The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

I know we (EOW + TBL) are the Alpha team when it comes to save the world, but who are you asking?

 

NB: Did u miss post #826?

 

You're the alpha team, and you assumed this title by copy pasting a link?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you have a better idea? I'll be looking out for it, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

2 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

I know we (EOW + TBL) are the Alpha team when it comes to save the world, but who are you asking?

 

NB: Did u miss post #826?

That's where I found the link.  To state the obvious, the depression is not enough to make a significant change in sea levels, and maybe not a measurable change, and eco-engineering projects have huge potential for unforeseen consequences.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You're the alpha team, and you assumed this title by copy pasting a link?

No, we're the alpha team because no one else has posted a solution.

[Kieran00001]

33 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Meanwhile, everybody else are doing NOTHING, while EOW is out saving the day. We could also refill Lake Aral and a few other depressions around the world. Do I get a statue now?

With a few more bulldozers I could lower the sea levels with a lot more. You want to know how? 

 

Everyobody else are not doing nothing, there are countless measures being implicated today, and what you have posted is just an idea, they are not actually doing anything by the way.  It is a good idea, but it clearly nowhere near enough as as I already said, it is only enough to counter one years sea level rise, we need hundreds of those, is that possible?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

 

That's where I found the link.  To state the obvious, the depression is not enough to make a significant change in sea levels, and maybe not a measurable change, and eco-engineering projects have huge potential for unforeseen consequences.

Who said it was about sea level? It's about electricity generation with added benefit of algae production and CO2 absorption, plus cooling the local area.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No, we're the alpha team because no one else has posted a solution.

 

I think we already have an alpha, beta, gamma and so in teams working on this.  How about the countless reforestation projects, the banning of CFC's, the advent of electric cars, so many moves have been made and dating back decades, now you read  about a very ambitious engineering project that will only help just a little and you think you have it all worked out, sorry but it is going to take so much more than flooding some land that is below sea level, there just isn't enough land like that, we need the algae farms, the banning of combustion engines, thebanning of fossil fuel power stations, all sorts of measures to be made, a new lake that lowers sea level to the point it was last year obviously isn't anywhere near enough, so no alpha team status fir you, cool of you both to award yourselves it though, are you 6 years old?

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Everyobody else are not doing nothing, there are countless measures being implicated today, and what you have posted is just an idea, they are not actually doing anything by the way.  It is a good idea, but it clearly nowhere near enough as as I already said, it is only enough to counter one years sea level rise, we need hundreds of those, is that possible?

 

As part of the Alpha Team I think big, REALLY big to sole this GW thingy. The Qattara depression was just to warm you up and open your mind a bit.

The southern part of Sahara and the central part of Africa is one big depression with natural mountain barriers. By building around 20 big dams, it is possible to divert the Congo river, flood all of central Africa with a HUGE fresh water lake. The water will flow north from Congo and drain out in the Mediterranean Sea. 

 

Mission Completed!

 

NB: Thaibeachlover, you don't have to hold your breath any longer.

 

NBB: I have one more plan, if you want to hear it.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I think we already have an alpha, beta, gamma and so in teams working on this.  How about the countless reforestation projects, the banning of CFC's, the advent of electric cars, so many moves have been made and dating back decades, now you read  about a very ambitious engineering project that will only help just a little and you think you have it all worked out, sorry but it is going to take so much more than flooding some land that is below sea level, there just isn't enough land like that, we need the algae farms, the banning of combustion engines, thebanning of fossil fuel power stations, all sorts of measures to be made, a new lake that lowers sea level to the point it was last year obviously isn't anywhere near enough, so no alpha team status fir you, cool of you both to award yourselves it though, are you 6 years old?

Open your eyes and you shall see. You haven't heard all of the Alpha Teams solutions. You are about the learn something new.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

As part of the Alpha Team I think big, REALLY big to sole this GW thingy. The Qattara depression was just to warm you up and open your mind a bit.

The southern part of Sahara and the central part of Africa is one big depression with natural mountain barriers. By building around 20 big dams, it is possible to divert the Congo river, flood all of central Africa with a HUGE fresh water lake. The water will flow north from Congo and drain out in the Mediterranean Sea. 

 

Mission Completed!

 

NB: Thaibeachlover, you don't have to hold your breath any longer.

 

NBB: I have one more plan, if you want to hear it.

Right.  Let's see the cost estimates on this, the relocation plans for the population of central Africa, and the carbon footprint of the concrete and steel needed for this project.

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right.  Let's see the cost estimates on this, the relocation plans for the population of central Africa, and the carbon footprint of the concrete and steel needed for this project.

Ask Herman Sörgel, the idea is originally his.

This is how the lake will look like.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 the banning of CFC's, 

If you're going to claim something as evidence better make sure it's relevant.

Banning CFCs was nothing to do with CC or GW.

 

BTW, all governments worked together on that because the science was proven, and the cure possible.

Governments are doing sod all about GW/ CC because.............................................?

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Right.  Let's see the cost estimates on this, the relocation plans for the population of central Africa, and the carbon footprint of the concrete and steel needed for this project.

 

6 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Ask Herman Sörgel, the idea is originally his.

This is how the lake will look like.

 

 

But whatever you do, don't ask any Africans about it. It's not like they live there or anything.

[ExpatOilWorker]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

But whatever you do, don't ask any Africans about it. It's not like they live there or anything.

Throughout history nobody ever asked what the Africans wanted (except when they wanted guns), so why start now, we are in the process of saving the world.

My Congo + Sahara lake (1,000,000 km2 x 30 m deep) will drop global sea levels with 9 cm. Fill in a few depression and top up the Aral lake and lets call it 10 cm.

The Alpha Team have just solved this GW/sea level thingy. When do I need to go to Stockholm to pick up the Nobel prize?

Edited November 29, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Throughout history nobody ever asked what the Africans wanted (except when they wanted guns), so why start now, we are in the process of saving the world.

My Congo + Sahara lake (1,000,000 km2 x 30 m deep) will drop global sea levels with 9 cm. Fill in a few depression and top up the Aral lake and lets call it 10 cm.

The Alpha Team have just solved this GW/sea level thingy. When do I need to go to Stockholm to pick up the Nobel prize?

You think a solution that displaces or drowns hundreds of millions of people and will cause the extinction of countless species is preferable to reducing fossil fuel use and planting more trees?

[Dumbastheycome]

Let  me  toss  in  a teaser.

There  is a  possible hidden  element  in  the  whole  equation.

Until   clever  humans  started  to  ever increasingly  combust  hydrocarbon  reserves  that have  until now  been  a  reserve  of   carbon conserved in some  aspect of   natural ecological  balance atmospheric   levels  were  part of  that natural  process.

Human  activity  on the  scale it is  now  must undeniably  be  considered  to  have  impacted the  ecology of the planet.

We  have  unlocked  that  carbon  reserve while at the  same  time  deforested and  destroyed  a  massive  capicity   for  recycling that  and  already  existing   atmospheric   carbon.

Now  for  the  teaser.

The   wasteful utilization  of  hydrocarbon   reserves  also  has  another possible  impact.

The  greater  percentage of  energy  derived is  in the  form  of heat. I mention  that  not  as  necessarily  directly involved  in  global  warming.

I mention  that  because that  conversion  of   mass into  heat is a  quantative  loss in terms  of  the   planet's  mass.

Which  is   unlike  the  loss  of  inner core  heat as  may  come  from  volcanoes  because  that  heat  is  pre existing and   does  not  involve consumption  of   planetary  mass.

So  if  we  have  reduced  the  total  mass  of  planet  earth then maybe  we  have  also   ever so  slightly   altered  the  orbital  pattern to a  degree  which has  altered  climatic  patterns?.

" Here  comes  the  sun,  na nee na na "

Edited November 29, 2017 by Dumbastheycome
tack on

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Let  me  toss  in  a teaser.

There  is a  possible hidden  element  in  the  whole  equation.

Until   clever  humans  started  to  ever increasingly  combust  hydrocarbon  reserves  that have  until now  been  a  reserve  of   carbon conserved in some  aspect of   natural ecological  balance atmospheric   levels  were  part of  that natural  process.

Human  activity  on the  scale it is  now  must undeniably  be  considered  to  have  impacted the  ecology of the planet.

We  have  unlocked  that  carbon  reserve while at the  same  time  deforested and  destroyed  a  massive  capicity   for  recycling that  and  already  existing   atmospheric   carbon.

Now  for  the  teaser.

The   wasteful utilization  of  hydrocarbon   reserves  also  has  another possible  impact.

The  greater  percentage of  energy  derived is  in the  form  of heat. I mention  that  not  as  necessarily  directly involved  in  global  warming.

I mention  that  because that  conversion  of   mass into  heat is a  quantative  loss in terms  of  the   planet's  mass.

Which  is   unlike  the  loss  of  inner core  heat as  may  come  from  volcanoes  because  that  heat  is  pre existing and   does  not  involve consumption  of   planetary  mass.

So  if  we  have  reduced  the  total  mass  of  planet  earth then maybe  we  have  also   ever so  slightly   altered  the  orbital  pattern to a  degree  which has  altered  climatic  patterns?.

" Here  comes  the  sun,  na nee na na "

The heat released from burning is chemically derived, not from atoms being split or fused. So I don't see how mass is being lost due to non nuclear human activities.

[Dumbastheycome]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The heat released from burning is chemically derived, not from atoms being split or fused. So I don't see how mass is being lost due to non nuclear human activities.

Can  you  think of  or  know  of  any  process  that  can  convert heat  energy  into  something  with  material  mass?

By  comparison  to  hydrocarbon  consumption   nuclear energy  is  derived   mostly  from a   deterioration of  isotype,  not  a  consumption of  the  total   mass.And  certainly  not in  millions  of  tons per  annum.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Can  you  think of  or  know  of  any  process  that  can  convert heat  energy  into  something  with  material  mass?

By  comparison  to  hydrocarbon  consumption   nuclear energy  is  derived   mostly  from a   deterioration of  isotype,  not  a  consumption of  the  total   mass.And  certainly  not in  millions  of  tons per  annum.

I don't know of any process that can convert any kind of energy into mass. Not sure why it's relevant since your assertions were about matter being converted to energy and lost as heat. The energy released by burning is just releasing the energy locked up in chemical bonds. It has nothing to do with converting mass. Just energy being release mostly as heat..

[Dumbastheycome]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I don't know of any process that can convert any kind of energy into mass. Not sure why it's relevant since your assertions were about matter being converted to energy and lost as heat. The energy released by burning is just releasing the energy locked up in chemical bonds. It has nothing to do with converting mass. Just energy being release mostly as heat..

Ok.  Heat  derived  by   the  combustion  of  mass  material  is  a  total  loss  of  mass. It  can  not  be  recovered.Nature and  the   ecology  is   based  on  energy  derived  from  the  sun and  as  such in a way  is   the  conversion  of   (light...not heat ) into a  process  that  utilizes  carbon  based mass (vegetation ).

Heat  is  like  light. It  can be  measured  in intensity  but  not  mass.

Human  activity  is   adding  carbon  based  waste  at a  rate  that  the   decreased  natural  system  has  a  capacity  or  even  the  need  for.

At  the  same  time   Planet  Earth   must  be  glowing  like  a   well  lit  hot  ball  by  comparison  to   only a  few   centuries   before.  lol

Edited November 29, 2017 by Dumbastheycome
clarification

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Ok.  Heat  derived  by   the  combustion  of  mass  material  is  a  total  loss  of  mass. It  can  not  be  recovered.Nature and  the   ecology  is   based  on  energy  derived  from  the  sun and  as  such in a way  is   the  conversion  of   (light...not heat ) into a  process  that  utilizes  carbon  based mass (vegetation ).

Human  activity  is   adding  carbon  based  waste  at a  rate  that  the   decreased  natural  system  has  a  capacity  or  even  the  need  for.

At  the  same  time   Planet  Earth   must  be  glowing  like  a   well  lit  hot  ball  by  comparison  to   only a  few   centuries   before.  lol

 " Heat  derived  by   the  combustion  of  mass  material  is  a  total  loss  of  mass."

No it isn't a loss of mass. It's a loss of energy only. Energy that ultimately was captured sunlight now being released primarily as heat. It does not involve the loss of mass.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Ok.  Heat  derived  by   the  combustion  of  mass  material  is  a  total  loss  of  mass. It  can  not  be  recovered.Nature and  the   ecology  is   based  on  energy  derived  from  the  sun and  as  such in a way  is   the  conversion  of   (light...not heat ) into a  process  that  utilizes  carbon  based mass (vegetation ).

Human  activity  is   adding  carbon  based  waste  at a  rate  that  the   decreased  natural  system  has  a  capacity  or  even  the  need  for.

At  the  same  time   Planet  Earth   must  be  glowing  like  a   well  lit  hot  ball  by  comparison  to   only a  few   centuries   before.  lol

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

Edited November 29, 2017 by canuckamuck

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Ok.  Heat  derived  by   the  combustion  of  mass  material  is  a  total  loss  of  mass. It  can  not  be  recovered.Nature and  the   ecology  is   based  on  energy  derived  from  the  sun and  as  such in a way  is   the  conversion  of   (light...not heat ) into a  process  that  utilizes  carbon  based mass (vegetation ).

Heat  is  like  light. It  can be  measured  in intensity  but  not  mass.

Human  activity  is   adding  carbon  based  waste  at a  rate  that  the   decreased  natural  system  has  a  capacity  or  even  the  need  for.

At  the  same  time   Planet  Earth   must  be  glowing  like  a   well  lit  hot  ball  by  comparison  to   only a  few   centuries   before.  lol

 

5 minutes 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

Now I'm beginning to think that Dumbastheycome might have a point.

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Let  me  toss  in  a teaser.

There  is a  possible hidden  element  in  the  whole  equation.

Until   clever  humans  started  to  ever increasingly  combust  hydrocarbon  reserves  that have  until now  been  a  reserve  of   carbon conserved in some  aspect of   natural ecological  balance atmospheric   levels  were  part of  that natural  process.

Human  activity  on the  scale it is  now  must undeniably  be  considered  to  have  impacted the  ecology of the planet.

We  have  unlocked  that  carbon  reserve while at the  same  time  deforested and  destroyed  a  massive  capicity   for  recycling that  and  already  existing   atmospheric   carbon.

Now  for  the  teaser.

The   wasteful utilization  of  hydrocarbon   reserves  also  has  another possible  impact.

The  greater  percentage of  energy  derived is  in the  form  of heat. I mention  that  not  as  necessarily  directly involved  in  global  warming.

I mention  that  because that  conversion  of   mass into  heat is a  quantative  loss in terms  of  the   planet's  mass.

Which  is   unlike  the  loss  of  inner core  heat as  may  come  from  volcanoes  because  that  heat  is  pre existing and   does  not  involve consumption  of   planetary  mass.

So  if  we  have  reduced  the  total  mass  of  planet  earth then maybe  we  have  also   ever so  slightly   altered  the  orbital  pattern to a  degree  which has  altered  climatic  patterns?.

" Here  comes  the  sun,  na nee na na "

 

About half the heat from the earth core comes from radioactive decay, at the rate of 20 TW or if using E=mc2, 19.2 kg of mass loss per day.

The mass loss from burning coal, gas and oil (16 TW), is 15.2 kg/day.

Meanwhile 60 tons of space dust add to the earths mass ever day.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

About half the heat from the earth core comes from radioactive decay, at the rate of 20 TW or if using E=mc2, 19.2 kg of mass loss per day.

The mass loss from burning coal, gas and oil (16 TW), is 15.2 kg/day.

Meanwhile 60 tons of space dust add to the earths mass ever day.

 

 

"The mass loss from burning coal, gas and oil (16 TW), is 15.2 kg/day."

You got a source for that? I couldn't find it.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

You think a solution that displaces or drowns hundreds of millions of people and will cause the extinction of countless species is preferable to reducing fossil fuel use and planting more trees?

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. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

40 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 " Heat  derived  by   the  combustion  of  mass  material  is  a  total  loss  of  mass."

No it isn't a loss of mass. It's a loss of energy only. Energy that ultimately was captured sunlight now being released primarily as heat. It does not involve the loss of mass.

Oh boy. Energy is mass and mass is energy (E=mc2). Just by accelerating an object its mass will increase. You are actually a bit heavier when walking relative to standing still.

No nuclear reaction necessary need to take place to change mass.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Oh boy. Energy is mass and mass is energy (E=mc2). Just by accelerating an object its mass will increase. You are actually a bit heavier when walking relative to standing still.

No nuclear reaction necessary need to take place to change mass.

right but how does that relate to burning stuff on planet earth? how does burning stuff affect the mass of planet earth? And you still haven't answered where you got the 15.2 kilogram figure from.

[ExpatOilWorker]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"The mass loss from burning coal, gas and oil (16 TW), is 15.2 kg/day."

You got a source for that? I couldn't find it.

Just Google global yearly oil, gas, coal consumption, multiply by the combustion energy density of each, add it all up and divide by 31,536,000 (sec/year).

Let me know if you land anywhere near 16 TW.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, ExpatOilWorker said:

Just Google global yearly oil, gas, coal consumption, multiply by the combustion energy density of each, add it all up and divide by 31,536,000 (sec/year).

Let me know if you land anywhere near 16 TW.

And what does this have to do with acceleration?

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

right but how does that relate to burning stuff on planet earth? how does burning stuff affect the mass of planet earth? And you still haven't answered where you got the 15.2 kilogram figure from.

 

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)