Weight eh? Weight has very little (other than difussion locally and the a low correlation to boiling point) to do with volitility of compounds (boiling point is a better scale). Once a compound is in the air it remains in the air unless a) the pressure increases when the temperature remains the same or decreases or b) the temperature decreases to below boiling point at the given pressure or c) it becomes part of a solution that is liquid. No massive uplifting is needed.
I take your point on the CFC chemistry
However a little common sense....re weight...really, how much do you know about atmospheric gas behaviour & its reationship to insolaration ?
Don't mean any disrespect, but by dismissing weight, gravity, insolaration, temperature gradients etc your falling into to the same trap that those enviromentalists who do atmospheric chemistry modelling in that they work from a laboratory model that falls far short of the complex reality of the atmosphere. I might add it is still not understood clearly or perfectly.
So it is a grandious presumption to model without such fundamentals in place.
Nevertheless, even if we accept that the current CFC modelling is correct, and the " Once a compound is in the air it remains there " notion that you are subscribing to; then you are forced to show how some 600,000,000 tons of naturally produced Chlorine ( ocean sourced ) are dealt with every year ?
Even highschool students would be aware that common seawater salt is comprised of Sodium Chloride. Once the Sodium Chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium.
Further more, Volcanoes can emit hundreds of millions of tons of Chloride into the air every year.
In the case of Mount Erebus, in the Antarctic, (one of the world's biggest and most active volcanoes ), it has been active every day since 1972 and from all calculations pumps 50 times more Chlorine into the stratosphere than released from industrial based CFCs.
Can you honestly tell me that this volcano alone, has absolutely no effect ?
Tonton, for some reason you strike me as a little angrier than I remember you.
Solar and wind might supplement tradition energy, but certain physical laws pretty much ensure there is no free ride when it comes to energy. Look at a state like California. With their currnet energy production they can barely keep LA's power needs met, and that's burning everything they've got, you want to add the electricl requirements for collecting/storing enough hydrogen for ALL of California's vehicles to that? You'd cripple the grid on the first day even if you covered every square inch of the city with solar panels.
Combustion as a means of energy production isn't going anywhere. That doesn't mena we can't have smarter sub divisions with solar an wind power and energy collection/distribution to use it more efficiently, it just means that even with hydrogen we'll still have to burn something to meet our power needs. WE can drill, or we can grow. I think bio-diesel is quite promising from as "part" of a strategy to replace fossil fuels. But the long term solution will be a "hybrid" of energy production means, and fuel cell "storage"
I Don't mean any disrespect, but by dismissing weight, gravity, insolaration, temperature gradients etc your falling into to the same trap that those enviromentalists who do atmospheric chemistry modelling in that they work from a laboratory model that falls far short of the complex reality of the atmosphere. I might add it is still not understood clearly or perfectly.
So it is a grandious presumption to model without such fundamentals in place.
well actually there are models of atmospheric chemistry in the atmosphere -- if you prove a reaction occurs in the lab you can use what you learn in the atmosphere...to make a model it doesnt have to be understood perfectly.
Quote:
Nevertheless, even if we accept that the current CFC modelling is correct, and the " Once a compound is in the air it remains there " notion that you are subscribing to; then you are forced to show how some 600,000,000 tons of naturally produced Chlorine ( ocean sourced ) are dealt with every year ?
Even highschool students would be aware that common seawater salt is comprised of Sodium Chloride. Once the Sodium Chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium.
Sorry, but I know most people dont know this, Chlorine gas is Cl2 and sodium chloride is NaCl. Sodium chloride is not a gas, it is not volatile, it does not, unless ejected as particulate reach the upper atmosphere. Though this is all true, you are right. The ocean releases tons of Chlorine gas a year, but again you must consider the energy it takes to homeolytically cleave Cl2 versus the CFCs. No I dont think they have proven conclusively that the ozone hole is solely due to CFCs, but they dont need to in all honesty. If its growth is accelerated due to CFCs then their emission should be reduced. CFCs are also carcinogens and affect the environment in a great deal of other ways, and there are far better refrigerants out there than CFCs.
This doesn't sound right to me, as my understanding is that the current alternative in use is less efficient at heat exchange. So in the end, you have to up-size compressors and basically consume more energy to get the same BTU's of heat exchange (as before).
I was leaning more towards "hydrogen could not be that bad" than "CFCs are bad" in my argument.
Nonetheless, on the subject of CFCs and the environment, we now have CFC-free refrigerants and aerosols, so what could be bad about that? I think we've done some good for the environment, even if the theories were a little off.
Yep, until someone crap science declares that it is doing some harm as well.
Posted from California, where breathing out is declared by law to harm the environment.
Want an alternative to fossil fuels for generating electricity? Why not solar or wind power? Why not geothermal power? Dig deep enough into the earth, and there's plenty of power to run those generators.
What's that you say? Manufacturing solar cells is bad for the environment? Running huge drills with fossil fuels is bad for the environment? Windmill farms are too expensive to maintain?
[Geedub voice] Oh, shucks. Too bad. I guess we'd better give up then. Get Dick on the phone. Let's grab some of that Iraqi oil since it look like we're gonna need it. [Geedub voice]
All we need to do is find environmentally sensitive ways of drilling into the earth (and we will) and of manufacturing solar cells (we will) and of building long-life, efficient wind-turbines (we will). Then it's "Bye bye fossil fuels. Can't say I'm sorry to see you go."
Actually there was recent article by the the N.Y.Times (It was phoned in from Joe's Bar) and it seems the biggest impediment to windmill farms is the NOT IN MY BACKYARD syndrome.
The wind forest promises to provide Cape Codders, on average, with 75 percent of their electricity, 1.8 percent of the total electrical needs of New England, without emitting a single microgram of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide or mercury and without burning a single barrel of Middle Eastern oil.
Yet they don't want it because they are limo liberals who want to change everyone elses lifestyles while maintaining their own.
Well too bad if it proves to be true. If it does we'll just have to find something else.
Maybe they don't want us to find something else. Maybe their agenda is nearly complete depopulation of the planet with regard to humans and any similarity to a modern lifestyle.
Maybe they don't want us to find something else. Maybe their agenda is nearly complete depopulation of the planet with regard to humans and any similarity to a modern lifestyle.
Nick
Yeah lets all go and live in big huts and put funny grass skirts on..la la la.
Lets all live in harmony with the lions and tigers who want to eat us..
We can change them by sending out peace vibrations.
Yeah lets all go and live in big huts and put funny grass skirts on..la la la.
Lets all live in harmony with the lions and tigers who want to eat us..
We can change them by sending out peace vibrations.
Err...
But you can volunteer to be first OK.
I hope you don't think I was advocating that position.
The closet goal of most environmentalists is for the earth to exist free of human influence. The easiest way to accomplish that of course is to get rid of the humans.
Atomic Hydrogen is also a challenge to store... tends to slip the gaps in its containment vessel and gradually seep out, like helium from old balloons.
Magnetic containment bottles anyone? H2 is easier, but still not easy.
speaking of science made easy...
with all the talk of homo cleavage, sexual politics for outer and inner pinkos, and thrusting volcanoes spewing into o-zone holes, this thread deserves a geek porn award.
beavis and butthead for baccalaureates. chemistry a la christina aguilera.
IIRC, some of the research lost (some data d/l) with Columbia included upper atmospheric evidence of red and blue sprites and elves (lightning phenomena only seen from above) and some compositional measurements at various altitudes/wavelengths. ISS has also provided useful data on atmospheric interactions due to radiation, as have many stratospheric balloons and some sounding rockets.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
Weight eh? Weight has very little (other than difussion locally and the a low correlation to boiling point) to do with volitility of compounds (boiling point is a better scale). Once a compound is in the air it remains in the air unless a) the pressure increases when the temperature remains the same or decreases or b) the temperature decreases to below boiling point at the given pressure or c) it becomes part of a solution that is liquid. No massive uplifting is needed.
I take your point on the CFC chemistry
However a little common sense....re weight...really, how much do you know about atmospheric gas behaviour & its reationship to insolaration ?
Don't mean any disrespect, but by dismissing weight, gravity, insolaration, temperature gradients etc your falling into to the same trap that those enviromentalists who do atmospheric chemistry modelling in that they work from a laboratory model that falls far short of the complex reality of the atmosphere. I might add it is still not understood clearly or perfectly.
So it is a grandious presumption to model without such fundamentals in place.
Nevertheless, even if we accept that the current CFC modelling is correct, and the " Once a compound is in the air it remains there " notion that you are subscribing to; then you are forced to show how some 600,000,000 tons of naturally produced Chlorine ( ocean sourced ) are dealt with every year ?
Even highschool students would be aware that common seawater salt is comprised of Sodium Chloride. Once the Sodium Chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium.
Further more, Volcanoes can emit hundreds of millions of tons of Chloride into the air every year.
In the case of Mount Erebus, in the Antarctic, (one of the world's biggest and most active volcanoes ), it has been active every day since 1972 and from all calculations pumps 50 times more Chlorine into the stratosphere than released from industrial based CFCs.
Can you honestly tell me that this volcano alone, has absolutely no effect ?
Lotsa smart chemistry people here, too!
Solar and wind might supplement tradition energy, but certain physical laws pretty much ensure there is no free ride when it comes to energy. Look at a state like California. With their currnet energy production they can barely keep LA's power needs met, and that's burning everything they've got, you want to add the electricl requirements for collecting/storing enough hydrogen for ALL of California's vehicles to that? You'd cripple the grid on the first day even if you covered every square inch of the city with solar panels.
Combustion as a means of energy production isn't going anywhere. That doesn't mena we can't have smarter sub divisions with solar an wind power and energy collection/distribution to use it more efficiently, it just means that even with hydrogen we'll still have to burn something to meet our power needs. WE can drill, or we can grow. I think bio-diesel is quite promising from as "part" of a strategy to replace fossil fuels. But the long term solution will be a "hybrid" of energy production means, and fuel cell "storage"
Originally posted by billybobsky
cynical moderator emeritus, why do you forsake the communist lesbians?
He was one, then they kicked him out and now he's bitter
Neo-hippy hypnotising kiddies: "The republican party are destroying the earth..."
Originally posted by aquafire
I Don't mean any disrespect, but by dismissing weight, gravity, insolaration, temperature gradients etc your falling into to the same trap that those enviromentalists who do atmospheric chemistry modelling in that they work from a laboratory model that falls far short of the complex reality of the atmosphere. I might add it is still not understood clearly or perfectly.
So it is a grandious presumption to model without such fundamentals in place.
well actually there are models of atmospheric chemistry in the atmosphere -- if you prove a reaction occurs in the lab you can use what you learn in the atmosphere...to make a model it doesnt have to be understood perfectly.
Nevertheless, even if we accept that the current CFC modelling is correct, and the " Once a compound is in the air it remains there " notion that you are subscribing to; then you are forced to show how some 600,000,000 tons of naturally produced Chlorine ( ocean sourced ) are dealt with every year ?
Even highschool students would be aware that common seawater salt is comprised of Sodium Chloride. Once the Sodium Chloride reaches high altitudes, it can ionise, freeing the chlorine atom from the sodium.
Sorry, but I know most people dont know this, Chlorine gas is Cl2 and sodium chloride is NaCl. Sodium chloride is not a gas, it is not volatile, it does not, unless ejected as particulate reach the upper atmosphere. Though this is all true, you are right. The ocean releases tons of Chlorine gas a year, but again you must consider the energy it takes to homeolytically cleave Cl2 versus the CFCs. No I dont think they have proven conclusively that the ozone hole is solely due to CFCs, but they dont need to in all honesty. If its growth is accelerated due to CFCs then their emission should be reduced. CFCs are also carcinogens and affect the environment in a great deal of other ways, and there are far better refrigerants out there than CFCs.
This doesn't sound right to me, as my understanding is that the current alternative in use is less efficient at heat exchange. So in the end, you have to up-size compressors and basically consume more energy to get the same BTU's of heat exchange (as before).
Originally posted by tonton
I was leaning more towards "hydrogen could not be that bad" than "CFCs are bad" in my argument.
Nonetheless, on the subject of CFCs and the environment, we now have CFC-free refrigerants and aerosols, so what could be bad about that? I think we've done some good for the environment, even if the theories were a little off.
Yep, until someone crap science declares that it is doing some harm as well.
Posted from California, where breathing out is declared by law to harm the environment.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Want an alternative to fossil fuels for generating electricity? Why not solar or wind power? Why not geothermal power? Dig deep enough into the earth, and there's plenty of power to run those generators.
What's that you say? Manufacturing solar cells is bad for the environment? Running huge drills with fossil fuels is bad for the environment? Windmill farms are too expensive to maintain?
[Geedub voice] Oh, shucks. Too bad. I guess we'd better give up then. Get Dick on the phone. Let's grab some of that Iraqi oil since it look like we're gonna need it. [Geedub voice]
All we need to do is find environmentally sensitive ways of drilling into the earth (and we will) and of manufacturing solar cells (we will) and of building long-life, efficient wind-turbines (we will). Then it's "Bye bye fossil fuels. Can't say I'm sorry to see you go."
Actually there was recent article by the the N.Y.Times (It was phoned in from Joe's Bar) and it seems the biggest impediment to windmill farms is the NOT IN MY BACKYARD syndrome.
Environmental friendlies turn to foes
This part is especially telling...
The wind forest promises to provide Cape Codders, on average, with 75 percent of their electricity, 1.8 percent of the total electrical needs of New England, without emitting a single microgram of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide or mercury and without burning a single barrel of Middle Eastern oil.
Yet they don't want it because they are limo liberals who want to change everyone elses lifestyles while maintaining their own.
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
Well too bad if it proves to be true. If it does we'll just have to find something else.
Maybe they don't want us to find something else. Maybe their agenda is nearly complete depopulation of the planet with regard to humans and any similarity to a modern lifestyle.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Maybe they don't want us to find something else. Maybe their agenda is nearly complete depopulation of the planet with regard to humans and any similarity to a modern lifestyle.
Nick
Yeah lets all go and live in big huts and put funny grass skirts on..la la la.
Lets all live in harmony with the lions and tigers who want to eat us..
We can change them by sending out peace vibrations.
Err...
But you can volunteer to be first OK.
Originally posted by aquafire
Yeah lets all go and live in big huts and put funny grass skirts on..la la la.
Lets all live in harmony with the lions and tigers who want to eat us..
We can change them by sending out peace vibrations.
Err...
But you can volunteer to be first OK.
I hope you don't think I was advocating that position.
The closet goal of most environmentalists is for the earth to exist free of human influence. The easiest way to accomplish that of course is to get rid of the humans.
Nick
Magnetic containment bottles anyone? H2 is easier, but still not easy.
speaking of science made easy...
with all the talk of homo cleavage, sexual politics for outer and inner pinkos, and thrusting volcanoes spewing into o-zone holes, this thread deserves a geek porn award.
beavis and butthead for baccalaureates. chemistry a la christina aguilera.
IIRC, some of the research lost (some data d/l) with Columbia included upper atmospheric evidence of red and blue sprites and elves (lightning phenomena only seen from above) and some compositional measurements at various altitudes/wavelengths. ISS has also provided useful data on atmospheric interactions due to radiation, as have many stratospheric balloons and some sounding rockets.