A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[steveB]

I don't think that multiple amounts of CO2 will make any difference because it is such a small amount in the first place.
Ratch

Amateur opinions dont mean much. CO2 is the leading green-house gas other than water vapor which only lasts days in the atmosphere, and can change quickly based on the control from other gases. CO2 still represents a huge portion of the green-house effect and is second to water vapor. Saying 10-25% of the total is small is really stupid, sorry to say. It's not the quantity in concentration that matters, it's the contribution to green-house effect. Even the percentage is not well understood yet, which also points to why research is important.

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

We might all die tomorrow so lets not doing anything about anything.

It's a simple equation, where we have two different sources for a problem X, x1 and x2:
X(t)=x1(t)+x2(t)
x1 is random, but x2 is under our control. Too much X means we all die. x1 has been known in the past to stay within certain limits even though it is random. Do we do nothing to try to control x2?

Possible answers:
1. We do nothing, and nothing goes wrong.
2. We do nothing, and x1 takes over and we all die.
3. We try to control x2, and nothing goes wrong.
4. We try to control x2, and x1 takes over and we all die.

So do we do nothing or do we do something?

I am glad that Steve brought up the asteroid issue. It took a long time for anyone to be convinced this was a serious issue that had to be dealt with. Finally, there is now a concerted effort to develop asteroid deflecting technology.

The issue of man-made climate warming is not definite like an equation, so that illustration does not apply. I don't see why increased CO2 is causing a problem. The evidence shown so far is the planet is getting warmer, which it has before, and CO2 is an heat insulator, albeit not a perfect one. There are counter arguments against those reasons. A better more persuasive argument needs to be shown.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Amateur opinions dont mean much. CO2 is the leading green-house gas other than water vapor which only lasts days in the atmosphere, and can change quickly based on the control from other gases. CO2 still represents a huge portion of the green-house effect and is second to water vapor. Saying 10-25% of the total is small is really stupid, sorry to say. It's not the quantity in concentration that matters, it's the contribution to green-house effect. Even the percentage is not well understood yet, which also points to why research is important.

The greenhouse effect is a misnomer. A real greenhouse or a sealed vehicle will heat up without any CO2 or methane inside it. That is because there in no convection in those spaces. The Earth has plenty convection due to hurricanes and prevailing winds. The Earth's soil takes in the visible solar radiation energy and converts it to invisible infrared or heat. Then it radiates the heat back in the direction of space. The atmosphere, of which CO2 is a very, very small amount, acts as an insulator and slows the emission into space. So the question is, how much effect does the CO2 have at the concentration levels present (300 ppm)? I suspect very little. Can you enlighten me? Its insulation abilities are not perfect. The higher the temperature of the Earth, the more heat gets through the insulation atmosphere and out into space. Also, there is increased plant activity which reduces the amount of CO2 present. As an aside, as I mentioned before, the atmosphere of Mars has a much greater percentage of CO2 than Earth does, and the planet is still gets very cold when the Sun sets.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

The greenhouse effect is misnomer. A real greenhouse or a sealed vehicle will heat up without any CO2 or methane inside it. That is because there in no convection in those spaces. The Earth has plenty convection due to hurricanes and prevailing winds. The Earth's soil takes in the visible solar radiation energy and converts it to invisible infrared or heat. Then it radiates the heat back in the direction of space. The atmosphere, of which CO2 is a very, very small amount, acts as an insulator and slows the emission into space. So the question is, how much effect does the CO2 have at the concentration levels present (300 ppm)? I suspect very little. Can you enlighten me? Its insulation abilities are not perfect. The higher the temperature of the Earth, the more heat gets through the insulation atmosphere and out into space. Also, there is increased plant activity which reduces the amount of CO2 present. As an aside, as I mentioned before, the atmosphere of Mars has a much greater percentage of CO2 than Earth does, and the planet is still gets very cold when the Sun sets.

Ratch

No ratch, I cant enlighten you. You reject all attempts of people to enlighten you. You pretend to have more knowledge than the people who study this stuff for a living. I dont pretend that. I know enough to know that most of what you say is either flat out wrong in some cases, and unproven in other cases. I dont need to enlighten you. I only seek to offer the other side of the skewed view you present. That is, I seek to enlighten others and even myself as I think about this while discussing.

I could try to rebut some of this nonsense, but again I'm not an expert in this area, so this is not my place. It is enough for me to say, that you dont know all you think you know and I would recommend to others to read your words with skepticism.

 

[Ratchit]

No ratch, I cant enlighten you. You reject all attempts of people to enlighten you. You pretend to have more knowledge than the people who study this stuff for a living. I dont pretend that. I know enough to know that most of what you say is either flat out wrong in some cases, and unproven in other cases. I dont need to enlighten you. I only seek to offer the other side of the skewed view you present. That is, I seek to enlighten others and even myself as I think about this while discussing.

I could try to rebut some of this nonsense, but again I'm not an expert in this area, so this is not my place. It is enough for me to say, that you dont know all you think you know and I would recommend to others to read your words with skepticism.

Doesn't it make sense to try to find out what the insulation factor of CO2 or a mixture of CO2 and air is. After all, that is what atmosphere is. Hasn't that been done already? It would be interesting to see how the insulating effect compares with 300 ppm to 600 ppm and upwards, don't you think? Sounds good to me. Maybe I will see if I can find something.

Ratch

 

[Tony Stewart]

The CO2 is known to raise global temp. from Solar absorption while the carbon emissions from all the dirty coal plants built each week in China are known to lower the global emissions from increased transmission losses of IR solar power, just like the effects of a major volcanic eruption.

The two pollutants are counter-effective to thermal effects and may minimize the short term observations from cause/effect.

 

[Ratchit]

The CO2 is known to raise global temp. from Solar absorption.

That is not the way CO2 is predicted to work according to some folks. The Earth land mass and oceans receive visible solar light, absorb it, and become heated. This heat is radiated back toward space in the form of infrared radiation. The CO2 is supposed to act as a insulator to infrared and trap the heat within the Earth's biosphere. I explained all that in post #183. Did you read it, or are you disagreeing with my explanation?

while the carbon emissions from all the dirty coal plants built each week in China are known to lower the global emissions from increased transmission losses of IR solar power, just like the effects of a major volcanic eruption.

What kind of carbon emissions are you referring to be present? Fly ash? That particulate does not stay in the atmosphere very long. It settles out.

The two pollutants are counter-effective to thermal effects and may minimize the short term observations from cause/effect.

You would do well to analyze your statements again.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

Hi Ratch,

We all here ALREADY know that more research is needed, but that's not the point. The point is that a lot of EXPERTS in the field say man made global warming is a fact, and so in the mean time we have to be prudent or else when we do get the full story it may be too late to do anything about it. If you dont want to believe the experts in the field then your only recourse is to create your own biodome and live in that because they influence government and the government decides what to do about their findings and that means people and companies are held to certain standards.
Believe me, i probably have more vested interest in this than you do so i hate it more than you do, yet i feel that there has to be at least some acceptance of the fact. I do look for better ways to mitigate this, but government is quick to knock down any ideas that will cost more money to implement or make it more complicated which probably ends up raising the cost also.

This will probably be my final words on the issue of global warming because some people will always believe what they want to believe and will go on to disregard other peoples input on the matters no matter how reasonable the new (to them) information is. It was an interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

[steveB]

The CO2 is supposed to act as a insulator to infrared and trap the heat within the Earth's biosphere. I explained all that in post #183. Did you read it, or are you disagreeing with my explanation?

I read it and disagreed. A climatologist would shred your description to pieces as misinformation and the blathering of an arm-chair spectator and amateur. I refrained from responding, because I can't claim to be any better on this subject. But, I guess this is one sentence I can comment on, because my Ph.D. work was in the laser field which deals with optical absorption/emission. So this part of climate theory would be the one part I understand more than the other parts.

Saying CO2 is an insulator is not an accurate statement. Insulation is not the relevant effect of greenhouse gases. Vacuum is a great insulator but allows all electromagnetic frequencies to pass unimpeded. Air is also a great insulator (particularly still air), but air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen which both allow infrared light to pass through. If you removed all greenhouse gas from air, it would still insulate very well. The relevant fact is that CO2 is an absorber, not an insulator.

Green house gases absorb the infrared radiation, and convert the energy to heat, thus heating the atmosphere. This is why even small proportions of greenhouse gases do have a significant effect. This is why you can't compare percentage (or ppm) CO2 to nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor. It is the absorption cross-sections of the molecules and the concentration of the molecules that are important, When you consider this, CO2 is thought to provide 10-25 % of the green-house effect, and is second only to water vapor. Water vapor wins out because of the higher average concentration, but humidity is quickly varying in time and location (average lifetime of a water molecules staying in the atmosphere is less than 10 days). CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries and is accumulating more rapidly in the last 150 years.

 

[MrAl]

Hi Steve,

Very compelling argument there, thanks for that.
The bottom line for me is because of information like that we SHOULD regard man made global warming as real, even if it really isnt, but i include this last negative not because i believe it myself but just to satisfy the people who do believe it
When you think about it, sometimes we go to war over less accurate information. We should regard man made warming as true, and if it turns out to be false we lost a little but at least not everything, and we can always blame the government

 

[cowboybob]

I have to ask this question (which may not have a cogent answer):

given the historical, remarkably cyclical ice core data I posted and its rising temperature trend for the last multiple centuries, what significant effect could fossil fuels usage over the last century have on this trend?

I ask because it appears to me (an admitted non-expert) that a naturally recurring increase easily trumps any human influence cause.

Just asking...

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

So you are stating that man made warming is just noise in the natural cycle? It would be hard to believe that they would have missed that. If that's true then you should make it more widely known.

I think that what might be missing here is that the noise is the natural cycle, and man made warming is taking over the general trend (or average). The LARGER trend may be upward, but we dont need to look over millions of years. We have to be worried about the next 50 years for example.

 

[steveB]

I have to ask this question (which may not have a cogent answer):

given the historical, remarkably cyclical ice core data I posted and its rising temperature trend for the last multiple centuries, what significant effect could fossil fuels usage over the last century have on this trend?

I ask because it appears to me (an admitted non-expert) that a naturally recurring increase easily trumps any human influence cause.

Just asking...

Certainly a good question. I have some ideas on how to answer, but I would probably get some things wrong in the process. I think one of the issues here is that we are discussing this subject, but no one in the conversation is really an expert on this subject. It would be nice if we had at least one climatologist that could answer good questions.

I'm sure there are other forums where there are experts on this. I would think that Physics Forums would draw in a few experts to the conversation if this question was posted there.

 

[tcmtech]

I'm sure there are other forums where there are experts on this. I would think that Physics Forums would draw in a few experts to the conversation if this question was posted there.

Actually when this topic comes up in other forums where bona fide scientists and engineers and the like hang out it gets laughed off the stage about as quickly as any overunity thread does here.

What seems plausible to the uneducated and unfamiliar is most often easily dismissed by those who do know and are familiar with the hows and why's just like how a electronics based overunity concept gets ripped apart here. The person who believes it's possible never wins against those who have actual knowledge of the subjects at hand.

You can call them whatever you want and toss all the best reasoned out 'what if's' and 'why nots' at them but in the end they are the one who know more than you and they seem pretty well convinced it all just another political and big business power scam/distraction than a real concern just like every other 'life threatening' political concern/distraction that has came and went before.

I once believed it was a real concern and the more I studied and researched it to get better information to use to argue with as to why it was real the harder and harder it became to believe myself.
Everything credible I found shows the cause and effect are being viewed backward along with almost every good and bad scenario and outcome based on every practical and historically recorded example from past history is being flipped and the only way I could call myself an open minded and lesser biased person of scientific mind and reasoning was to change my belief and conclude that the whole thing is almost entirely nothing more than a political and power scam than anything else.

People fear change and politicians have no problems with using that to control the people for their own personal agendas and gains and once the people do start wising up they just find a new fear to work with hence the multiple name changes and scenarios that we have seen come and go in this charade as what is proclaimed fails to come true one event after another.

 

[Ratchit]

Hi Ratch,

We all here ALREADY know that more research is needed, but that's not the point. The point is that a lot of EXPERTS in the field say man made global warming is a fact, and so in the mean time we have to be prudent or else when we do get the full story it may be too late to do anything about it. If you dont want to believe the experts in the field then your only recourse is to create your own biodome and live in that because they influence government and the government decides what to do about their findings and that means people and companies are held to certain standards.
Believe me, i probably have more vested interest in this than you do so i hate it more than you do, yet i feel that there has to be at least some acceptance of the fact. I do look for better ways to mitigate this, but government is quick to knock down any ideas that will cost more money to implement or make it more complicated which probably ends up raising the cost also.

This will probably be my final words on the issue of global warming because some people will always believe what they want to believe and will go on to disregard other peoples input on the matters no matter how reasonable the new (to them) information is. It was an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Yes, and a lot of experts say the hysteria is a hoax. The UN (Useless Nuisance) Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) had legal action taken against them some time back to force them to drop a lot a scientist's names from their climate warming report endorsement. Their names were tacked on without permission even when they disagreed with the report's conclusion. Anyway, numbers don't count. Correct interpretation of the facts do. So far, I haven't seen any total correlation with what is happening to why it is happening. Mostly the proponents are saying "trust us, we know better".

Ratch

 

[Tony Stewart]

Black carbon exists as particles in the atmosphere, many of which are micron size similar to Infrared. BC is not a greenhouse gas. Instead it warms the atmosphere by intercepting sunlight and absorbing it. BC and other particles are emitted from many common sources, such as cars and trucks, residential stoves, forest fires and some industrial facilities. BC particles have a strong warming effect in the atmosphere, darken snow when they are deposited, and influence cloud formation.

Most (>80%) of the global warming effects are measured in the oceans temperature rise,
.... correction 93% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#mediaviewer/File:Energy_change_inventory,_1971-2010.svg

... which is why the biggest effects noticed are receding polar ice. The land weather patterns are just rotated, some spots much colder and others much warmer than usual.

The best thermal blanket is the vacuum of outer space, which conducts no heat. I have never thought of the ozone layer and the jet stream at -40 as a thermal blanket but I guess scientists say it is.

Does anyone know the exact thermal resistance and transmission loss changes and how much heating comes from the earth's core?

 

[Ratchit]

I read it and disagreed. A climatologist would shred your description to pieces as misinformation and the blathering of an arm-chair spectator and amateur. I refrained from responding, because I can't claim to be any better on this subject. But, I guess this is one sentence I can comment on, because my Ph.D. work was in the laser field which deals with optical absorption/emission. So this part of climate theory would be the one part I understand more than the other parts.

Saying CO2 is an insulator is not an accurate statement. Insulation is not the relevant effect of greenhouse gases. Vacuum is a great insulator but allows all electromagnetic frequencies to pass unimpeded. Air is also a great insulator (particularly still air), but air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen which both allow infrared light to pass through. If you removed all greenhouse gas from air, it would still insulate very well. The relevant fact is that CO2 is an absorber, not an insulator.

Green house gases absorb the infrared radiation, and convert the energy to heat, thus heating the atmosphere. This is why even small proportions of greenhouse gases do have a significant effect. This is why you can't compare percentage (or ppm) CO2 to nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor. It is the absorption cross-sections of the molecules and the concentration of the molecules that are important, When you consider this, CO2 is thought to provide 10-25 % of the green-house effect, and is second only to water vapor. Water vapor wins out because of the higher average concentration, but humidity is quickly varying in time and location (average lifetime of a water molecules staying in the atmosphere is less than 10 days). CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries and is accumulating more rapidly in the last 150 years.

I am going answer only a small part of your message . You say that GH gases adsorb the infrared radiation and convert it to heat? When I went to school, infrared was heat. You know, like infrared heating lamps. Anyway, that heat will be radiated out to space sooner or later.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

Actually when this topic comes up in other forums where bona fide scientists and engineers and the like hang out it gets laughed off the stage about as quickly as any overunity thread does here.

What seems plausible to the uneducated and unfamiliar is most often easily dismissed by those who do know and are familiar with the hows and why's just like how a electronics based overunity concept gets ripped apart here. The person who believes it's possible never wins against those who have actual knowledge of the subjects at hand.

You can call them whatever you want and toss all the best reasoned out 'what if's' and 'why nots' at them but in the end they are the one who know more than you and they seem pretty well convinced it all just another political and big business power scam/distraction than a real concern just like every other 'life threatening' political concern/distraction that has came and went before.

I once believed it was a real concern and the more I studied and researched it to get better information to use to argue with as to why it was real the harder and harder it became to believe myself.
Everything credible I found shows the cause and effect are being viewed backward along with almost every good and bad scenario and outcome based on every practical and historically recorded example from past history is being flipped and the only way I could call myself an open minded and lesser biased person of scientific mind and reasoning was to change my belief and conclude that the whole thing is almost entirely nothing more than a political and power scam than anything else.

People fear change and politicians have no problems with using that to control the people for their own personal agendas and gains and once the people do start wising up they just find a new fear to work with hence the multiple name changes and scenarios that we have seen come and go in this charade as what is proclaimed fails to come true one event after another.

tcmtech,
I understand what you are saying. Still, I think that if a good question is posted at PF with the proper wording, just as cowboybob did above, one can get an answer from experts. I think the laughing comes when people go in talking nonsense and using nonsense to argue that there is no problem. It seems to me one needs answers to asked good questions to make an informed opinion. When ratch tells us CO2 in the atmosphere does not improve the insulation of air, we really have to question if he knows anything about anything in climatology. He does not know the difference between thermal conduction and optical absorption. Is that the proper road to understanding and getting an opinion?

If I go to a climatologist and ask cowboybob's question, I will expect a good answer that I can understand. If I don't get an answer, and get laughter and elitism as a response, then I know what to think of the person answering. I will place as little weight on his words as I do on ratch's. But, that does not mean I can make any conclusions about the subject. It only means I have found two useless sources of information.

 

[steveB]

When I went to school, infrared was heat. You know, like infrared heating lamps.

Infrared can be related to heat, but it is not heat. When objects absorb infrared, they heat up because they convert the radiant electromagnetic energy to molecular kinetic energy. Without greenhouse gases, far more of the infrared light energy would go directly to outer space, without conversion to heat energy. Hence, it is CO2's absorption properties, not its insulation properties that matter.

Definition of Heat: Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, or from an energy source to a medium or object. Such energy transfer can occur in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection.

Anyway, that heat will be radiated out to space sooner or later.

Yes, later, after the temperature rises. This is black-body radiation theory.

 

[steveB]

Mistake in posting. I quoted rather than edited. Ignore this