Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

August 22, 2004

Ian St. John wrote:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...o/heat.html#c1

A trivial google search reveals thousands of others.


Heat Definition: The energy transferred from one body or system to
another
as a result of a difference in temperature. The energy in the body or
system
before or after transfer is sometimes erroneously called heat and
that usage
should be avoided as it leads to confusion.

That is one definition. Symbols and equations would be a better way of
expressing yourself.

O.K. Now you have made your point. It is another 'dictionary diversion'.

It's called mathematical precision and theoretical consistency.

You could have made this simple revision of the literature back at the
beginning, and don't tell me to read the references. Until you make a
point
there is no incentive to verify it.

The point I made, was that you are not keeping abreast of modern
scientific advances and developments. You are not using scientific
methods in the problem solving process, that is, you are not
participating in the production of scientific results and solutions.
Learning and relearning should be a never ending process. I offered a
solution to your particular problem in the form of links, which you
declined to examine.


Guys, guys. Thomas is obviously refering to the version of the second
law that no useful work can be extracted from a system where there is
only a single heat reservoir. However, I do not think that this means
that temperature is what is important, not heat energy.

josh halpern





However, there is also heat energy and that was obviously the way the
term
was being used. I am afraid that I have to convict you of being
deliberately
obscure.

Yes, I admit it was another pathetic attempt to get you to read and do
research, and solve practical problems, like the fundamental human
problems of global warming, global pollution, species extinction and
warfare, driven by hydrocarbon combustion, heat engines, and the
resultant overpopulation and resource exhaustion. The problems are
extremely challenging and difficult, but they are not insoluble, if
you accept that challenge, and participate in their resolution.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

August 22, 2004

"Ian St. John" wrote in message :

"Heat energy is ENERGY, and increases in energy in every system have
effects, including increasing energy content in weather systems."

Thus, it follows that global warming has an effect on weather. ;-)

It was pathetic, but hardly an attempt to educate. That would require
presenting your objection in a more rational and direct fashion related to
the issue at hand.

As in links to precisely defined mathematical symbols and equations.

As long as you maintain the confusion between the
engineering term of heat and the 'heat energy' under discussion, nobody is
going to follow your logic.

Perhaps then they can follow the links and read the mathematics.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
August 22, 2004

"Ian St. John" wrote in message :

"Heat energy is ENERGY, and increases in energy in every system have
effects, including increasing energy content in weather systems."

Thus, it follows that global warming has an effect on weather. ;-)

WRONG. It follows because the heat energy is NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED. Get a
clue man!


It was pathetic, but hardly an attempt to educate. That would require
presenting your objection in a more rational and direct fashion
related to the issue at hand.

As in links to precisely defined mathematical symbols and equations.

No. As in why a uniform level of heat energy, no matter how high, cannot be
used to extract mechanical motion.


As long as you maintain the confusion between the
engineering term of heat and the 'heat energy' under discussion,
nobody is going to follow your logic.

Perhaps then they can follow the links and read the mathematics.

Why? Do you have a new point to introduce? The last one is pretty well
defined as 'not even wrong' but irrelevant to the point raised.


Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 05:42:41 -0400, "Ian St. John"
wrote:


No. As in why a uniform level of heat energy, no matter how high, cannot be
used to extract mechanical motion.

In the global weather system there are NEVER uniform levels of heat,
because there are three primary shear forces exerted on the atmosphere
by planet rotation, there is polar and equator insolation differences,
there is season tilt., there are irrgularities of surface features,
there are irregularities in oceanic topography, there are different
albedos of surfaces.

Even current levels of CO@ have effects and it is paramount to be
monitoring these effects to build the database crucial to accurate
predictions of the future.

You have been a denialist, and a "uniformist", and you have been
visibly wrong.

Psalm 110 wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 05:42:41 -0400, "Ian St. John"
wrote:


No. As in why a uniform level of heat energy, no matter how high,
cannot be used to extract mechanical motion.

In the global weather system there are NEVER uniform levels of heat,
because there are three primary shear forces exerted on the atmosphere
by planet rotation, there is polar and equator insolation differences,
there is season tilt., there are irrgularities of surface features,
there are irregularities in oceanic topography, there are different
albedos of surfaces.

Fine, but that was not the point. The point was a technical one about a
statement that was wrong *in and of itself*.


Even current levels of CO@ have effects and it is paramount to be
monitoring these effects to build the database crucial to accurate
predictions of the future.

You have been a denialist, and a "uniformist", and you have been
visibly wrong.

No. The problem now becomes, not whether a uniform temperature can be
converted to mechanical energy (winds, currents, etc ) but whether global
warming ( a change in the average temperature) will have an effect on the
levels of heat differences. It is not a simple question.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:26:35 -0400, "Ian St. John"
wrote:

Psalm 110 wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 05:42:41 -0400, "Ian St. John"
wrote:


No. As in why a uniform level of heat energy, no matter how high,
cannot be used to extract mechanical motion.

In the global weather system there are NEVER uniform levels of heat,
because there are three primary shear forces exerted on the atmosphere
by planet rotation, there is polar and equator insolation differences,
there is season tilt., there are irrgularities of surface features,
there are irregularities in oceanic topography, there are different
albedos of surfaces.

Fine, but that was not the point. The point was a technical one about a
statement that was wrong *in and of itself*.

You statement is consistent with your body of statements. You believe
in uniformitism in global warming, and you are disputatious about
evidence that focallized hot spots are being aggravated TODAY by
increases of greenhouse gases. Since you have a posting history, track
record, reputation, you are interpreted to mean your normal position
advanced regularly and frequently. YOU put words in your mouth, and
you are held responsible for consistent self-inflicted blindness that
causes you to keep repeating them.

If evidence has alterred your position -- say so, and you will be held
accountable to a new (instead of the old) position.

Even current levels of CO2 have effects and it is paramount to be
monitoring these effects to build the database crucial to accurate
predictions of the future.

You have been a denialist, and a "uniformist", and you have been
visibly wrong.

No. The problem now becomes, not whether a uniform temperature can be
converted to mechanical energy (winds, currents, etc ) but whether global
warming ( a change in the average temperature) will have an effect on the
levels of heat differences. It is not a simple question.

Thomas Palm wrote in message .229...
(SwimJim) wrote in
om:

Mike1 wrote in
message
news:Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project-5E0CD8.22244919082004@phswest.
com...
(SwimJim) wrote:

He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.


Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.

Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)

The Kyoto treaty is still nice to have in place until something better has
been worked out, flawed as it is. If you look at all the complaints against
the treaty you will find that they are quite contradictory and these
contradictions are going to plague any further treaties too.

My focus has always been on how Kyoto is phrased; it expects
countries to make self-sacrificing moves that are not in their
national interest. It seems to me already obvious that the signees
can't live up to their commitments, and I really doubt that most of
them want to try. Thus, I think that their ratification provides a
convenient excuse for not really doing anything, in the line of "Look,
we signed the Kyoto Protocol, we must be serious about climate change
-- nevermind that our fossil fuel consumption is still increasing and
we aren't hitting our targets. And let's bash the United States for
being realistic while we're at it."

For a treaty like this to work, it's got to be designed to cater to
national interests. Like a scorecard. A country gets points awarded
for each program it implements, for each reduction it achieves, for
each unit of hybrid vehicles that its citizens drive. The points
translate into real things: discounted prices on the world market for
vital commodities might be an example. Or contracts with other
countries for specific business objectives. You trade success on
pollution and energy consevation for something else.

I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since they
were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have expected
that they'd ratify it for that reason.

Good guess. China ratified the Kyoto treaty 30/08/02
http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

It was a good guess. I couldn't imagine China not signing something
that favored their interests like that.

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)


The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------

Josh Halpern wrote in message ...
SwimJim wrote:

Mike1 wrote in message


(SwimJim) wrote:


He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.


Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.



Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)


Let me respectfully disagree. Kyoto is about setting up a framework,
just as the
Montreal Protocols were originally.

I don't think the Kyoto Protocol's framework is workable. I'm going
to say this in a couple of posts, but there isn't a reward system that
does something for countries that hit their reduction targets. They
just promise to try, and current results indicate that isn't doing
much. Give them incentives and they might try a lot harder.

Jim Acker

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)


The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------

(SwimJim) wrote in
om:

Thomas Palm wrote in message
The Kyoto treaty is still nice to have in place until something
better has been worked out, flawed as it is. If you look at all the
complaints against the treaty you will find that they are quite
contradictory and these contradictions are going to plague any
further treaties too.

My focus has always been on how Kyoto is phrased; it expects
countries to make self-sacrificing moves that are not in their
national interest. It seems to me already obvious that the signees
can't live up to their commitments, and I really doubt that most of
them want to try.

The Montreal treaty seems to have worked pretty well. Of course, with USA
painting a big bullseye on itself and providing a good excuse for eveyone
else to cheat it is going to be harder with the Kyoto treaty. Why should
small polluters be nice when the richest and largest doesn't give a damn?
(For CFC:s USA, Sweden and a few other countries even started to limit
emissions long before the Montreal treaty or any international
obligation. Those were the days!)

For a treaty like this to work, it's got to be designed to cater to
national interests. Like a scorecard. A country gets points awarded
for each program it implements, for each reduction it achieves, for
each unit of hybrid vehicles that its citizens drive. The points
translate into real things: discounted prices on the world market for
vital commodities might be an example. Or contracts with other
countries for specific business objectives. You trade success on
pollution and energy consevation for something else.

That is not how international treaties are normally written. We have the
ICJ where countries can sue each other for violating treaties, but it
can't enforce its verdicts. Usually countries cooperate anyway because a
good international reputation has intangible benefits.

I don't see how a treaty could cause discount on world market prices
anyway. Do you propose a carbon tax to pay for this, or do you expect big
exporters to subsidize exports out of their own pocket? What is to stop
the countries receiving these lower prices from selling the goods on
anyway?

A global carbon tax used to finance UN and international aid might be
nice in theory, but it's never going to be accepted.

I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since
they were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have
expected that they'd ratify it for that reason.

Good guess. China ratified the Kyoto treaty 30/08/02
http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

It was a good guess. I couldn't imagine China not signing something
that favored their interests like that.

It's not that obvious. China must realize that in the next round they may
end up with restrictions on their own emissions and China tends to favor
national sovereignty as a matter of principle too. I don't know whether
they really care about the problem or just figure that with USA stalling
the process it won't cost anything to play nice.

David Ball wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 09:04:05 -0700, (SwimJim)
wrote:

Mike1 wrote in message ...
(SwimJim) wrote:

He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.


Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.

Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)

Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute, if we can't get
something relatively minor like Kyoto agreed on how do you propose we
arrive at a solution that will work that everyone is happy with? We're
getting to the point where we need to start running, but we haven't
even figured out how to walk yet.

Well Dave, you ask an excellent question. Not being an international
diplomat, I don't think that I can offer you a superb answer. My
basic point is this: whether or not Kyoto is agreed to, it probably
won't work. And even if it was implemented to its fullest extent, it
wouldn't have much of an impact on the problem. Therefore, I think
that too much time and effort and money has been expended in trying to
achieve an idealistic "agreement" that will be paid nothing more than
lip service. Meanwhile, coral reefs are disappearing.

In order for something like this to work, there have to be economic
incentives. Countries would sign in a minute (even the U.S.) if there
was a perceivable and achievable economic gain. Al Gore, bless his
misguided heart, wrote in "Earth in the Balance" that if costs to the
environment could be quantified, very quickly the "balance sheet" of
current economic development and growth would be drastically altered.
So, what I would propose, speaking in generalities because specifics
are always hard to come by, is this: a treaty that quantifies the
environment economically.

For example, how much is the fresh water from melting glaciers worth?
How much will a given economy suffer if that fresh water supply
diminishes by 25% over the next 50 years? If a country takes steps to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can you reward them with fresh water
"credits" -- perhaps some tugs will pull an Antarctic iceberg up to
Oman and provide fresh water to the Arab states.

Another example is soot control. Both India and China still release
tremendous amounts of soot, which causes health problems and is also
an element of climate change. So REWARD them for steps they take to
reduce soot -- let the WHO give them increased child health care
services in return for hitting soot reduction targets. (And I full
admit I borrowed this particular idea.)

Technological "first world" nations should be rewarded for developing
new energy technologies and exporting them cheaply to developing
nations that need them. This would reduce emissions and improve the
enviroment in those countries.

Anybody reading this newsgroup who's familiar with me may find it
surprising that I don't support the Kyoto Protocol. Well, let me put
it in simple terms: while I admire the beauty and grandeur of Mt.
Rushmore, I don't support it. It besmirched the natural environment,
cost a lot, and it makes a grandiose statement of United States
nationalism. In essence, it's a useless symbol. And that's what I
think of the Kyoto Protocol. I admire the effort and the aims, but
not the result. Until we get realistic about what works -- what
SELLS in the international marketplace -- nothing useful will be
achieved.


Jim Acker

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)


The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------