Freeman Dyson smacks down global warming

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: silverpig

Looks like he's okay with saying the arctic is getting warmer...

Then the whole thread is moot since he is not putting the "smack down" on Global Warming as the OP claims.

No. Did you read the article?

He's saying that there is so much we still don't know about the climate, and that the models are completely useless for the purposes of prediction. Thus, they can not be used to prove that factor x causes effect y to this degree.

An interesting argument I saw in the article is that the warming of the arctic ice could CAUSE the next ice age. Here's the gist of the argument:

-Over past 800 000 yrs we have had cyclic ice ages in periods of 100 000 yrs
-90 000 yrs of ice age in the northern hemisphere, 10 000 yrs of warmth
-Today is 12 000 yrs of warm cycle, peak of warm cycle was 6000 yrs ago
-Overdue for another ice age
-Europe is warmed by the gulf stream, a warm surface current which transports heat from the Caribbean to Europe
- This is countered by a cold deep water current which flows from Greenland to the Caribbean and is caused by salty water in the north Atlantic sinking
-Addition of melting freshwater to the arctic sea could stop the sinking salty water current
-Cold water current to Caribbean dies
-Gulf stream dies
-Ice age


Whether or not this is the cycle of what happens is unknown, but it is plausible, and a cycle has happened in the past.

Good, always easier to warm up than it is to cool down. :thumbsup:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Um, your idea of heatpipes isn't quite accurate. A copper rod would have the exact same effect, albeit not as good. A diamond rod would probably work as good as, or possibly better than a heatpipe. All heatpipes do is transport heat to be dissipated, something any conductor does. They don't take the place of something motorized and reduce greenhouse gases or anything.

Umm... NO!

A heat pipe is a heat transfer mechanism that can transport large quantities of heat with a very small difference in temperature between the hotter and colder interfaces.

Inside a heat pipe, at the hot interface a fluid turns to vapour and the gas naturally flows and condenses on the cold interface. The liquid falls or is moved by capillary action back to the hot interface to evaporate again and repeat the cycle.
.
.
Mechanism

Heat pipes employ evaporative cooling to transfer thermal energy from one point to another by the evaporation and condensation of a working fluid or coolant. Heat pipes rely on a temperature difference between the ends of the pipe, and cannot lower temperatures at either end beyond the ambient temperature (hence they tend to equalise the temperature within the pipe).

When one end of the heat pipe is heated the working fluid inside the pipe at that end evaporates and increases the vapour pressure inside the cavity of the heat pipe. The latent heat of evaporation absorbed by the vaporisation of the working fluid reduces the temperature at the hot end of the pipe.

The vapour pressure over the hot liquid working fluid at the hot end of the pipe is higher than the equilibrium vapour pressure over condensing working fluid at the cooler end of the pipe, and this pressure difference drives a rapid mass transfer to the condensing end where the excess vapour condenses, releases its latent heat, and warms the cool end of the pipe. Non-condensing gases (caused by contamination for instance) in the vapour impede the gas flow and reduce the effectiveness of the heat pipe, particularly at low temperatures, where vapour pressures are low. The velocity of vibrating molecules in a gas is approximately the speed of sound and in the absence of non condensing gases, this is the upper velocity with which they could travel in the heat pipe. In practice, the speed of the vapour through the heat pipe is dependent on the rate of condensation at the cold end.

The condensed working fluid then flows back to the hot end of the pipe. In the case of vertically-oriented heat pipes the fluid may be moved by the force of gravity. In the case of heat pipes containing wicks, the fluid is returned by capillary action.

When making heat pipes, there is no need to create a vacuum in the pipe. One simply boils the working fluid in the heat pipe until the resulting vapour has purged the non condensing gases from the pipe and then seals the end.

An interesting property of heat pipes is the temperature over which they are effective. On first glance, it might be suspected that a water charged heat pipe would only start to work when the hot end reached 100 °C and the water boils resulting in the mass transfer which is the secret of a heat pipe. However, the boiling point of water is dependent on the pressure under which it is held. In an evacuated pipe, water will boil right down to 0 °C. Heat transfer will start, therefore, when the hot end is warmer than the cold end. Similarly, a heat pipe with water as a working fluid can work well above 100 °C.

The main reason for the effectiveness of heat pipes is due to the evaporation and condensation of the working fluid, which requires/releases far more energy than simple temperature change. Using water as an example, the energy needed to evaporate one gram of water is equivalent to the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of that same gram of water by 540 °C. Almost all of that energy is rapidly transferred to the "cold" end when the fluid condenses there, making a very effective heat transfer system with no moving parts.

In a computer application, the heat generated by the CPU (for example) is the same. The important issues are getting the heat away from the chip as fast as possible. Heat pipes speed the transfer from the chip to the heatsink surface much more efficiently, and as I said, their action is powered by the thermal energy of from the CPU.

It's not a great example of overall energy saving, but it's a familiar example of a mechanism that accomplishes a task using otherwise wasted thermal energy.

Recycling waste heat is something that only really make sense in huge gas turbine power stations. The efficiency of using waste heat to power something depends on the difference in temperature between the hot element and the environment. Most things you have in your house aren't nearly hot enough to warrant the effort, manufacturing cost (in both dollars and energy), or the energy required to run the reclamation device. Again, it's using 3 units of energy to save 1.

It makes sense to evaluate the possiblity of recycling waste heat in any new design where there is wasted heat and a potential, immediate use for the thermal energy, and my heat pipe example shows that it doesn't require a large industrial heat source to be practical. All it requires is thinking about the problem. The worst that can happen is that it won't be practical for your current design, but it doesn't hurt to consider it.

Believe it or not, I've also seen at least conceptual designs for recycling electric power within circuits by making the ground return path through the charging terminal of a large capacitor, instead of going directly to ground. Sorry I'm not familiar enough with the way it works to go any further, but it's another example of an "outside the box" idea that COULD save energy.

More efficient building codes are great... thicker insulation, double paned windows... but these have nothing to do with recycling.

Better building codes should also include co-generation, regeneration and recycling of power within the building. There are lots of things that could be done, including solar power on every rooftop, methane capture from garbage and more, that could reduce our dependence on conventional power sources.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Better building codes should also include co-generation, regeneration and recycling of power within the building. There are lots of things that could be done, including solar power on every rooftop, methane capture from garbage and more, that could reduce our dependence on conventional power sources.

Solar power, wind power, methane capture, blah, blah, blah...all this hippie stuff has been touted as the way to "get off the grid" and reduce pollution, smog, oil dependence...you name it, since i was a teenager. In 40 years, NONE of these techniques has had a significant effect on our dependence on "conventional" powers sources. The majority of these techniques have required significant government subsidies to even attract first adapters....I've seen press release after press release touting a "new generation" of solar panel that produces "significantly more" electricity so many times, you'd think the world would be running off it by now.....apparently not!

The only viable "alternative" energy source that could make any difference right now, is nuclear energy. This approach was adopted by Japan in the 1970's i believe, in response to the oil "crisis" during the Carter Presidency (wear sweaters, turn down the heat, expect less out of life), and the French. Both these countries produce 70-80% of their domestic energy needs from nuclear.

Everyone is for saving money. Energy costs money. Smart people every day are looking for smart ways to save both money and energy. But, people won't pay extra for less, and that includes energy.

The simplest way to reduce energy dependence is to use less energy...but i don't know anyone who does that...do you?

my own kids (who are as "Green" and "Liberal" as they come) won't turn off their computers when they not being used, don't turn off lights, like the A/C turned down way cold, and think nothing about crusing around town in a car burning gas for no good reason.

I car pool, turn off stuff when i don't use it, and have a heat pump. I'm a grumpy old conservative, who is in practice, "greener" than my liberal kids....and I do it because I value my money, and it makes economic sense to me. The Green part is a side-effect.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Better building codes should also include co-generation, regeneration and recycling of power within the building. There are lots of things that could be done, including solar power on every rooftop, methane capture from garbage and more, that could reduce our dependence on conventional power sources.

Solar power, wind power, methane capture, blah, blah, blah...all this hippie stuff has been touted as the way to "get off the grid" and reduce pollution, smog, oil dependence...you name it, since i was a teenager. In 40 years, NONE of these techniques has had a significant effect on our dependence on "conventional" powers sources. The majority of these techniques have required significant government subsidies to even attract first adapters....I've seen press release after press release touting a "new generation" of solar panel that produces "significantly more" electricity so many times, you'd think the world would be running off it by now.....apparently not!

The only viable "alternative" energy source that could make any difference right now, is nuclear energy. This approach was adopted by Japan in the 1970's i believe, in response to the oil "crisis" during the Carter Presidency (wear sweaters, turn down the heat, expect less out of life), and the French. Both these countries produce 70-80% of their domestic energy needs from nuclear.

Everyone is for saving money. Energy costs money. Smart people every day are looking for smart ways to save both money and energy. But, people won't pay extra for less, and that includes energy.

The simplest way to reduce energy dependence is to use less energy...but i don't know anyone who does that...do you?

my own kids (who are as "Green" and "Liberal" as they come) won't turn off their computers when they not being used, don't turn off lights, like the A/C turned down way cold, and think nothing about crusing around town in a car burning gas for no good reason.

I car pool, turn off stuff when i don't use it, and have a heat pump. I'm a grumpy old conservative, who is in practice, "greener" than my liberal kids....and I do it because I value my money, and it makes economic sense to me. The Green part is a side-effect.

Solar, especially for Heating water, is very viable.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Solar power, wind power, methane capture, blah, blah, blah...all this hippie stuff has been touted as the way to "get off the grid" and reduce pollution, smog, oil dependence...you name it, since i was a teenager. In 40 years, NONE of these techniques has had a significant effect on our dependence on "conventional" powers sources.

Do you enjoy that view from between your gluteal cheeks? Go back to cutting the heart out of people and the truth. I doubt that you know jack shit about the deeper underpinnings supporting the technologies you rely on to do your job, let alone having even a whisp of an inkling about the possiblities to be explored in newer knowledge and systems beyond your petty, myopic microverse. :roll:

Professor Dyson and I already acknowledged that meteorolgy and climatology aren't our fields of expertise. You still haven't told us what qualifies you to speak on issues about which you apparenly know so little. 😛

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Harvey
In a computer application, the heat generated by the CPU (for example) is the same. The important issues are getting the heat away from the chip as fast as possible. Heat pipes speed the transfer from the chip to the heatsink surface much more efficiently, and as I said, their action is powered by the thermal energy of from the CPU.

It's not a great example of overall energy saving, but it's a familiar example of a mechanism that accomplishes a task using otherwise wasted thermal energy.

Recycling waste heat is something that only really make sense in huge gas turbine power stations. The efficiency of using waste heat to power something depends on the difference in temperature between the hot element and the environment. Most things you have in your house aren't nearly hot enough to warrant the effort, manufacturing cost (in both dollars and energy), or the energy required to run the reclamation device. Again, it's using 3 units of energy to save 1.

It makes sense to evaluate the possiblity of recycling waste heat in any new design where there is wasted heat and a potential, immediate use for the thermal energy, and my heat pipe example shows that it doesn't require a large industrial heat source to be practical. All it requires is thinking about the problem. The worst that can happen is that it won't be practical for your current design, but it doesn't hurt to consider it.

Believe it or not, I've also seen at least conceptual designs for recycling electric power within circuits by making the ground return path through the charging terminal of a large capacitor, instead of going directly to ground. Sorry I'm not familiar enough with the way it works to go any further, but it's another example of an "outside the box" idea that COULD save energy.

More efficient building codes are great... thicker insulation, double paned windows... but these have nothing to do with recycling.

Better building codes should also include co-generation, regeneration and recycling of power within the building. There are lots of things that could be done, including solar power on every rooftop, methane capture from garbage and more, that could reduce our dependence on conventional power sources.

I already knew exactly how a heatpipe works thanks. And it IS exactly the same as a standard conductor. The mechanism inside is different, but a heatpipe does nothing besides transport heat. This is no different from any other thermal conductor. It doesn't save energy, it doesn't convert it into electricity, it just conducts. You're not in the right ballpark here.

In order to save energy, you have to take the waste heat which is normally dissipated, and convert it into usable energy. There is a thermodynamic limit to this which is fundamental and no amount of thinking will get you around it. Furthermore, this would require some form of energy transformation... thermal into electric (TEGs are horribly inefficient), thermal to mechanical to electric (do you really want to put a tiny steam boiler, turbine, and generator in your pc?), or some other way to get electricity out of waste heat. It's difficult, and it's inefficient.

The only thing that using waste heat is 100% efficient for is to heat your home.

A better use of resources would be to develop spin based computing which would require much less power than current computers.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Solar, especially for Heating water, is very viable.

But like I said, this stuff isn't new..it's been around since I was a kid, and it just hasn't made a big difference in reducing energy dependence. Most places where you see some of these technologies employed, had some sort of tax break, or tax incentive to encourage their use (that means LESS TAXES!!)...

if the lefties really want to spur uses of these technologies (which generally aren't economically viable due to high start up costs), they would have to institute large tax breaks...then, the only folks could afford to use the tax break, are those actually paying the taxes, which is the upper 50% of tax payers (who pay about 97% of all Fed Income Tax).

Do you think that's gonna fly with the bottom 50% of tax payers (Democrats by in large).

It's economically non-viable by itself, which means it takes a political/governmental involvement to make it work, which means ultimately "tax dollars" have to be spent, or not collected, which makes it politcal in the end..

If it made pure economic sense, everyone would be doing by know.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Solar, especially for Heating water, is very viable.

But like I said, this stuff isn't new..it's been around since I was a kid, and it just hasn't made a big difference in reducing energy dependence. Most places where you see some of these technologies employed, had some sort of tax break, or tax incentive to encourage their use (that means LESS TAXES!!)...

if the lefties really want to spur uses of these technologies (which generally aren't economically viable due to high start up costs), they would have to institute large tax breaks...then, the only folks could afford to use the tax break, are those actually paying the taxes, which is the upper 50% of tax payers (who pay about 97% of all Fed Income Tax).

Do you think that's gonna fly with the bottom 50% of tax payers (Democrats by in large).

It's economically non-viable by itself, which means it takes a political/governmental involvement to make it work, which means ultimately "tax dollars" have to be spent, or not collected, which makes it politcal in the end..

If it made pure economic sense, everyone would be doing by know.

Tax breaks or Building Code changes.

 

[Accipiter22]

Here's my question....Let's say you're skeptical about global warming. Say you think there's only a 30% chance it exists...wouldn't you WANT to err on the side of caution?? You're basically saying "well, there's only a 30% chance that the planet will be destroyed...so let's just sit back and do nothing" I never got that frame of logic.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
Here's my question....Let's say you're skeptical about global warming. Say you think there's only a 30% chance it exists...wouldn't you WANT to err on the side of caution?? You're basically saying "well, there's only a 30% chance that the planet will be destroyed...so let's just sit back and do nothing" I never got that frame of logic.

Agreed. I can never understand the rationale behind someone thinking that a cleaner planet is a bad thing. Too busy attacking the messengers and carbon credits I suppose.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333


You know, I think the main problem with this debate is that it seems neither side is willing to compromise.

"Compromise" is NOT an option when it means failing to taking adequate steps to avoid the destruction of the environment that supports human existence.

Obviously both sides see it the way that you do. So what has gotten done with both sides unwilling to compromise? Basically nothing. Do you expect different results from the same actions?

If we would have had compromise over the last few decades much less of our electrical generation would be from fossil fuels.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Solar, especially for Heating water, is very viable.

If it made pure economic sense, everyone would be doing by know.

That depends on who's making sense and who's making cents... and dollars! As long as those in power are in bed with those with those vested interests in current big energy providers who stand to lose if the current energy model is changed,... <cough> Cheney... <cough> Bush... <cough> big oil... there's very little chance that the "pure economic sense" you mention will control what really happens.

Why do you think Cheney allowed a half day for input from environmental groups when he spent weeks with the oil lobby crafting the Bushwhackos' energy policies and legislative agenda? Why do you think, to this day, the administration still refuses to disclose the names of those energy execs or to provide the records what was discussed in their meetings? :roll:

Has it happened in other administrations? Sure. That doesn't excuse such short sighted thinking and actions, now, and it doesn't mean we can afford NOT to change both our thinking and our actions in dealing with the ever more apparent threat of global warming.

The question isn't whether our current energy behavior will cause major problems for humanity. The only questions are when it will become critical, what we can do to correct the problem and whether we have enough time to do it.

To bring it into your limited world view, if everyone accepted your "pure economic sense" argument, a popular ventriloquist named Paul Winchell may not have invented the first artificial heart.

 

[heartsurgeon]

this from the Toronto Star

"Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble

Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all ? until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. ? not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."

However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces.""

Oops!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Oops!

If you think anything you've said or anything in any source you've linked discredits the fact that human activity is increasingly polluting the environment and adding to global warming, please stick with heart surgery. At least, you can kill only one patient at a time due to any blunders caused by your narrow minded misunderstanding of the facts.