Global Warming Solutions Wanted

[Andra_Jenny]

If I concede two of your three points, your argument being

1). The earth is warming [at an alarming rate] which obviously I now have to give having pointed out that there was at least one serious error in you data, but we will ignore that since it is inconvenient to your belief system.

2). That man’s activities are the main cause, or a controllable cause. Although a continent covered from mountain range to mountain range with let us say, buffalo or cattle, are innocent factors, but again, since you know the answer and I do not

3). That man can do something about it. And it is the third point that I would like to address having begrudgingly, for the sake of dialog, simply conceded to the first two premises just so we can find common ground.

[And at this point, let offer as an aside that perhaps unlike you, I am a trained meteorologist and have a degree in computer science and one in mathematics, and have actually worked with weather systems and computer modeling software and do know something about this topic. I have presented some of my credentials privately to our hosts and will supply them more if you wish to contact them about the veracity of my claims. Having said that, unlike you, I will state that I do not know any of the answers, that is to say, I am unable with my experience to form the conclusions that you have, but since I am rather the dimmest bulb on the board, i.e., the most stupid person here, then I offer myself to be enlightened with one simple Diogenes-like question. In summation, with all my knowledge, I am unable to offer firm conclusion and am mystified as to how you can, so, pray tell, just answer the fawking question…]






Here is the question.

I and a bunch of my dumbass Kansas farmer friends are at the house on a hot day discussing global warming and trying our best to recall our physics classes from our earlier days and being not unlike Al Gore, we are all heavy ice tea drinkers, but alas, I have a small freezer and only four ice-cube trays. Having used all of our ice with no solution in sight, what is now our quickest available method to make more ice cubes?

 

[MinkSoul]

use warm water?

this isn't a smart assed answer.... i've heard that it's supposed to freeze faster...


something to do with the evaporation...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Excellent!

Very Good!

Basic laws of physics.

The earth is an ice cube in a tray in a deep freeze.

If I add energy to a system, the molecules are more energetic and it cools faster!

You use boiling water!

 

[Ally C]

You could always do without the ice. As I'm unwilling to give up smoking for the time being, I'm not forcing this option on you. Just a thought.

 

[MinkSoul]

ice cube?

um.... you've heard of the mantle, haven't you?

that layer of Molten Rock the crust is floating on.
at least partialy heated by natural radioactive decay


not my idea of an ice cube...

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Was our water frozen when we put it in the tray?

 

[MinkSoul]

Was our tray red hot?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Originally according to several theories...

But if it were, it would yes freeze quickly! Now where the water would go is another matter, eh?

 

[Closet Desire]

You might be...

...a trained meteorologist, but you've obviously never studied engineering...you know...topics like heat transfer and fluid flow, thermal dynamics, etc.

The bit about hot water freezing faster? It's a myth.

It seems more people would actually have the curiosity and motivation to fill two jars, one with hot water, one with cold water, seal them with lids, and put them in the freezer. Some high schools still do this as an experiment, plotting the temperature change on a graph, etc. Exciting stuff. I think this is called...mmmmm...the scientific method.

I'll save you the trouble. The cold one freezes first.

The hot water is storing more energy and the heat transfer rate is governed by several factors including the conductivity of the container and the delta temp. Initially the hot water will transfer energy faster/unit time but the rate will slow as the temperatures approach one another. The cold water has less energy to transfer before phase change and is subject to the same rules and factors regarding heat transfer. It will freeze first.

What this has to do with a planet that has an atmosphere I don't know, but I do know that ice cubes don't have atmospheres, oceans, automobiles, or people.

Fortunately this was easy to sort out as bad science because some questions are truly that fundamental.

Care to take on the old physics question that separates those who have studied from those who haven't?

Two cars travelling toward one another at 60mph (closing speed 120 mph). They collide head on. Is the effect of the collision equivalent to a collision with a brick wall at 60mph or 120mph?

 

[Closet Desire]

LMAO...

Actually, I can't take any of this seriously. AJ you're an outright fraud. May I quote you?

"If I add energy to a system, the molecules are more energetic and it cools faster!"

A first semester engineering student would tell you this is absolute rubbish. A decent high school student would tell you the same thing.

If you add energy to a system that is already cooling then it will cool more slowly or, if you add enough energy, will begin to heat up again.

AJ, either you are forsaking the scientific skills you claim to have in order to cause controversy or you simply don't have those skills. Scientists love answers. So far the strongest evidence we have here for "hot water freezes faster than cold water" is "someone once told me." Great. Here's some answers for you. Some real science.

It IS possible for nearly boiling water to freeze faster than cold water, but today it requires an elaborately contrived experiment to demonstrate it. One hundred and fifty years ago people kept water in wooden pails, which is the source of this urban myth, and this phenomena was commonly observed. Like other "facts" it has been sorted out since then with a plausible explanation.

Put two wooden pails of water without lids outdoors in freezing weather. The water in one pail should be 95 degrees C and the other should be 50 degrees C. The hot water freezes first. Why?

Observation...that's a key thing in science. You will notice that the pail which had hot water only contains 72% of its original mass while the cooler pail retains nearly all of its mass. This should be the Eureka moment. What's happening?

The phenomena isn't due to the cold air or any sort of odd magic. It's due to the cooling effect of evaporation. Wooden pails, through capillary action, evaporate water through the sides as well as through the top and, in this case, reduces the mass sufficiently to overcome the higher temperature (it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that a pail 3/4 full will freeze before one that is full...more specifically the pail will lose 16% of its mass while dropping from 95 to 0 degrees C and will lose another 12% while undergoing the phase change). It is important for the water to be nearly boiling in order for evaporation to contribute a significant cooling effect.

The cooling effect is twofold. First, mass is carried off so that less water actually needs to be cooled and evaporation also carries off the hottest molecules (greater kinetic energy) and lowers the average kinetic energy of those remaining. The result is the water in the pail will freeze in 90% of the time. When folks started using metal pails the phenomena disappeared because considerable cooling takes place through the conductive sides and evaporation is limited to the water at the surface.

Want to check up on my "facts"? Try "The Freezing of Hot and Cold Water", G.S. Kell in American Journal of Physics, Vol 37, No. 5, pp 564-565; May, 1969.

Expressing opinions are one thing, but expressing "facts" which are anything but is bad science (which I thought was AJ's hobby horse) and is irresponsible. If you want your ice cube trays to freeze faster you can get some made of wood or try just filling them 3/4 of the way up.

The earth isn't in a wooden pail and the simpler laws of physics remain safe for another day.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

*Runs screaming from thread remembering old chemisty and physics classes*

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Have you ever heard of using absurdity to make a point?






















I will also kick my physics professors ass for telling me that!



















And I still remember the brilliance of all those engineering students who could not get through the 400 level statistics class. Seems that if the do not have a fucking formula!



















And if you think I am ignorant, then you better not use any global warming analysis based on computer models...




















...cause I helped write sum of da software !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Closet Desire]

Yep...

...usually morons.

You started out the thread by making claims about your intellect and education. I took you to task for it so don't try to wriggle out that easily. You got called for talking crap.

Your question was how to make ice cubes faster. I answered it.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Crap back at ya!

 

[Closet Desire]

Like...

...I would expect anything else?

 

[Closet Desire]

Sciam huh?

Guess in your 30 minute read you missed this one...

"Hot water freezes faster than cold water. Why does it do so?", Jearl Walker, Scientific American, Vol. 237, No. 3; September, 1977.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I am sorry you are so smart as to have missed the point of the whole thing, but that is what happens when you are focused on the near thing with a near view.

Randori anyone?

 

[Nogard]

AJ, I do believe your bubble has been punctured. I now have to seriously doubt some of your prior posts. Will have to do serious research of future posts with your name on them

 

[Closet Desire]

Sure...

...I'll randori with you. Shodan in judo...even competed in your state a few times at the university in Lawrence. Name your art or sport.

In all fairness AJ, I think you underestimate the intelligence of many of the people who respond to your threads. I've read quite a few of yours and been disturbed by the claims you make. People who have strong backgrounds in a particular subject, be it history, religion, science, literature, philosophy, or law possess a cohesiveness of thought that comes from having learned the fundamentals of the subject. They speak in a common language which others of similar background immediately recognise and can respond to. I've been disappointed that I've not been able to discern this same quality in your postings on any of the topics you claim to be expert on.

When someone questions you they can expect obfuscation of the issue, personal insults, or some other non-intellectual response rather than a reasoned argument supported by evidence or even educated guesses. You started most of these threads and leveled charges of "bad science" or flawed logic and emphsising your own expertise in this area. Can you be too surprised that you will be challenged on this?

I don't think I missed the point, but perhaps you missed mine. You flubbed up on one of the first things that people serious about physics and chemistry learn early on and you carried on a line of reasoning based on that fallacy. This reinforced the notion that you lacked a fundamental understanding of physics and chemistry. When challenged you insulted engineers who couldn't pass a statistics course. I dunno, never had to study statistics in any great depth when I learned engineering and I certainly don't consider myself a mathematician. I did manage to struggle through two years of analytical geometry (calculus) with sufficient skill to do the physics and chemistry (which I was good at) necessary to my profession at the time. Like others on this board there are a few things I know about and an infinite number of things I do not know about.

There's nothing wrong with expressing opinions about controversial subjects like global warming even by those who don't have a technical grasp of the problem. Healthy debate is great fun and most of us come away enlightened by the experience. There are people on this board who know things and have thought things I never even imagined and I walked away richer for it.

The people on this board are intelligent enough to recognise when someone knows what they're talking about. They are also quick to recognise a charlatan.

 

[Starfish]

I have tried to refrain from responding to this thread, as with many of your posts AJ, due to the fact that I am not out to hurt you or make you feel like less of a person, but the time has come for you to be informed that this isn't the Andra Jenny show.

I am writing this, namely, because you are as unclear as icecubes made from cold water.....
You claim to conceed points in favor of it happening, yet you don't ever really give up trying to make 'your' point. You are insulting, at least, my intellegence when you play games with science.

Who the fuck are you talking to, anyway? You start these threads on a public board, yet you make them exclusive by addressing these phantom "you"s and I can only imagine that you are carrying out a personal arugement in a public forum. This is Number What??? thread that started about this topic, yet you are discluding the majority of the board members by asking irrlevent questions. More on this later.

Making Ice cubes, as you've claimed was your point (yet you contradict that by agreeing that your analogy is correct), has nothing to do with global warming, and you assume that this is going to 'prove' that the 'other side' is using irrelevant points to fight their arugment. What kind of logic is that. That is plainly hypocritical.

You neglect to realize that that in itself is BAD SCIENCE!

Your hypocracy runs so deep that your credentials are useless to backing your points. Besides, it isn't like your profession is an exact science. Credentials are shit, if the person who obtained them is irrational, unreasonable, and unable to formulate a solid aruegment.

I have nothing against your person, nothing against your choice to have poorly developed beliefs..
but you need to stop imposing them on people if you don't have a leg to stand on. (Which you don't)

You have proven nothing in the time you've been here, just like everyone of my collegues and I, yet we keep our mouths shut, our eyes open and look for clues to what is going on, like good little scientists. You are wasting our fucking time.......

FACT: Global warming is an issue that entails many facets... Not just exclusive to your inexact Meteorological and Computer science methods. Meteorology has come along way, but since when is it not an exact science? You might as well have gone into Volcanism or Seismology, etc.... and tried to determine all facets of Global Warming, though I will say that, yes, Meteorology has more insight into it, than either example, but I am eluding to the point that you people can only make educated guesses, yet you can predict shit.

So therefor, your attesting to having a grip is a fucking joke...

Maybe if you realize that it would take a holistic, indepth look into Chemistry (organic and otherwise), Biology, and Physics (engineering) (100 level classes in this as a requiste don't count. You have to delve deeper than that, dear.) and other hard sciences (paleogeology...etc..) with a bit more factual clout then maybe you'll see that your viewpoint, at this time, is extreamly limited.

No one individual can claim to have a clue to what is going on, but the SIGNS lean in favor of it being very real.
Delude yourself all you want, to make yourself feel safe and protected.

Ignore the facts that Geologists, Biologists, Chemists, Paleogeoloists, Paleobiologist etc. etc. etc... are all concurring, elude that something is very wrong. And modern human life is very possible contributing to a possible cyclic pheonomenon, or simply causeing it to increase the rate of an oncoming Ice age.

I have absolutely no clue why you think that your example is effective at presenting a valid point, or who, for that matter, you are directing it at, and I honestly don't give a shit, because the examples you are using are the epitomy of Bad Science.

If you won't see the reality of the situation.. and that is what I have spelled out for you here, then I just wish that if it is going to be an exclusive little, bitchy, arugement, that you'd do the rest us a favor and keep it to under 10 threads?

You are a welcome party to the Lit BB, but you are not being a very considerate person and that is why you are being belittled by so many.

I hope that I didn't waste my fucking time, as I so fear I have.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Oh no. Don't worry. Nothing gets to me. I actually learned the ice cube thing in physics class. It was material on the test. At UMKC. Swear as a former marine! I mean, that's kinda my point that I keep saying is just how can we say for certain when the science is continually changing and being updated. Also just being silly many times, but the ones who want to politicize the argument just blindly argue away. You read one report, x will happen, others, y.

People are staking themselves to the ground on this issue and I just am, perhaps in a very stupid way, trying to say, hey,

it's a little early to get extreme.


Hey

 

[Guest]

I don't even care about all that shit!

All i know is my hot water pipes freeze first.

 

[Closet Desire]

No physics there...

...the hot water doesn't get run as often so it freezes first. They were the first to freeze in my house too.

 

[Starfish]

Okay, I can see your point that politics shouldn't come to play in these matters, but don't you think it is better to be safe than sorry? Even if that means being extream. Besides, what is wrong with wanting to cut emmissions even if it isn't what is had to be to make it like it was when I was a kid.


As long as you realize that Science isn't being wasted in trying to find out what the hell is going on.

I am glad to see that you are just trying to bring a different light to the subject, if you indeed arn't just trying to stir shit.

No hard feelings here. Good day to you, ma'am.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Now you get it!

Hey anyone can go after me or my ideas. Politics ain't beanbag as Limbaugh and Carville both pay homage to JFK and both will tell you that political debate needs heated passionate exchange as well as propoganda. I just think the argument was a political one and TIC brought all that to bear.

Its just has a comedian, I may lack timing, polish, and material, but hell, at least I bombed!


To my Liberal friends and former colleagues,

I won't use ignore! I won't run away. Why you all just a bunch of whiney sissies, why you know polotics ain't bean bag, hell I lie, AJ lies, Rush lies, we all lyin' to you...

I may be the toughest bitch on the board, so to speak...