Our cooling world

[Zipperfish]

BTW a 60 degree Celsius difference in temperature will increase the volume of 1 liter of water to 1.0126 liter..and that would mean such increase would have to go all the way to the bottom of the ocean for any measurable difference..
So this theory is a non issue.....

Well, if you take the average depth of the ocean, say 5000 m, and you heated it up a little bit, say so the density decreased from 1000 kg/m3 to, say, 999.99 kg/m3, you would raise the sea level by 50 mm. It doesn't take much, given the volumes involved.

 

[petros]

Well, if you take the average depth of the ocean, say 5000 m, and you heated it up a little bit, say so the density decreased from 1000 kg/m3 to, say, 999.99 kg/m3, you would raise the sea level by 50 mm. It doesn't take much, given the volumes involved.

Does that apply below 28ft?

 

[Zipperfish]

Does that apply below 28ft?

Yes.

by definition, so it would apply at any depth.

 

[petros]

Water column doesn't matter?

 

[Zipperfish]

How much of the global warming theory relies on the sun staying consistent?

None.

Water column doesn't matter?

The calcualtion is intended to demonstrate that even small cahnges can have measurable effects when applied to large bodies.

 

[petros]

How much heat at sea bottom is needed to combat the 1086bar (15,000+p.s.i.)on the deepest ocean point to get your 50mm?

None.



The calcualtion is intended to demonstrate that even small cahnges can have measurable effects when applied to large bodies.

None? Really? Only CO2 is considered in modeling?

 

[Zipperfish]

How much heat at sea bottom is needed to combat the 1086 bar on the deepest ocean point to get you 50mm?

I would need more information for a coherent answer. How does heat "combat" pressure?

 

[petros]

I would need more information for a coherent answer. How does heat "combat" pressure?

Water column. Ever heard of it?

 

[Zipperfish]

None? Really? Only CO2 is considered in modeling?

I didn't say that. I said--or meant to say--that the theory of anthrpogenic global warming due to greenhouse gases is not based on the irradaition from the sun, or the variability in its radiation. That is an input to the model. Clearly the output will change significantly based on the input, but the model will run regardless of of the input provided.

Water column. Ever heard of it?

And I see we are heading to the Petros Dance.

I've heard of the water column. Once again throwing around technical sounding words without any context is not a very good counter-argument.

 

[petros]

I didn't say that. I said--or meant to say--that the theory of anthrpogenic global warming due to greenhouse gases is not based on the irradaition from the sun, or the variability in its radiation. That is an input to the model. Clearly the output will change significantly based on the input, but the model will run regardless of of the input provided.



And I see we are heading to the Petros Dance.

I've heard of the water column. Once again throwing around technical sounding words without any context is not a very good counter-argument.

You don't know that water is heavy? As depth drops the heat needed to get expansion increases exponentially. I'm sorry if it is too technical for you but that is not my fault.


As of late we have heard that irradiance was behind our pull out of the maunder until just 30 years ago and then CO2 kicked in. It is either one or the other of both sunshine. WTF is it?

 

[MHz]

This and similar articles would be a better indicator if the south is cooling off also

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/south-america-cold-wave-brings/34265

 

[Zipperfish]

You don't know that water is heavy?

Which weighs more--a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? :lol: I can play too!

As of late we have heard that irradiance was behind our pull out of the maunder until just 30 years ago and then CO2 kicked in. It is either one or the other of both sunshine. WTF is it?

The anthropogenic CO2 means it is about 0.4 - 0.8 deg C than it would otherwise be.

 

[petros]

Whiuch weights more--a pound of feathers or a pound of gold? :lol: I can play too!



The anthropogenic CO2 means it is about 0.4 - 0.8 deg C than it would otherwise be.

I guess it is too complicated because expansion goes bye bye under pressure as does heat coefficiency.

Water in you car radiator boils at 220F instead of 210F. Why?

 

[Zipperfish]

I guess it is too complicated because expansion goes bye bye under pressure as does heat coefficiency.

Water in you car radiator boils at 220F instead of 210F. Why?

It's not too complicated. It's a little confusing because I'm not sure that the terms you are throwing around mean what you think they mean. For instance, I don't know what you mean by "heat coefficiency." It's not a term I've seen used before--and, as I've said in the past--I've had several post-graduate thermodynamics courses.

Until now, I hadn't considered that the concept that warmer water occupies a larger volume than cooler water was controversial.

If you could demonstrate the physics for me, I'd appreciate it--the actual math you are talking about. I'm not sure if you understand the difference and realtionship between density, weight, mass, thermal expansion and pressure though. You seem a little confused.

 

[petros]

It's not too complicated. It's a little confusing because I'm not sure that the terms you are throwing around mean what you think they mean. For instance, I don't know what you mean by "heat coefficiency." It's not a term I've seen used before--and, as I've said in the past--I've had several post-graduate thermodynamics courses.

Until now, I hadn't considered that the concept that warmer water occupies a larger volume than cooler water was controversial.

If you could demonstrate the physics for me, I'd appreciate it--the actual math you are talking about. I'm not sure if you understand the difference and realtionship between density, weight, mass, thermal expansion and pressure though. You seem a little confused.

At 22,000kPa water boils at 650K. Why?

 

[Zipperfish]

At 22,000kPa water boils at 650K. Why?

This was a thought experiment involving thermal expansion of water. When water expands thermally, its mass stays the same, and therefore the pressure remains the same at the bottom of a given column of water. You seem to be saying that there would be a change in pressure?

 

[petros]

Expansion decreases as pressure increases at depth. Every 100m adds another atmosphere of pressure.

 

[Zipperfish]

Expansion decreases as pressure increases at depth. Every 100m adds another atmosphere of pressure.

Its about every 10 m of water, actually.

And yet, you can fill up a column with water, measure its height and then heat it up a little. If you measure again you will see the height of the water has increased. This is a common high school experiment.

Try it. If it doesn't work, get back to me. :lol:

 

[petros]

At 1atm.

And that stays consistent does it?

 

[Zipperfish]

At 1atm.

And that stays consistent does it?

It would be more than 1 atmosphere. It would be 1 atmosphere (at sea level) plus the weight of the water on top of it. And--again you can try this at home--you can measure the volume expansion when the column of water is heated.