Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

Thanks Cem for that very interesting and thought provoking scientific analysis 8-) 8-) 8-) .

 

[Nickbat]

I'm intrigued that you separate deforestation from the CO₂ debate since a main feature of deforestation is reduced CO₂ absorption and O₂ creation.

I am concerned about the loss of habitat in terms of wildlife and indigenous populations, as well as localised climate change (the reduction of snowfall on Kilimanjaro has blamed on deforestation which has reduced precipitation at the summit). Whilst there would also be loss of some CO2 sequestration capacity, the overall increase in the global biosphere, as witnessed recently by Nasa probes, would probably offset it. In other words, the loss of habitat is a serious issue, the collateral loss of CO2 sequestration, in isolation, somewhat less so.
Hope that answers your query. 

[zirk]

 :-? :-? Ok, guys your starting to scare me now.

[cem_devecioglu]

ok.. although last night I was sleepless because of neighbours, I didnt bother to open the pc and check oof  :-/ with the hope of sleeping at any chance..

My intention is not to start another slanging match but to share my info and views  which I couldnt post on oof last night..


dont know how many of you has suffered thermodynamics exams or lectures in the past................

Thank's for that cem, can you tell me what it means in practical terms as I know nothing about thermodynamics.

Hi Zulu

very briefly , thermodynamics is a branch of physics that studies heat and energy conversion..

energy conversion includes some basical definitions which must be understood..

these are simply temperature, energy , enthalpy , entropy..

energy : measure of work..

enthalpy : amount of heat transferred between the system and the environment

entropy : disorder of molecules and tendency for lower energy state.. an increasing/expanding volume of molecules means increased entropy..


I can go in more details but I dont think members will like it..

[Gaffers]

Cem, firstly your english has come on leaps and bounds.  I doubt I would have been able to explain the same thing in French, my second language, and I am considered almost native 

Secondly I think it is nice to have proper reasoned debate rather than heated discussions or worse.  I pulled out of the last thread as it was getting unnecessarily nasty and I had a déja vu moment.. To have such an informative description is just what the doctor ordered 

Lastly, Debs with Cem and Master Zulu around you have competition as Brianiac extraordinaire 

[cem_devecioglu]

This is getting to be an intractable problem made more so as the science charged with investigating it has been devalued to a large extent by the by the questionable agenda of so many groups/individuals unconnected to the scientific community.
there may be groups which may want to abuse scientific facts but this alone wont change the fact and results .. as I explained above..

The eye has effectively been taken off the ball

yep.. but thats true for many subjects..and also wont prevent things happening..
and the very real problems that humanity will face in the near future such as a stable food supply, continued availability of potable water, increasingly unstable political systems, increasing use of capital violence to express will, ever more fragile global financial arrangements and so on will bite hard as time goes on.

bad news but inevitably will happen..


Insofar as AGW is concerned my take on this was expressed in that other thread (Part excerpt);


I have no problem with accepting that there are indeed changes happening to the climatic balance we've all experienced and enjoyed over the recent past.  As far as I’m concerned however this is part of the natural cycle driven by a living planet powered by its sun

thats really questionable.. as we are increasing to release energy more and more everyday..which cant be easily neglected..

 - the only reason incidentally for earth's ability to support life in the first place -   - our impact in terms of atmospheric pollutants which may contribute to an overall heating (if this does indeed exist in any extensive way) is in my view minimal.

without a real calculation "minimal" definition must be used carefully imo..

Where we have altered things to the detriment of the planet seems to spring from avarice and the lust for power and influence: The stripping of the rain forest for gain, deforestation of vast swaths of land for the purposes of mining/building, the constant probing of the planet in the search for energy sources.

The list is extensive but always seems to depend on the use, and in some cases the over use, of planetary resources.  This in my view is more worrying than the alleged overheating of the global atmosphere by what we’ve done over the last one hundred years or so.

Aside from this, I’m surprised that many apparently sensible people appear to accept, without question, the assertions of individuals/groups who maintain that the science is ‘settled’ in terms of AGW.  Since when is science ever settled?

when the necessary measurement and calculations are done and proofs are in front of our eyes real scientists will accept and settle.. but not the fake scientists with salaries from specific sources :-/


And, despite CEM’s rather involved piece, I'm still of this view.

[cem_devecioglu]

Cem, firstly your english has come on leaps and bounds.  I doubt I would have been able to explain the same thing in French, my second language, and I am considered almost native 

Secondly I think it is nice to have proper reasoned debate rather than heated discussions or worse.  I pulled out of the last thread as it was getting unnecessarily nasty and I had a déja vu moment.. To have such an informative description is just what the doctor ordered 

Lastly, Debs with Cem and Master Zulu around you have competition as Brianiac extraordinaire 

Thanks Gaffers

[Dishevelled Den]

Hi Zulu

very briefly , thermodynamics is a branch of physics that studies heat and energy conversion..
energy conversion includes some basical definitions which must be understood..
these are simply temperature, energy , enthalpy , entropy..
energy : measure of work..
enthalpy : amount of heat transferred between the system and the environment
entropy : disorder of molecules and tendency for lower energy state.. an increasing/expanding volume of molecules means increased entropy..

I can go in more details but I dont think members will like it..

Thank you cem but this would remain a subject difficult for me to grasp.

In terms of AGW (and this remains a crucial component of these discussions) it would be my view that the potential for a global temperature increase leading to climatic change (along with other phenomena) would more reasonably rest with energy converted from the heat generated by the molten core of the planet and by the sun both being released into the environment.

As these two factors appear, at least to me, to be capable of easily outweighing any contribution we would make as a result of burning energy to survive and move about, can recent human activity really compete with those massive forces in any meaningful way to destabilise the climatic balance in the way alleged?

[cem_devecioglu]

Hi Cem,

It's good that you want to talk about the real science and not enter a slanging match!

I don't have the time (due to work) to post much at this juncture, but I would point out that greenhouse gases do not, as I understand it, act together as a conventional blanket since they do not trap convective heat. Also, 70% of the planet is ocean, which is worth bearing in mind when we talk of the effects of urbanisation on the planet as a whole.

I addition to the UHI effect, there are also land use changes which have an effect on local climates, so I do not deny that humanity has no climatic effect at all, just that the overall effect is not potentially catastrophic. I do believe, though, that the fixation on CO2 as the number 1 problem (which i do not believe it is) is diverting attention from real ecological problems such as deforestation.

I think the link below is excellent. It answers many of the questions about the greenhouse effect in layman's terms.

http://[highlight]http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/[/highlight]

Now, back to work....        

now some parts from the link

So, humans aren't affecting the planet or its temperature.
Whoa! We didn't say that at all.  


This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that's a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects.   yess
The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there's land use change which can be variable depending on latitude -- replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption. 

There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive

nope.. all negative.. human based structures absorb more radiation from the sun compared to nature..


and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true -- that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and "global warming."

nope.. these are all combined effects and you cant cut critical parameters from the eqn

Remember:
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.

Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.

thats purely an assumption not science as CO2 levels continously increasing and the ratio cant be fixed forever.. thats just for a specific point at time dimension :-/


Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.

Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.

Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.

Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).

Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.

Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.

:-? thats completely wrong.. 

how do you define saturated.. you change the molecular composition ratios continously which can handle different enthalpy levels how can you say that.. :-?


Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.
 


about that link I'll briefly say that not bad for a student ..

but honestly for real proof you need numerical simulation solutions to differential equation models matching to real measurements of millions of rows of real data .. Thats what we do in petroleum reservoir
fields for future well flow prediction..  :-/ :-/

ps : you need multiple server systems a bit  stronger than the ones used in meteorology and some! programmers..

[cem_devecioglu]

Hi Zulu

very briefly , thermodynamics is a branch of physics that studies heat and energy conversion..
energy conversion includes some basical definitions which must be understood..
these are simply temperature, energy , enthalpy , entropy..
energy : measure of work..
enthalpy : amount of heat transferred between the system and the environment
entropy : disorder of molecules and tendency for lower energy state.. an increasing/expanding volume of molecules means increased entropy..

I can go in more details but I dont think members will like it..

Thank you cem but this would remain a subject difficult for me to grasp.

In terms of AGW (and this remains a crucial component of these discussions) it would be my view that the potential for a global temperature increase leading to climatic change (along with other phenomena) would more reasonably rest with energy converted from the heat generated by the molten core of the planet and by the sun both being released into the environment.

As these two factors appear, at least me, to be capable of easily outweighing any contribution we would make as a result of burning energy to survive and move about, can recent human activity really compete with those massive forces in any meaningful way to destabilise the climatic balance in the way alleged?

yes.. if you open the switch for some nuclear reactors for a test like russians  at the same time you can heat the athmosphere more than enough 

[Dishevelled Den]

there may be groups which may want to abuse scientific facts but this alone wont change the fact and results .. as I explained above

Providing we accept that the 'science' governing the AGW part of climatic change has not been perverted or contaminated by the influence of such groups.

but thats true for many subjects..and also wont prevent things happening.

bad news but inevitably will happen..

My point regarding these quotes is that these are the important matters we should be worrying about rather than AGW as the resultant turmoil from these factors will perhaps hold greater danger for us all.

thats really questionable.. as we are increasing to release energy more and more everyday..which cant be easily neglected.

That's perhaps a reasonable enough concern
but will it doom humankind in the way suggested by those proponents of AGW - that's a big ask considering the controversial way in which this whole scientific investigation has been handled.

without a real calculation "minimal" definition must be used carefully imo

I would suggest that this term is as qualified as those being used to suggest that there's unequivocal proof that certain factors are conspiring to doom mankind as a result of AGW.

when the necessary measurement and calculations are done and proofs are in front of our eyes real scientists will accept and settle.. but not the fake scientists with salaries from specific sources

That's a tremendous leap of faith there cem in a dynamic constantly evolving environment and to say that there can never be any alternative view is misguided in my view.

[Banjax]

Cem, Cem, Cem......bringing physics into this debate is a bit like bringing a gun to a knife fight - totally unfair, totally one-sided....just not cricket in my opinion 

But very interesting all the same, and perhaps we can have a proper debate without all the screaming rhetoric and abuse..........obviously I'll jump in if you need screaming rhetoric and abuse, but you're doing fine with this scientific angle

[Chris_H]

I'm not sure if there was actually a question in there Cem?

1 Don't forget that conservation of energy theorem requires that you consider the whole system (but you can choose the system boundaries). 

Yes..

2 So if you are considering the earth as the system, then you have to combine external energy inputs from outside the system (the sun etc.) with the losses out of that system (radiation from the far side, loss of matter, gain of matter (meteorites etc.).

main energy sources are considered as you can see above..and the system boundries are above crust and below athmospheric-space boundry -ionosphere etc

3 What mankind does is not creating energy, he converts it by burning fossil fuels, converting matter to energy (nuclear fission etc.). 

Yes..


4 These are entirely within the system defined as the earth so produce no net energy change according to the law.

no.. when you burn fossil fuels you transfer energy from underground to the system where we live..

...possibly 

I can't see the benefit in excluding the earth's body from your system as there must be considerable heat transfer between core and crust, crust and atmosphere.  Also, purely from a geometric point of view, it is totally enclosed by the atmosphere.

[cem_devecioglu]

I'm not sure if there was actually a question in there Cem?

1 Don't forget that conservation of energy theorem requires that you consider the whole system (but you can choose the system boundaries). 

Yes..

2 So if you are considering the earth as the system, then you have to combine external energy inputs from outside the system (the sun etc.) with the losses out of that system (radiation from the far side, loss of matter, gain of matter (meteorites etc.).

main energy sources are considered as you can see above..and the system boundries are above crust and below athmospheric-space boundry -ionosphere etc

3 What mankind does is not creating energy, he converts it by burning fossil fuels, converting matter to energy (nuclear fission etc.). 

Yes..


4 These are entirely within the system defined as the earth so produce no net energy change according to the law.

no.. when you burn fossil fuels you transfer energy from underground to the system where we live..

...possibly 

I can't see the benefit in excluding the earth's body from your system as there must be considerable heat transfer between core and crust, crust and atmosphere.  Also, purely from a geometric point of view, it is totally enclosed by the atmosphere.

excluding the volcanoes I assume the earths crust behave like an insulator for the vessel in my model.. (although not that simple) .. but actually earths internal energy is dropping very slowly meaning that it also transfers heat to the system..

[cem_devecioglu]

Cem, Cem, Cem......bringing physics into this debate is a bit like bringing a gun to a knife fight - totally unfair, totally one-sided....just not cricket in my opinion 

But very interesting all the same, and perhaps we can have a proper debate without all the screaming rhetoric and abuse..........obviously I'll jump in if you need screaming rhetoric and abuse, but you're doing fine with this scientific angle