO x will divorce eventually and NO₁ and NO₂ can spontaneously react to O₃ with the help of some sunlight energy. NO x and O₃ is really unhealthy since it can trigger chemical reactions inside the body, e.g. steal carbon from cell walls or alter nutrients into poisons. And this is what the catalytic converter is for. By "asphyxiating" the engine, it can't burn all the fuel any more just like early engines. They produce less NO x just like the early engines and produce a lot of CO₁. The catalytic converter then burns this mixture and the NO x gives its oxygen to the CO₁. The result is - in theory - just natural and perfectly safe CO₂. The trouble is that this can't work at all RPM and load situations. Also like the early engines did, aromatic (toxic) hydrocarbons are back. So the engine must still have some oxygen left to allow the catalytic converter burn those to H₂O and CO₂. But this produces more NO x in the first place and then there is not enough CO₁ left to deal with the NO x! By dumping more fuel into the engine, more CO₁ is made using more fuel decreasing fuel economy dramatically. And this is the reason why the "3-liter car" (3l per 100km) or 100mpg car which was announced before the catalytic converter became mandatory was never released. This is not a conspiracy of the oil industry, you can blame the governments for this! I am not an expert, but I have managed to make and enjoy an illegal 55+mpg car which was very practical and even sporty. I didn't had to fear that the oil industry would take it away, the government would had done this and fine me for driving an illegal car without insurance on top. The trick was to make use of the fuel economy capability of modern engine technology without caring for the catalytic converter. The hard part was just to figure out how the car industry had planned to make 100mpg cars before they had to install catalytic converters and fulfill ridiculous emission standards. So when burning plastic, a catalytic converter can't help you with most toxic fumes. You would need to get the mix of components in the fumes just right so you are unable to burn the plastic efficiently and you can't burn random plastics at all. Also I doubt that it ever works with plastic since unlike gasoline, plastic contains a very wide variety of molecules creating a lot of different toxins, some of them too stable to react inside a catalytic converter. |
|
