O/T: Up Yours

Page 7 of 11  
Robatoy wrote:

Ask the guy who lives next door to you...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WTF? That's a little old lady who lives next door to him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 26, 8:40 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

As you know, we have always agreed on that point. Your implication that we disagree on it, is simply dishonest. I had thought better of you.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of causality if indeed you believe that whenever one event follows another, that proves the second was caused by the first. Mind you, I don't really think that you do, but your refusal to discuss the issue is unfortunate. It implies that you know that if you do engage in an honest discussion, you will inevitably have to awknowledge truths that you prefer to deny,.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, we *don't* agree on that point. You claim we do, but you keep on ignoring that fact, and insisting that the effect indeed precedes the cause.

You have a serious inability to comprehend written English if you can entertain even for a moment the notion that I believe that -- I've explicitly said, several times, that I don't believe that.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding that the point is that when one event follows another, that proves that the *first* was NOT caused by the *second*?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

<Puts on striped shirt and blows whistle loudly>
Gentlemen -
Please place a "yes" or "no" below the following propositions:
1) "A follows B" - in and of itself - says nothing one way or the other as to whether B *causes* A:
Doug Says: Fred Says:
2) "A follows B" is sufficient to demonstrate that A *cannot* have caused B:
Doug Says: Fred Says:
3) "A and B" happen at the same time - in and of itself - says nothing about whether or not they had a *common* or *related* cause:
Doug Says: Fred Says:
4) "A, B, and many other things exist and demonstrate complexity. This clearly demonstrates a complete lack of first cause and can be sufficiently explained by the "magic" of self-organization, evolution, and punctuated equilibrium:
This is the "logic" of the modern so-called rational atheist. I threw it in to remind you guys that all reasoning systems proceed from premises. You're trying to argue fine points of logic in which you are largely in agreement and are avoiding the 1000 lb elephant in the room: Your premises are different.
Presuppositionally Yours, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct
Correct
Correct
Disagree
Which is why I've decided it's a waste of time to continue arguing with Fred.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 26, 2:23 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Yes. Hence my questions for Mr Miller.

Yes, though it is insufficient to demonstrate that another event identical to A cannot cause another event identical to B under other circumstances.

Yes.
Irrelevant.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 26, 2:23 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I think that with a modicum of effort you can justify the statements I have asked you to justify. Your reticence is the result of a growing realization on your part that I can use a similar justification for statements you'd rather not have considered. I'm going to make them anyways.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I disagree. Our premises quite similar.
That is why Mr Miller refuses to discuss them further.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 7:07 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to establish which is cause and which is effect?
As you will recall you wrote: " ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the CAUSE." and "increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing temperatures, not the cause."
You do seem to be pretty convinced on that point. I would like to know how you established that.

No. Since greenhouse gases *can* affect temperature, the question of whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is relevant to both the question of cause and effect and to Han's remark to the effect that sound science has established that rising carbon dioxide concentrations cause temperatures to rise.
So, with that context in mind, is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

No, you made a general statement cause and effect based on a particular data set from the past,and argue that it disproves what Han said was true, in general, about carbon dioxide and temperature changes.
It is not clear how you apply those observations from the past to disprove Han's remarks about the general case.
Please explain.

No. However, rather than assume I understand the relevance of your suggestion I do need you to explain the relevance in the context of the data from ~1940 to ~1980, during which time carbon dioxide rose while the temperature did not.

We disagree. But discussion of the Seuss effect is premature.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's explain those scientific principles-- the law of conservation of energy, and spectroscopy.
All heat transfer is driven by a temperature difference. Heat transfers from the sun to the surface of the Earth because the surface of the earth is cooler than the sun. Heat transfers from the Sun to the atmosphere fo the earth because the atmosphere of the Earth is cooler than the Sun. Heat transfers from the surface of the Earth to space because the temperature of the surface of the Earth is greater than space. Heat transfers from the atmosphere of the earth to space because the temperature of the atmosphere is greater than that of space. Heat transfers from the atmosphere of the earth to the surface of the earth, or vice versa, depending on which is cooler, typically this transfer is from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere.
The net rate at which a body radiates energy is proportionate to the fourth power of its temperature. The frequency distribution is governed by the Stefan -Boltzman relationship, the peak frequency of that distribution rises with temperature.
Conservation of energy requires that for any system in which heat is exchanged only by radiation, emissivity will equal absorptivity for any body that is in thermal equilibrium.
If the emissivity is greater than the absorptivity the body will lose energy until equilibrium is restored. If the emissivity is less than the absorptivity the temperature of the body will rise until equilibrium is restored.
(For a body in thermal equilibrium the difference between unity and the absorptivity is therefore equal to the difference between unity and the emissivity and is called reflectivity, and the ratio of reflected energy to incidental energy is called the albedo.)
A the temperature of the solar photosphere, the peak of the emitted spectrum is in visible light. The gases that comprise the Earth's atmosphere are mostly transparent to visible light so most of that gets to the surface where it is absorbed, and converted to heat, a process called themalization. Some is thermalized in the atmosphere and some is reflected form both.
At the temperature of the Earth's surface the emission peaks in the infrared range. Carbon dioxide has strong infrared absorption bands. Thus it strongly absorbs some of the infrared emission from the Earth's surface. This energy is thermalized in the atmosphere, reducing the temperature gradient between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere. All gases that behave that way are called greenhouse gases. They all have the effect of raising the temperature of the Earth above what it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Now, how much do the greenhouse gases raise the temperature? While the above relationship is clear from theory, quantifying the effect is a bit tougher.
What would be cool is if we had a control, that is a planet the same average distance from the Sun, but without an atmosphere. And, we're in luck, we do. So we can get a handle on how effective the greenhouse effect is by comparing the temperature of the earth's surface with the moon. The temperature at the surface of both varies on a daily annual and on a geographical basis. But it averages out to be about 298 k for the Earth and 238 K for the moon. The Moon is about 50 degrees (K) cooler than the Earth. The moon also has a lower albedo, if they were the same that difference should be greater.
Thus, all other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gas, like Carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will make the planet wrmer while removing it will make the planet cooler.
And THOSE are the scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up There are, and have always been, other scientific principles causing our planet to heat up and cool off which is why no one can prove or disprove a causal relationship between any of them and the temperature of the Earth using climate data alone.
Note, we did NOT compare the Earth to the Moon to determine if there was a causal relationship between atmosphere and surface temperature. That determination was made using physical theory. Determination of causality requires a theory.
The comparison was done to get a handle on the MAGNITUDE of the effect tha tis predicted from the underlying theories--the law of conservation of energy and spectroscopy.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Without minor atmospheric components like ozone, carbon dioxide and methane, the Earth's oceans would be frozen solid.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Short term it's "considerable" which is why high-level waste stays at the power plant until it's decayed enough for shipment. By the time it gets to a long-term storage facility the heat generated is negligible.

Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.

Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why? Can't we convert the CO2 into carbonate? I'm pretty sure we can.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even more.
This whole notion of capturing the output of chemical power plants and warehousing it is IMO just, well, _nuts_.
At least with nuclear the volume is manageable.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really?
CO2(aq) +H2O -----> H2CO3 (1 mole of co2 makes 1 mole of carbonic acid) H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O (1 mole of carbonic acid reacts with 1 mole of sodium hydroxide and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate) NaHCO3 + NaOH -----> Na2CO3 + H2O (1 mole of sodium hydroxide reacts with 1 mole of NaOH and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
A mole of Na2CO3(s) takes up more volume than a mole of CO2(g) ?? Show me the math here.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

What'd the density of dry ice? How about of Na2CO3?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You want to permanently freeze all of the CO2(g) as CO2(s) to safe space instead of converting the CO2(g) into Na2CO3 and selling/giving it away?
Boy. That would be cost effective. Have you ran any numbers on that one yet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually, converting CO2 to carbonates *reduces* the volume by nearly three orders of magnitude.
One metric ton of CO2 gas occupies a volume of a bit over five hundred cubic meters at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.
Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is 44% CO2 by mass. Thus 2.27 metric tons of CaCO3 represents one metric ton of CO2 -- and occupies a volume of only eight-tenths of a cubic meter.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

... snip

It's been a bunch of years since my Modern Physics course, but I recall the fact that the highest-level wastes that generate such heat also have the shortest half-lives.

Back before Hanoi Jane and others got the the nuclear industry effectively shut down, there was significant research on means to deal with nuclear waste. One of the means involved vitrification (basically encapsulating in, or turning to, glass) and then launching the waste into space (destinations varied, from solar incineration to out of the solar system). The vitrified product would be recoverable and not pose significant danger in the event of a launch malfunction. There were other approaches under consideration as well.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.