Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

    Originally posted by lektrode View Post
    IMHO - carbon isnt so much a problem in/for the atmosphere, but acidification of the oceans is another story entirely.
    its already having disastrous effects on coral reefs around the world...
    Apparently the reefs are not doing well at all. Most have 50 years given current trends. The new book, The Sixth Extinction, traces humanity's excesses back to killing off the Neanderthals 30,000 years ago. Fun little petri dish we're creating. Re: Neanderthals, apparently they were big and strong but never developed sharp projectiles.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

      Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
      Does anyone really believe that CO2 is a pollutant? It is fundamental to the cycle of life, uh did we forget our 8th grade biology?

      Yes, in certain quantities it is toxic as are most things, but pollutant, come on. To designate as a pollutant would require that we (science) knows the correct quantity/concentration and when we have too much ... which is of course the recurring refrain of the anthropogenic global warmer crowd.
      We can do something for those that worry about CO2...plant more trees in dry areas and slowly edges outward, start recovering the desertized areas of the world. It will produce cellulose products and fruit, while reclaiming the desert, and adding oxygen to the air. Done over a period of time, this influences rainfall in the dry areas, which would then lead to more arable land being available...all of which helps us live cleaner, and eventually produce more foodstuffs and other useful products.


      Uh oh, sorry...that would make much too much sense.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

        Originally posted by Forrest View Post
        We can do something for those that worry about CO2...plant more trees in dry areas and slowly edges outward, start recovering the desertized areas of the world. It will produce cellulose products and fruit, while reclaiming the desert, and adding oxygen to the air. Done over a period of time, this influences rainfall in the dry areas, which would then lead to more arable land being available...all of which helps us live cleaner, and eventually produce more foodstuffs and other useful products
        We took our spring break in Puerto Rico this year and spent a couple of days exploring the El Yunque rain forest. It creates the environment that provides fresh water for this country. The culture here isn't completely easy to understand from our US centric point of view but after a week, we've come to appreciate both the people and this place. To your idea, they have preserved their environment, their rain forest and their fresh water. It's not clear that the economy will thrive but this is a place worth anyone's time.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

          (I have not checked in here for a while so apologies for replying so late.)

          First, I have to say I completely agree about the 'solar panel bottle' part of the experiment. I found absolutely no relevance in that. I forgot to add in the description to just ignore the solar panels But please, let's not throw the baby out with a little bit of bathwater.

          Now about other stuff...

          Another thing, does CO2 radiate heat into empty space as quickly as a bottle of CO2 radiates it into air? I thought heat transfer requires a medium to occur at top speed and in the vacuum of space, there is no medium.
          CO2 radiates trapped energy into its environment (atmosphere), so there is no 'leaking into space'. When the source of energy is removed (no sunlight hitting the Earth), the trapped heat is radiated into the environment. THE POINT WAS, that if CO2 absorbs energy faster than normal air, than the opposite will happen when the source is removed, the CO2 will release it faster as well.

          In short, I see a bunch of holes in all of the things he said about Venus. First of all, he points out that the sulfuric acid gas layer (or whatever it is) reflects 90% of the incoming radiation. That combined with the very slow rotation, CO2's fast release of trapped heat and Earth-like wind speeds suggest to him that the temperature is caused by trapped volcanic heat not greenhouse. What he fails to consider is that it doesn't matter what the present temperature is caused by, what matters is how it got that way to begin with.
          I am afraid you overgeneralized what was said and focused only on his suggestions about what might be actually happening on Venus. In that you have missed the point of the discussion about Venus.
          THE POINT WAS: Venus can NOT be considered as a proof of 'greenhouse' gas effects. By understanding the mechanics of absorption/radiation from previous point, one can clearly see, that the temperatures on Venus can NOT be homogeneous throughout the surface due to CO2 trapping of external(suns) energy. The earth-like winds just can not transfer air masses that quickly. So yes, simply put, this suggests to him, that the temperature can not be caused by 'greenhouse'.

          Just watched the rest of this... At the end of the video there is a link to this website and a picture of it's paypal donation button. How is he affiliated with it? This website does not inspire confidence!

          http://www.distinti.com/distinti/index.htm
          The website is his, but is now I think completely outdated. He posts all his videos on his youtube channel.

          EDIT2: Ok so he doesn't just want to challenge climate change, but the existing theory of electromagnetism and by proxy gravity. I'm simply not qualified to judge whether or not this guy is a complete kook.
          Exactly. You are most likely not qualified. (but yet you implied he is a kook.)
          Sorry to be so harsh, but you really have to have some credible evidence before implying someone is a kook.
          I read a lot about problems with today's science and I can tell you that he is not the only guy who believes Maxwell should be revisited. But than again, such things are apparently sacred... until they aren't.
          I watched all the guys videos. I think he is sick of the way the world works today scientifically and economically. Yes he is working on a new model to show electromagnetism and gravity are linked, and yes for that one needs funding (not like Great hadron collider funding, but a 'donate button' funding). He also has cancer and is working fast on publishing his work.
          I don't know if that helps you with deciding what to think about the guy, but that's all the info I have on him.

          Basically, nothing he said mattered.
          I don't agree.

          I still don't know what to think about Climate Change. I see that a lot of well respected guys here doubt it, but I'm not clear on the reasoning. Who stands to gain from this again? Are they really funding so much bad climate science that hardly any contrarians can be found? That said, I also think geopolitically cutting back on fossil fuels while Russia and China ignore it is impossible. So ultimately I don't really care. I'm just curious and want to know the truth.
          The answer to your question is: Apparently yes. There is a LOT of bad science being funded today. And for a recent example: There is a computer program called SCIgen developed at MIT, with which a guy made completely gibberish scientific papers, created a made up author name and this name became 21st most cited author! So much for peer reviewed scientific work. (Here's the link)

          Regards,
          Vid
          Last edited by vjakopin; 06-14-14, 04:05 PM. Reason: Broken link

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

            Almost forgot! To hear it from a more credible source please check out Dr. Pierre Latour. He's credentials:

            Dr. Pierre Latour is a Chemical Engineer, Vice-Chairman, Principia-Scientific International and consultant for identifying, capturing and sustaining measurable benefits from process control, IT and CIM in the HPI by proper determination of operating conditions and the financial benefit of dynamic performance to support licensing solutions based on value-added, shared-risk shared-reward (SR2) business alliances. Justified and installed advanced process control on most oil refinery and petrochemical processes for 62 clients worldwide since 1966. Greenhouse Gas Theory skeptic: CO2 induced global warming and climate change.

            In addition, Dr. Latour is the Vice President of business development, marketing, engineering, projects and consulting at AspenTech, Dynamic Matrix Control Corp, Setpoint and Biles & Assoc. Chairman of Setpoint Japan and cofounded the last three firms. Further, he is an engineer at Shell Oil and DuPont; Captain, US Army and Apollo Program Simulation Branch Manager, NASA MSC, Houston. CONTROL Magazine Engineer of the Year 1999 and Purdue University Outstanding Chemical Engineer 2007. Authored 87 publications, Cimfuels editor for Fuels. PE TX & CA. Latour holds BS, ChE, VaTech, MS & PhD, ChE, Purdue University. www.principia-scientific.org

            Here is the video. (45 min. - For a fast version just check the 10 scientific observations that falsify global warming)

            On the effects of sun. Equally good!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

              [COLOR=#000000]
              Originally posted by [/COLOR
              davidstvz]Ok so he doesn't just want to challenge climate change, but the existing theory of electromagnetism and by proxy gravity. I'm simply not qualified to judge whether or not this guy is a complete kook.
              davidstvz

              Originally posted by vjakopin View Post
              Exactly. You are most likely not qualified. (but yet you implied he is a kook.)
              Sorry to be so harsh, but you really have to have some credible evidence before implying someone is a kook.
              I believe that I am sufficiently qualified to say that this guy is not only a kook, but he is also a terrible experimental scientist, based on the disastrously misleading experiment he conducts.

              In the first place, he is using a candle to generate CO2, and claiming that "the only thing in the bottle is CO2 and water". If he were even a passable chemist or chemical engineer, he would know that the very yellow flame that is burning is evidence of extremely inefficient combustion. (A blue, almost invisible flame, indicates more complete combustion.) Thus the majority of what he has added to his bottle is likely not CO2 at all, but volatilized wax molecules! (This error is further compounded by the fact that the heavier wax molecules will sink into the test bottle preferentially w.r.t. the CO2.) If he honestly doesn't remember this from his Chem. E program, he should seriously consider not doing technical work in that field again. This kind of thing is basic enough that it should be second nature to anyone who has ever used a bunsen burner professionally. The Alka Seltzer is a vastly more pure source of CO2 than the candle, though he explicitly states the exact opposite, and builds his entire case on that false assumption.

              He continues on with other ridiculously misleading experimental details. As davidstv correctly points out, he uses a solar panel, powering a resistive load, to heat the "reference" bottle. In this experiment, relative scale is crucial (you're balancing "albedo" radiation against solar energy build-up) and he just "modeled" a world where a significant percentage of the surface area of earth is covered by solar panels. This is neither possible, nor necessary, to entirely replace the energy that can be supplied by fossil fuels. If he had conducted this portion of the experiment to scale, the solar cell would be far smaller than any commercially available one, and the associated heat would be negligible to the point of immeasurability.

              I should also point out that the last time some chemists thought it was reasonable to alter elementary field theory to explain experiments conducted so badly that they produced irreproducible results, their names were Fleishman and Pons, and they claimed they had discovered cold fusion. Needless to say, they have since been proven to be not only bad scientists, but outright intentional frauds. I'm not saying that the understanding of elementary fields as we know it today won't see refinement, perhaps considerable, in the future. I do think that the probability that such refinement will come from someone who so obviously does not understand core scientific principles, much less the details of the theory they are trying to refute, is exceedingly low.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

                Originally posted by astonas View Post
                ....I believe that I am sufficiently qualified to say that this guy is not only a kook, but he is also a terrible experimental scientist, based on the disastrously misleading experiment he conducts.

                In the first place, he is using a candle to generate CO2, and claiming that "the only thing in the bottle is CO2 and water". If he were even a passable chemist or chemical engineer, he would know that the very yellow flame that is burning is evidence of extremely inefficient combustion.... .
                +1
                thanks for weighing in on this one Mr A (i'll 2nd/vouch for your qualifications as well)

                but wouldnt merely the candle burning be evidence that theres OBVIOUSLY MORE than "CO2 and water" in the bottle ?

                as in maybe some O, else howd it combust in the first place (or why i dont have any qualifications other than being able to sense BS when eye see it ;)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

                  Originally posted by lektrode View Post
                  +1
                  thanks for weighing in on this one Mr A (i'll 2nd/vouch for your qualifications as well)

                  but wouldnt merely the candle burning be evidence that theres OBVIOUSLY MORE than "CO2 and water" in the bottle ?

                  as in maybe some O, else howd it combust in the first place (or why i dont have any qualifications other than being able to sense BS when eye see it ;)
                  Thanks for your very generous endorsement, 'lektrode. And you're absolutely correct that there are quite a few errors in this guy's "experiment", many of which don't require much scientific training to spot -- just a good measure of New Hampshire (or should I say Hawaiian?) common sense and caution. ;) Well spotted!

                  In this case it's true that there will be other gasses like oxygen and nitrogen in the system. I didn't dwell on them since they presumably start out the same in both bottles, and O2 depletion isn't going to have as strong an impact on a greenhouse effect as CO2 buildup.

                  It should be pointed out, however, that there is in fact one takeaway from the demonstration that might be valid. The effect of particulates in the atmosphere (soot, wax molecules, etc.) can in fact have a net cooling effect. The problem is that such particles are heavy, and settle out, making the cooling effect temporary, while the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, creating lasting warming.

                  Some scientists who have given up on slowing the warming enough to prevent apocalyptic results have begun investigating this as a mitigation tactic, but the last time I looked, the numbers didn't seem too encouraging. It would require massive amounts of fine particulates to be launched high into the atmosphere on a continuing basis, with no CO2 created to get them there. You'd literally be blocking out a fraction of the sun's light over the surface of the earth.

                  Maybe it's time for a nuclear-energy powered electric railgun? Perhaps something like that will be the next generation's "moon shot". We live in interesting, if anxious, times.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Simple math, simple experiments, no interests = No end of the world scenario

                    Originally posted by astonas View Post
                    Thanks for your very generous endorsement, 'lektrode. And you're absolutely correct that there are quite a few errors in this guy's "experiment", many of which don't require much scientific training to spot -- just a good measure of New Hampshire (or should I say Hawaiian?) common sense and caution. ;) Well spotted!
                    .....
                    ...... We live in interesting, if anxious, times.
                    NH yes - Hawaiian no - with all due respect to the place/people - as there's a diff (major fighting words diff) tween being a resident of the state and the ethnic description/noun (as they are quite quick/fond of pointing out ;)

                    but glad to again have you piping up in these discussions, Mr A - missed seeing your .02 lately...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X