The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can passing current through the polar icecaps stop them melting?  (Read 16001 times)

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling.

You are wrong we are talking about dynamic processes whereas you refer to static values.

If your graphs have any truth then no co2 would be absorbed by the ocean. as it is too high.

I mean when you breath out why does the co2 rise?

Because it is warm.


if it is cold it goes down.

The graphs show a fairly even concentration of CO2 with altitude in conflict with your previous assertions. The graphs are of CO2 concentration in the real world and are based on a large number of measurements. This does not preclude absorption of CO2 by the oceans as there is significant concentration of CO2 at the surface. It does preclude your idea that because CO2 is heavier it will result in higher concentrations at ground level. This is simply not the case in the real world.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
Do you ever run? If you run you displace air.
That is true but I happen to be a solid and I absorb very little air whilst I run. There is no doubt that, if I sit on a balloon of CO2, I will compress it but the other gases in your system will mix and / or diffuse. What do you say will happen in that case? Where is this 'displacement' happening?
Why do you refuse to answer? Could it be that you have no idea and you are just cross when an awkward question is asked?
« Last Edit: 05/06/2008 19:02:55 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling.

You are wrong we are talking about dynamic processes whereas you refer to static values.

If your graphs have any truth then no co2 would be absorbed by the ocean. as it is too high.

I mean when you breath out why does the co2 rise?

Because it is warm.


if it is cold it goes down.

The graphs show a fairly even concentration of CO2 with altitude in conflict with your previous assertions. The graphs are of CO2 concentration in the real world and are based on a large number of measurements. This does not preclude absorption of CO2 by the oceans as there is significant concentration of CO2 at the surface. It does preclude your idea that because CO2 is heavier it will result in higher concentrations at ground level. This is simply not the case in the real world.


Again you are talking about static values.I can prove it too.

Any tree/vegetation absorbs co2 and releases oxygen.right?

AT GROUND LEVEL.

right?

Now both you and sophie claim no co2 exists.If this was the case then trees would die.


A tree can only absorb co2 if it exists at ground level.Can you not understand that simple fact?

plants/vegetation is made largely from carbon absorbed from air from co2 and from soil nutrients.

Hence co2 does exist at sea level and your graphs are irrelevant as to the  majority accumulation.

in any case your obsession with diffusion is wrong.DIFFUSION has been occuring for millions of years but the atmosphere is still non-uniform.This is because it is a dynamic system.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
But neither of them said there is no CO2 at ground level. They said that CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere.
 

lyner

  • Guest
GrahamD
We can assume that there is CO2 at ground level; I never stated that it isn't (read carefully). The vertical distribution is of minor consequence, except I have to point our that the CO2 all the way up contributes to warming - not just the bit at ground level.
I ask, yet again, what are the mechanics behind this 'displacement' process which is supposed to increase its pressure so that the surface CO2 dissolves faster. Withering comments are not needed - just a proper explanation without rude comments. You still haven't given one.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2008 23:12:55 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Sophie, I think you have got your lines crossed :-) I don't think I disagreed with you, did I. I think you should have been addressing NSM.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Oh yes; dopey me!
Remarks actually addressed to NSM.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2008 23:13:28 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
So then the measurements we have of co2 concentration vs. altitude are wrong then NobodySavedMe? They must be because it doesn't line up with your senseless theory? Just to clarifly, are you trying to say that most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sits neatly near ground level?
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
So then the measurements we have of co2 concentration vs. altitude are wrong then NobodySavedMe? They must be because it doesn't line up with your senseless theory? Just to clarifly, are you trying to say that most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sits neatly near ground level?

You both are missing the point.

IT DOES NOT MATTER AT WHAT ALTITUDE WHERE THE PEAK VALUE OF CARBON DIOXIDE  CONCENTRATION IS.

Your inability to understand a simple fact is astonishing.

All that matters is that it exists at sea level and can be absorbed as explained.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Yes - it doesn't really matter about the distribution.
BUT, you still haven't explained, in readily understandable terms, how you intend to increase the pressure of CO2 where it is in contact with the sea.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPLACEMENT? You have not answered that question yet and that's why I am shouting. If you cannot explain that, your idea has no meaning. If you think I am ignorant, then explain in very simple terms so that even an idiot can understand what you mean. Some actual figures for the quantities involved might help, too.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Yes - it doesn't really matter about the distribution.
BUT, you still haven't explained, in readily understandable terms, how you intend to increase the pressure of CO2 where it is in contact with the sea.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPLACEMENT? You have not answered that question yet and that's why I am shouting. If you cannot explain that, your idea has no meaning. If you think I am ignorant, then explain in very simple terms so that even an idiot can understand what you mean. Some actual figures for the quantities involved might help, too.

But I already have explained it.
Yet you persist in your argumentative and vexatious manner.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
But I already have explained it.
Yet you persist in your argumentative and vexatious manner.

Are you a politician?
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
NSM,
to displace something means, as you pointed out, to move it elsewhere.
Where do you propose to move the CO2 to? The earth's gravity makes "elsewhere"  a dfiicult concept. (incidentally this isn't true of the hydrogen you plan to produce- it's to do with boltzmann distributions and escape velocities)
If it's still part of the atmosphere it will still generate a greenhouse effect.
If you hope that it will dissolve in the oceans then you don't understand the chemistry.
In order to increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water you don't have to increase the overall pressure. You need to increase the partial pressure of CO2 and your proposal doesn't do that.
Adding a diluent gas like H2 or O2 would reduce the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Since there's nowhere else for it to go, it would end up in the air. That makes the greenhouse effect even worse.

That's before we work out how much electrical power it would take to prduce any significant quantity of H2 or O2 - and from that work out how much fuel we would need to burn  and thus see how much more CO2 it would put into the air.
Then there's the other qusetion. Why in the name of anyone would you try to run a current through ice. It's a dreadful conductor so you would need to use much more electicity than if you used water.

Basically the idea is dumb to start with and it gets worse the more you think about it.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
You are w
NSM,
to displace something means, as you pointed out, to move it elsewhere.
Where do you propose to move the CO2 to? The earth's gravity makes "elsewhere"  a dfiicult concept. (incidentally this isn't true of the hydrogen you plan to produce- it's to do with boltzmann distributions and escape velocities)
If it's still part of the atmosphere it will still generate a greenhouse effect.
If you hope that it will dissolve in the oceans then you don't understand the chemistry.
In order to increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water you don't have to increase the overall pressure. You need to increase the partial pressure of CO2 and your proposal doesn't do that.
Adding a diluent gas like H2 or O2 would reduce the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Since there's nowhere else for it to go, it would end up in the air. That makes the greenhouse effect even worse.

That's before we work out how much electrical power it would take to prduce any significant quantity of H2 or O2 - and from that work out how much fuel we would need to burn  and thus see how much more CO2 it would put into the air.
Then there's the other qusetion. Why in the name of anyone would you try to run a current through ice. It's a dreadful conductor so you would need to use much more electicity than if you used water.

Basically the idea is dumb to start with and it gets worse the more you think about it.
rong.


Power stations run 24/7 and at night due to lower load the extra electricity is wasted and could easily be diverted.CO2 has a huge effect on heat absorption.A small change downward would reduce global warming.increasing o2 and h2 would increase absorption by the sea as co2 would be absorbed preferentilly.
 

lyner

  • Guest
After two pages of posts and discussion you still haven't described what your propoasl actually involves. You refuse to say what your 'shorthand' terms mean. How much of your own personal money would you invest in such a scanty case? Forgive me for my total disbelief; you have no idea what is involved.

btw,Power stations do not 'dump' their energy at night. They can vary their output by adjusting the fuel input.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"increasing o2 and h2 would increase absorption by the sea as co2 would be absorbed preferentilly."
No it wouldn't . Please learn some science.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
And it would just be plain stupid to put all that energy into producing hydrogen and then just letting it escape into the atmosphere and eventually out of it. If you're going to produce hydrogen in mass scale it would be much better used as a fuel instead of a futile effort to increase the atmospheric pressure for no good reason.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
It would probably be a good idea not to screw with the arctic icecap too.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
After two pages of posts and discussion you still haven't described what your propoasl actually involves. You refuse to say what your 'shorthand' terms mean. How much of your own personal money would you invest in such a scanty case? Forgive me for my total disbelief; you have no idea what is involved.

btw,Power stations do not 'dump' their energy at night. They can vary their output by adjusting the fuel input.

Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.

By electrolysing the ice we can restore the normal co2 levels by displacing excess co2 back into the ocean.

You can even try this experiment IN THE GARDEN with ice and 2 forks in the ice attached to batteries and a upside jug semi submerged in a basin of water.AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
So you intend to put a giant upside down vessel over the ice caps?

And out of interest, have you tried it?  How did you show that the co2 was absorbed?
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile

Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.


Rubbish. A dynamo under load (i.e. when energy is being drawn from it) is harder to turn than one that has its output "open circuit" with no energy coming from it.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder"
Wrong way round.
"AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed. "
Worng way round again. displacing CO2 from the area above the water will let more CO2 come out of solution.
It also remains the case that ice is a damned poor conductr so passinfg a current through it is difficult. Water's easier.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
"Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder"
Wrong way round.
"AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed. "
Worng way round again. displacing CO2 from the area above the water will let more CO2 come out of solution.
It also remains the case that ice is a damned poor conductr so passinfg a current through it is difficult. Water's easier.


no no no.
displacing co2 from the caps will keep them cool and get it reabsorbed by the sea.we don't need a good conductor.any material conducts electricity, except some conduct better.


Reply with quote
So you intend to put a giant upside down vessel over the ice caps?

And out of interest, have you tried it?  How did you show that the co2 was absorbed?

no.
gravity holds the atmosphere down.did you not know that?

the co2 was absorbed as a colored dye sprayed into the air above water showed as pressure increased it got absorbed by the water surface.

many of you seem ignorant that the sea is the main determinant.70% is ocean surface.

a dynamo under load is easier to turn as the extra speed compensates for the energy being drained from it.it is harder to turn if it open circuit as no energy is being drained.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
no.
gravity holds the atmosphere down.did you not know that?

the co2 was absorbed as a colored dye sprayed into the air above water showed as pressure increased it got absorbed by the water surface.

Yes, I understand that gravity holds the atmosphere around the Earth, and I'll thank you not to question my education.  However, the air above the icecaps is not held rigidly in place by anything similar to your plastic vessel - wind will dispurse and mix the gases.

So you did this experiment by spraying a coloured liquid into your sealed chamber, yes? No by measuring dissolved co2 in the liquid?
 

lyner

  • Guest
NSM
Quote
Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.
Ring up your local power station and find out. Do yourself a favour - let them give you a Science lesson. You clearly won't listen to us who know.
Have you ever heard of Lenz's law?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums