Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:43 am
I don't know about that one. When warm air cools the heat does not go "somewhere else."
Archaeologica.org
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Pre-Columbian settlement.
Page 15 of 19
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:54 pm
According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be destroyed etc. If the air above a heat source is cooling that heat energy is being transferred to the surrounding air, which is therefore being warmed.
Thermodynamics
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:02 pm
We are discussing thermodynamics here:
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/far ... Ener1.html
The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. That is something that my dear friend Archie had a problem with earlier.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/far ... Ener1.html
The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. That is something that my dear friend Archie had a problem with earlier.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:17 pm
I know about the theory, I'm just not totally convinced about the practical applications of it.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:49 pm
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
This author does not think much of the greenhouse effect model, and points out that heat is dissipated outward and away from the planet.There is a greenhouse effect, but, if there were not, we would all be dead!
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are also experencing global warming, but, that is a different matter.
The greenhouse effect is the name applied to the process which causes the surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would have been in the absence of an atmosphere. (Unfortunately, the name, greenhouse effect is a misnomer --- more on that later.)
Global warming is the name given to an expected increase in the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, whereby the surface of the Earth will amost inevitably become hotter than it is now.
This page only treats the greenhouse effect --- not global warming
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:09 pm
It isn't a theory Min, it's a Law. That means it's withstood every test that's been thrown at it in the last 150 years.
If the Earth's atmosphere warms up Beag then it must lose more heat to space.
Here in the UK Charlie, if you want to publish a scientific paper you contact Nature or Science magazines, they then put it our to other scientists for peer review. The currant complaint against both is that they place their peer reviews with supporters of global warming, who immediately rubbish any papers that argue against global warming. The same complaint is made against them by anyone who argues against relativity. Unbiased they ain't!
If the Earth's atmosphere warms up Beag then it must lose more heat to space.
Here in the UK Charlie, if you want to publish a scientific paper you contact Nature or Science magazines, they then put it our to other scientists for peer review. The currant complaint against both is that they place their peer reviews with supporters of global warming, who immediately rubbish any papers that argue against global warming. The same complaint is made against them by anyone who argues against relativity. Unbiased they ain't!
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:38 pm
It doesn't seem to have any practical application, Digit. How do you recapture energy once it is released? When you turn off a flashlight whatever light energy you have just released is gone.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:52 pm
No it isn't Min. It normally changes state to become heat energy. Thus conserving the energy in another form.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:24 pm
It becomes a meaningless distinction because you cannot recapture it.
Likewise, heat released into the atmosphere. In my view, it dissipates.
A physicist would say that it merely diffuses itself into a larger and larger area but still retains its properties as heat energy.
The net result is the same....you have to go get your coat.
Likewise, heat released into the atmosphere. In my view, it dissipates.
A physicist would say that it merely diffuses itself into a larger and larger area but still retains its properties as heat energy.
The net result is the same....you have to go get your coat.
Thermodynamics
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:17 pm
You need to get your coat, but it is still a Law of Physics. With enough equipment a physicist could recapture that heat, albeit at great expense.The net result is the same....you have to go get your coat.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:31 pm
And how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:36 pm
All at the expense of the average tax payer. Enough to make you want to start smacking some folks upside the head.Charlie, that's one question I can answer. Money! The Uk government is funding research into global warming, so people are looking for global warming. If you pay enough money to find 'Nessie' Loch Ness would be so thick with boats you'd be able to walk along the length of it.
Here in the UK we had at one time more 'experts' on AIDs then sufferers because the government was afraid of an epidemic. We have a whole industry based on 'Mad Cow Disease' and no evidence that it is transmissible to humans and millions being spent trying to prove that we are facing an epidemic there as well. And what about Bird Flue?
Money Charlie, it's what makes the world go round.!
Thermodynamics
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:53 pm
Min, this probably explains why they excluded you from the Manhatten Project. You'll never make the Geek Squad at this rate!And how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:57 pm
There are Manhattan projects...and then there are Manhattan projects...
Meanwhile the sun has been pumping heat down on the earth for 4.5 billion years and if it didn't dissipate somewhere we'd all be sweating our asses off right about now.
Meanwhile the sun has been pumping heat down on the earth for 4.5 billion years and if it didn't dissipate somewhere we'd all be sweating our asses off right about now.
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:05 am
Sounds like ya'll have your own "Club". Universal occurance, unfortunately.The currant complaint against both is that they place their peer reviews with supporters of global warming, who immediately rubbish any papers that argue against global warming. The same complaint is made against them by anyone who argues against relativity. Unbiased they ain't!
