The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And what does this have to do with acceleration?

Making your head spin should also increase your mass.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

16 TW = 16 10^12 J/s (Kgm2/s2) / (300,000,000 m/s)2 x 86,400 s/day = 15.36 kg/day (I used non rounded numbers for the 15.2 kg/day calculation)

And what does this have to do with acceleration?

[Dumbastheycome]

I  have  put   no  references  to  data  of  theory  or   science. I  have  put  only  a  contemplation of  possible alternative   factors.

However  I  cannot  agree  with   the  proposal  that   combustion of  material  mass  does  not   create  a loss of  mass  when  that  combustion  has a   high percentage  of  heat  energy as a  result  and  which  can  not be   recovered.

If   space  debris   entering   and depositing   material  is  in excess  off   any  such   loss by  whatever cause then  in  converse   debate  perhaps  that  is  the   incremental   factor  in   climate  disentoriation? 

I  have   no  dogmatic  intent  in  pushing  any  ideollogy other  than that  people  need  consider   ALL  and  come  to understand  that  whatever  the  factors  are,  known, ignored,  or  unannounced  ,  that  unless  we  collectively  wish  to  remain selfish  in  our  content   with  what  we  are  at risk of  losing  for the  victims of  our  collective  future   generation  that  is  is  important  to  be  honest  rather  than  denialist. Many a  comment  in TVF  suggest  that   Thai  are  kept  ignorant.  Can that  not in reality  be  said   about   us  all  from....?

[Kieran00001]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

These solutions are welcome to run in parallel with my grand solutions, but the Beta Team are yet to show any results what so ever. 

 

"Alpha team" have some results to show us now?  I thought all they had was stuff they had copy pasted from the internet.  So what are the results?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

"Alpha team" have some results to show us now?  I thought all they had was stuff they had copy pasted from the internet.  So what are the results?

Stop telling porkies. None of my solutions were copied from the internet.

There are no "results" because governments won't even try to do anything that would actually make a difference.

[boomerangutang]

19 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Combustion does not destroy mass the mass is redistributed into different compounds.

Carbon is not being created, that carbon was already there in a different molecular form.

Please don't make me agree with ILMP again

Interesting that we have scientific savvy people on here.  

I'm not a scientist, but I study some things on the internet.  One thing that impresses me is how atoms, on Earth, don't get destroyed, not even by intense heat.  They're incredibly stable.  The only changes to atoms on Earth, as far as I can tell, are on the scale of nuclear reactions.   For example, when fission takes place, U atoms are changed into two lighter metals.  When fusion takes place, H is fused into Helium.  I'm blabbing off the top of my head, so I may be wrong on details.  I'm open to corrections.

[ExpatOilWorker]

15 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

"Alpha team" have some results to show us now?  I thought all they had was stuff they had copy pasted from the internet.  So what are the results?

The Alpha Team, the action team, is ready and we can have the bulldozers airborne as soon as the GW myth is confirmed and the global community is ready to take action.

The beta team has a more laissez faire approach. They jet set around to cocktail parties in Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris, pay a few scientist and blame the rest of the world for their lack of results. 

 

I have to more grand ideas to solve the GW thingy, if you want are interested. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

17 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Interesting that we have scientific savvy people on here.  

I'm not a scientist, but I study some things on the internet.  One thing that impresses me is how atoms, on Earth, don't get destroyed, not even by intense heat.  They're incredibly stable.  The only changes to atoms on Earth, as far as I can tell, are on the scale of nuclear reactions.   For example, when fission takes place, U atoms are changed into two lighter metals.  When fusion takes place, H is fused into Helium.  I'm blabbing off the top of my head, so I may be wrong on details.  I'm open to corrections.

Nuclear physics is fascinating on so many different levels. The hydrogen atoms in your body have been around since the Big Bang and have never changed. They might have been part of a star or drifting millions of light years around in empty space, but they are still unchanged since their creation nearly 15 billion years ago.

On the other hand anything heavier than iron was most likely created in the very core of a exploding star, possible a super nova.

We are all made of start dust.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Stop telling porkies. None of my solutions were copied from the internet.

There are no "results" because governments won't even try to do anything that would actually make a difference.

They are well known ideas and are Penck's, Ball's and Bassler's, not yours, so it really is you who has to try to stop lying.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The Alpha Team, the action team, is ready and we can have the bulldozers airborne as soon as the GW myth is confirmed and the global community is ready to take action.

The beta team has a more laissez faire approach. They jet set around to cocktail parties in Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris, pay a few scientist and blame the rest of the world for their lack of results. 

 

I have to more grand ideas to solve the GW thingy, if you want are interested. 

 

You want to move straight in with the bulldozers without first clearing the several million unexploded ordnance in the area?  Sounds a bit risky to me but the Alpha team obviously know what they are doing.

 

But it really is difficult to understand why you think you waffling about this old idea is more proactive that all the governments that have waffled about it over the past 100 years, I believe the word is self appreciating.

[craigt3365]

Excellent article. Unless you are a climate denier. LOL

Greenland's melting glaciers may someday flood your city

http://cnn.it/2ipvHWC

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The Alpha Team, the action team, is ready and we can have the bulldozers airborne as soon as the GW myth is confirmed and the global community is ready to take action.

The beta team has a more laissez faire approach. They jet set around to cocktail parties in Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris, pay a few scientist and blame the rest of the world for their lack of results. 

 

I have to more grand ideas to solve the GW thingy, if you want are interested. 

I would like to volunteer for Alpha team, I feel the planet has called me to action.

[hdkane]

On 3/21/2017 at 10:18 AM, shows said:

Who is Sam Khoury? What are his qualifications? And why would The Nation print such nonsense?

and your qualifications to judge his work nonsense?

[Andaman Al]

4 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Nuclear physics is fascinating on so many different levels. The hydrogen atoms in your body have been around since the Big Bang and have never changed. They might have been part of a star or drifting millions of light years around in empty space, but they are still unchanged since their creation nearly 15 billion years ago.

On the other hand anything heavier than iron was most likely created in the very core of a exploding star, possible a super nova.

We are all made of start dust.

 

It certainly explains a lot why some members appear to be from another planet.

 

By the way, the future (short term anyway) would appear to be better served by Thorium reactors. Have a good read about this subject. Far cleaner and much much safer than current Nuclear power generation and the Chinese have been secretly putting billions into researching it over the last decade. They will be ready to mass produce soon and will have a plentiful supply of cheap clean safe energy soon and we.........will not.

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I would like to volunteer for Alpha team, I feel the planet has called me to action.

The Alpha Team is rapidly expanding and getting some global traction. Great to have somebody from Canukistan onboard. We now have the manpower and resources to float the second Team Alpha grand Idea!

 

Antarctica is largely a big frozen desert with a sizable mountain range. Building a few enormous dams will turn the entire center of Antarctica into a big reservoir. A fleet of nuclear powered pumping barges will pump sea-water into this reservoir where it will turn to ice and stay in place for 1,000 of years. This ideas is original Team Alpha material and you have never heard about it anywhere else.

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The Alpha Team is rapidly expanding and getting some global traction. Great to have somebody from Canukistan onboard. We now have the manpower and resources to float the grand Team Alpha Idea!

Antarctica is largely a big frozen desert with a sizable mountain range. Building a few enormous dams will turn the entire center of Antarctica into a big reservoir. A fleet of nuclear powered pumping barges will pump sea-water into this reservoir where it will turn to ice and stay in place for 1,000 of years. This ideas is original Team Alpha material and you have never heard about it anywhere else.

Be wary of screwing with mother nature.

Aussies have done it over the centuries - introducing animals species, and each time regretting it.

A Brazilian researcher imported some Africa bees to Brazil.  Some escaped - now are endemic through much of the Americas.   Zebra clams, fire ants, lion fish, countless weed species, .....it's a long list.

 

I'm open to entertaining grand schemes on discussion levels, but implementation is a different matter.  It's hard to put toothpaste back in the tube.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

38 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Be wary of screwing with mother nature.

Aussies have done it over the centuries - introducing animals species, and each time regretting it.

A Brazilian researcher imported some Africa bees to Brazil.  Some escaped - now are endemic through much of the Americas.   Zebra clams, fire ants, lion fish, countless weed species, .....it's a long list.

 

I'm open to entertaining grand schemes on discussion levels, but implementation is a different matter.  It's hard to put toothpaste back in the tube.

 

 

Point taken. We will scrap the plan to relocate the Emperor Penguins to Svalbard. The rest of the project proceed as scheduled on Monday.

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

It certainly explains a lot why some members appear to be from another planet.

 

By the way, the future (short term anyway) would appear to be better served by Thorium reactors. Have a good read about this subject. Far cleaner and much much safer than current Nuclear power generation and the Chinese have been secretly putting billions into researching it over the last decade. They will be ready to mass produce soon and will have a plentiful supply of cheap clean safe energy soon and we.........will not.

The  principles  of Thorium as  an energy  source rely  on   the   initial transmution/conversion  to  fissile uranium . 

Utilizing  that   form  of  uranium   has a  similar  outcome  to  current processes.

The  only  win is  the  profitability.

[Dumbastheycome]

And  in  reference  to  the  assertion  there  is  no loss  in   combustion  of material  mass..... molecular  or  atomic...the  derivation  of  energy   can  only  result  from  a  deterioration  of  total  mass...molecular  or  atomic.  Heat  energy  is  the  proof  and  the   irrecoverable   loss.

The  atomic  weight  of fissile  product  as  in  nuclear  reactors   is  significantly  less than  the  parent   material .

If there  were  to  be  no   atomic loss  of  energy there  would  be  no  heat.

It  is  the  principle  of   "splitting" atoms to  release   energy for  which  it  is  utilized.

It  is  only  the   dream of   alchemists    to stabilly  increase   atomic  weight .

To  date  is  there  any  evidence  that   lead   can  be  converted  to   gold  ?

Or  that  mercury   can  be  ?

The  combustion   by  oxidization (burning ) results  in   by products  which   are  less  in  total   molecular weight.  The  loss  is   the  resulting  energy   in the  form of  heat , light,sound.

Heat   can be  measured  in  terms  of  therms  but   not   material  mass.

Light  can  be demonstrated  to   obey   "scientific" principles of having   mass in  that  it   can  be diverted in  direction  of  travel  by   various  influences including  gravitational  pull.

But  in  defiance  of  that  if  light  were  to  have  any   mass  at all  the  impact  of   sunlight  travelling  would obliterate  anything  in  it's   path.

It  is  this  dilemma  of   scientific  " knowledge"  that  for  any  open  minded  person  should   raise  questions  as  to  what we  are  educated  to  believe.

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

The  combustion   by  oxidization (burning ) results  in   by products  which   are  less  in  total   molecular weight.  The  loss  is   the  resulting  energy   in the  form of  heat , light,sound.

This is complete BS at an elementary school level. In purely chemical reactions, mass is never lost or gained, as Lavoisier and others proved in the 18th century. (see Law of Conservation of Mass).

 

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

They are well known ideas and are Penck's, Ball's and Bassler's, not yours, so it really is you who has to try to stop lying.

I never had anything to do with the suggestion of the Qattara depression, other than supporting it.

Do try and get your facts straight.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The Alpha Team is rapidly expanding and getting some global traction. Great to have somebody from Canukistan onboard. We now have the manpower and resources to float the second Team Alpha grand Idea!

 

Antarctica is largely a big frozen desert with a sizable mountain range. Building a few enormous dams will turn the entire center of Antarctica into a big reservoir. A fleet of nuclear powered pumping barges will pump sea-water into this reservoir where it will turn to ice and stay in place for 1,000 of years. This ideas is original Team Alpha material and you have never heard about it anywhere else.

 

Don't need dams to do that. Just pump sea water far enough inland and it will freeze before it can escape to the sea.

My solution would be to build nuclear powered carbon sequestration plants on the plateau and inject it down to ground level where it should remain for a very long time. However, no doubt a lot of posters will tell me why that isn't possible. Pity they won't be able to come up with better ideas though.

[Kieran00001]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never had anything to do with the suggestion of the Qattara depression, other than supporting it.

Do try and get your facts straight.

 I was addressing the team, are you in team Alpha or not? 

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

This is complete BS at an elementary school level. In purely chemical reactions, mass is never lost or gained, as Lavoisier and others proved in the 18th century. (see Law of Conservation of Mass).

 

If your physics books are from the 18th century, you may want to update them when you have a chance. 

 

As a matter of fact, chemical reactions can reduce mass just like nuclear reactions. Most people find it hard to accept, but it's true.

When the molecules in the dynamite explode, bonds between atoms are broken and reformed in different configurations. The result of this is that the net electrical potential energy in the resulting molecules is less than the electrical potential energy of the original stick. Now here's the cool part - that means it has less mass. Like, literally, less mass. Like, if you let the heat, light, and sound dissipate, and ultracarefully collect and weigh all the reaction products (impossible in practice, of course), it would weigh a tiny bit less than the original stick.

I find it helpful to think of a simpler example. Take two hydrogen atoms, and an oxygen atom. Allow them to run into each other. Their electron orbitals merge and hybridize. As their electrons settle into their new, shared, lower-energy state, they release photons. These photons carry away energy, and therefore mass, from the atoms. The resulting H2O molecule literally weighs less than the two hydrogen and one oxygen beforehand.

 

That chemical energy is bound energy. The heat, light, and sound that are created when that chemical energy is unleashed are unbound energy. Another name for bound energy in physics is mass. You've certainly read that nuclear reactions convert mass into energy. An alternate view: Mass isn't converted into energy because mass already is energy. Mass is just another form of energy, just as heat, light, and sound are forms of energy.

Developments in quantum mechanics made physicists revisit the distinct notions of conservation of mass and conservation of energy. Mass most definitely is not conserved when a proton and antiproton annihilate one another, nor is energy in the older notions of what constitutes energy. The new notion (actually not so new anymore) is that conservation of energy includes mass as a form of energy.

I mentioned annihilation above. Mass also isn't conserved when four protons combine via a series of reactions to form helium (but energy, or mass+energy is conserved). What about chemical reactions such as a stick of dynamite exploding? The same applies. The only difference between that stick of dynamite versus an annihilation event is the amount of energy released. Unbound energy is released by both reactions, so bound energy ("mass") must necessarily decrease.

Mass appears to be conserved in chemical reactions because dividing the amounts of energy released in a chemical reaction by the speed of light squared results in a immeasurably small amount of mass. The difference is one of "in practice" versus "in principle". In practice, the changes in mass in chemical systems is too small to measure. In principle, the mass does change.

[Dumbastheycome]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

This is complete BS at an elementary school level. In purely chemical reactions, mass is never lost or gained, as Lavoisier and others proved in the 18th century. (see Law of Conservation of Mass).

 

Applies only  to  closed  system. Conservation  of  mass  is  only true  where there is  no loss  of  energy such as   chemistry  conversion ..

Certainly   elementary. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't need dams to do that. Just pump sea water far enough inland and it will freeze before it can escape to the sea.

My solution would be to build nuclear powered carbon sequestration plants on the plateau and inject it down to ground level where it should remain for a very long time. However, no doubt a lot of posters will tell me why that isn't possible. Pity they won't be able to come up with better ideas though.

Brilliant minds always think alike. You are an honorable member of the Alpha Team.

Sequestration and re-injection is the 3rd action plan. Beyond the critical point (31. 1 C  and 73.9 bar) CO2 behave BOTH as a liquid and a gas at the same time and will store fine for million of years in old gas/oil reservoirs.

[boomerangutang]

Stalin had the big idea of engineering the mighty rivers in USSR which flow north - .....and turn them around to flow south instead.   Gladly, he didn't get that project going.   Even so, at that time, the Russkies were able to engineer the Aral Sea (once the 4th largest in the world) and nearly destroyed the surrounding ecosystem and the sea itself.  Don't mess with Mother Nature.

 

As the Aral Sea has dried up, fisheries and the communities that depended on them collapsed. The increasingly salty water became polluted with fertilizer and pesticides. The blowing dust from the exposed lakebed, contaminated with agricultural chemicals, became a public health hazard. The salty dust blew off the lakebed and settled onto fields, degrading the soil. Croplands had to be flushed with larger and larger volumes of river water. The loss of the moderating influence of such a large body of water made winters colder and summers hotter and drier.  

SOURCE 

[Kieran00001]

27 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Brilliant minds always think alike. You are an honorable member of the Alpha Team.

Sequestration and re-injection is the 3rd action plan. Beyond the critical point (31. 1 C  and 73.9 bar) CO2 behave BOTH as a liquid and a gas at the same time and will store fine for million of years in old gas/oil reservoirs.

 

The latest cost analysis of carbon sequestration shows it to be less cost effective than existing low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar.

 http://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440

[RickBradford]

Quote

Developments in quantum mechanics made physicists revisit the distinct notions of conservation of mass and conservation of energy.

Well, quite. I confess I didn't appreciate that on a thread ostensibly devoted to sea ice and rising seas, we were supposed to be including quantum mechanics as part of the discussion.

 

It is still BS to suggest, as another poster did, that the heat that emanates from burning is principally due to loss of mass in an E=mc2 type relation.

Edited December 1, 2017 by RickBradford

[Dumbastheycome]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Well, quite. I confess I didn't appreciate that on a thread ostensibly devoted to sea ice and rising seas, we were supposed to be including quantum mechanics as part of the discussion.

 

It is still BS to suggest, as another poster did, that the heat that emanates from burning is principally due to loss of mass in an E=mc2 type relation.

Suns   die.