Comments on: The main “cause” of global warming is air conditioners. p7 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/ Tackling tribal groupthink Wed, 23 May 2012 08:38:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Donald http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-666714 Donald Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:10:32 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-666714 Joanne, I think you meant Obama is an excellent...reader. Joanne, I think you meant Obama is an excellent…reader.

Report this

00

]]> By: JSB http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-89979 JSB Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:07:38 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-89979 Hello Everyone: I have some basics doubts regarding how air conditioners and refrigerators work. I am putting one most basic pertinent doubt here (it has troubled my small brain for a long time now- please address it with a little patience): At the core of all AC's is the basic refrigeration cycle: 1) There is the surroundings (label it '1') with surrounding temperature (call T1). 2) There is the air conditioner in the interface which contains a compressor that takes in electricity to be run. 3) There is the place to be cooled (label it '2') and we want its temperature to be T2 that would make our bodies comfortable. And no rocket science funda involved when I write that T1>T2. Now when I turn on the air conditioner and a little time later I see the following energy transfers taking place: a) Heat is being absorbed from place to be cooled. Call this Q2. b) Energy/Electricity is being fed to air conditioner. Call this W. c) Heat is being rejected to the surroundings. Q1. A little energy equation funda involved when I write that Q1=Q2+W. Is this right? So, Q1=Q2+W => Q1>Q2. That is heat being rejected to surroundings is greater than the heat that needed to be taken out of my room to make me feel at comfort. So, HERE comes my basic troubling doubt, the above implies that if there was a simple heat transfer to be taken place between my room, Q1 should have been = to Q2, which would have meant that temperature rise of surroundings would have been in accordance to M*C*deltaT equality. But since now, my Q1>Q2, means that deltaT1, the rise in surroundings temperature is greater than the proportional (by MCT euality) fall in room's. And this is attributable to compressor work being converted into this additional heat. Now, multiply this effect by millions for the millions of AC's and refrigerators working across the globe. And what you see is the overall temperature of surroundings rising further. (Which by the way makes us feel even hotter and pushes us further closed to our AC's and thus the vicious circle). Wait a minute here... Is something really horrible wrong here? Because in the first place I wanted to be cooled down a little, I bought an AC, and eventually that AC made the earth even hotter, forcing me to buy more AC's?? Will the temperatures just go on rising?? ALSO, not taken into account in this explanation (my doubt rather) is the work W that is being fed to the AC. Where does that W aka electricity come from? Yes, the electricity plant- again efficiecny of about 30%... burning of fossil fuels, more heating... ever heating?? --- Note to all the readers: Please understand that I am just a naive with small exposure to mechanics and thermodynamics of refrigeration and AC's stuff. But this (the mammothic query above) has given me many a sleepless night... Please if I am missing a basic truth, correct me. In any case, answer me. And enlighten me. Abundant Thanks. Hello Everyone:
I have some basics doubts regarding how air conditioners and refrigerators work. I am putting one most basic pertinent doubt here (it has troubled my small brain for a long time now- please address it with a little patience):
At the core of all AC’s is the basic refrigeration cycle:
1) There is the surroundings (label it ’1′) with surrounding temperature (call T1).
2) There is the air conditioner in the interface which contains a compressor that takes in electricity to be run.
3) There is the place to be cooled (label it ’2′) and we want its temperature to be T2 that would make our bodies comfortable. And no rocket science funda involved when I write that T1>T2.
Now when I turn on the air conditioner and a little time later I see the following energy transfers taking place:
a) Heat is being absorbed from place to be cooled. Call this Q2.
b) Energy/Electricity is being fed to air conditioner. Call this W.
c) Heat is being rejected to the surroundings. Q1.
A little energy equation funda involved when I write that Q1=Q2+W. Is this right?
So, Q1=Q2+W => Q1>Q2.
That is heat being rejected to surroundings is greater than the heat that needed to be taken out of my room to make me feel at comfort.
So, HERE comes my basic troubling doubt,
the above implies that if there was a simple heat transfer to be taken place between my room, Q1 should have been = to Q2, which would have meant that temperature rise of surroundings would have been in accordance to M*C*deltaT equality.
But since now, my Q1>Q2,
means that deltaT1, the rise in surroundings temperature is greater than the proportional (by MCT euality) fall in room’s. And this is attributable to compressor work being converted into this additional heat.
Now, multiply this effect by millions for the millions of AC’s and refrigerators working across the globe. And what you see is the overall temperature of surroundings rising further. (Which by the way makes us feel even hotter and pushes us further closed to our AC’s and thus the vicious circle).
Wait a minute here… Is something really horrible wrong here? Because in the first place I wanted to be cooled down a little, I bought an AC, and eventually that AC made the earth even hotter, forcing me to buy more AC’s?? Will the temperatures just go on rising??
ALSO, not taken into account in this explanation (my doubt rather) is the work W that is being fed to the AC. Where does that W aka electricity come from? Yes, the electricity plant- again efficiecny of about 30%… burning of fossil fuels, more heating… ever heating??
—
Note to all the readers: Please understand that I am just a naive with small exposure to mechanics and thermodynamics of refrigeration and AC’s stuff. But this (the mammothic query above) has given me many a sleepless night… Please if I am missing a basic truth, correct me. In any case, answer me. And enlighten me.
Abundant Thanks.

Report this

00

]]> By: Ahmad Ali http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-72216 Ahmad Ali Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:39:39 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-72216 You people doing a very good job. Definitely all of us should have concern over the global warming. I am hopeful that you may bring further research to the public. You people doing a very good job. Definitely all of us should have concern over the global warming. I am hopeful that you may bring further research to the public.

Report this

00

]]> By: Joella Stuckemeyer http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-62135 Joella Stuckemeyer Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:20:52 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-62135 I enjoy checking up on all the new types of 12-21-12 theory, I think one good idea that has come of all of this, even if nothing happens is that it has opened our minds to the possibility that we may not be here forever and that we need to treasure the lifespan we have. I enjoy checking up on all the new types of 12-21-12 theory, I think one good idea that has come of all of this, even if nothing happens is that it has opened our minds to the possibility that we may not be here forever and that we need to treasure the lifespan we have.

Report this

00

]]> By: Dan http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-33827 Dan Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:36:25 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-33827 The graphs show just how terrible the errors of using all the stations together was! Obviously, this led them astray. See these images, compiled from the Watt group data. http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/menne2.gif http://one-blue-marble.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ncdc-temp.gif The graphs show just how terrible the errors of using all the stations together was! Obviously, this led them astray. See these images, compiled from the Watt group data.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/menne2.gif

http://one-blue-marble.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ncdc-temp.gif

Report this

00

]]> By: Los Angeles Appliance Repair http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-32039 Los Angeles Appliance Repair Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:46:13 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-32039 Many things cause global warming. One thing that causes global warming is electrical pollution. Electricity causes pollution in many ways, some worse than others. In most cases, fossil fuels are burned to create electricity. Fossil fuels are made of dead plants and animals. Some examples of fossil fuels are oil and petroleum. Many things cause global warming. One thing that causes global warming is electrical pollution. Electricity causes pollution in many ways, some worse than others. In most cases, fossil fuels are burned to create electricity. Fossil fuels are made of dead plants and animals. Some examples of fossil fuels are oil and petroleum.

Report this

00

]]> By: blouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-20621 blouis79 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:06:31 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-20621 It gets even worse. I have been searching the IPCC reports to see if they account for thermal pollution and as far as I can see so far, not. Responses to Nordell's paper quote W/m2. The problem there is W/m2 does not measure energy. To convert to energy, one needs to know the relevant area and time. W/m2 from geothermal or human thermal pollution is not comparable to W/m2 from solar radiative effects. If Nordell is right, then the resulting effect of CO2 could be anywhere from 0-25% of what climate scientists think. If IPCC derived the "climate sensitivity parameter" after accounting for thermal pollution, it could easily be 0-25% of what is being used. IPCC climate scientists only derive the climate sensitivity parameter from observation. Most physics formulae have constants that are known and robust. All of climate science hangs on a wooly number derived from observational data significantly biased by airport heat islands. And the house of cards collapses. It gets even worse. I have been searching the IPCC reports to see if they account for thermal pollution and as far as I can see so far, not.

Responses to Nordell’s paper quote W/m2. The problem there is W/m2 does not measure energy. To convert to energy, one needs to know the relevant area and time. W/m2 from geothermal or human thermal pollution is not comparable to W/m2 from solar radiative effects.

If Nordell is right, then the resulting effect of CO2 could be anywhere from 0-25% of what climate scientists think. If IPCC derived the “climate sensitivity parameter” after accounting for thermal pollution, it could easily be 0-25% of what is being used. IPCC climate scientists only derive the climate sensitivity parameter from observation. Most physics formulae have constants that are known and robust. All of climate science hangs on a wooly number derived from observational data significantly biased by airport heat islands.

And the house of cards collapses.

Report this

00

]]> By: blouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-20622 blouis79 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:06:31 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-20622 It gets even worse. I have been searching the IPCC reports to see if they account for thermal pollution and as far as I can see so far, not. Responses to Nordell's paper quote W/m2. The problem there is W/m2 does not measure energy. To convert to energy, one needs to know the relevant area and time. W/m2 from geothermal or human thermal pollution is not comparable to W/m2 from solar radiative effects. If Nordell is right, then the resulting effect of CO2 could be anywhere from 0-25% of what climate scientists think. If IPCC derived the "climate sensitivity parameter" after accounting for thermal pollution, it could easily be 0-25% of what is being used. IPCC climate scientists only derive the climate sensitivity parameter from observation. Most physics formulae have constants that are known and robust. All of climate science hangs on a wooly number derived from observational data significantly biased by airport heat islands. And the house of cards collapses. It gets even worse. I have been searching the IPCC reports to see if they account for thermal pollution and as far as I can see so far, not.

Responses to Nordell’s paper quote W/m2. The problem there is W/m2 does not measure energy. To convert to energy, one needs to know the relevant area and time. W/m2 from geothermal or human thermal pollution is not comparable to W/m2 from solar radiative effects.

If Nordell is right, then the resulting effect of CO2 could be anywhere from 0-25% of what climate scientists think. If IPCC derived the “climate sensitivity parameter” after accounting for thermal pollution, it could easily be 0-25% of what is being used. IPCC climate scientists only derive the climate sensitivity parameter from observation. Most physics formulae have constants that are known and robust. All of climate science hangs on a wooly number derived from observational data significantly biased by airport heat islands.

And the house of cards collapses.

Report this

00

]]> By: blouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-20542 blouis79 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:05:59 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-20542 Q: How does climate scientist convert W/m2 into a temperature change? A: "A global forcing of 0.1 W/m2 is, in energy terms, 1.6 x 10^21 joules per year." But I found the right answer from the IPCC: deltaT = lambda * radiative forcing (RF) where lambda is the "climate sensitivity parameter" So where someone like Nordell and Gervet base temperature change computations on testable/verifiable thermal parameters, climate scientists base temperature predictions on observational data by the Hadley Centre to generate the "climate sensitivity parameter". (I think I read something like that somewhere in the net but it didn't sink in.) So cook the numbers and use the cooked numbers to generate future predictions of catastrophic warming. Q: How does climate scientist convert W/m2 into a temperature change?
A: “A global forcing of 0.1 W/m2 is, in energy terms, 1.6 x 10^21 joules per year.”

But I found the right answer from the IPCC:
deltaT = lambda * radiative forcing (RF)

where lambda is the “climate sensitivity parameter”

So where someone like Nordell and Gervet base temperature change computations on testable/verifiable thermal parameters, climate scientists base temperature predictions on observational data by the Hadley Centre to generate the “climate sensitivity parameter”. (I think I read something like that somewhere in the net but it didn’t sink in.) So cook the numbers and use the cooked numbers to generate future predictions of catastrophic warming.

Report this

00

]]> By: blouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/#comment-20440 blouis79 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:39:30 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2881#comment-20440 Have been chatting with a climate scientist. The answer to the Nordell paper was to quote forcings of watts/m2. High school physics says thermal energy = change in temperature * specific heat * mass. No wonder the climate scientists are confused quoting watts/m2. So how do you convert W/m2 into temperature change with a couple of missing variables? Put it in a big computer model. Have been chatting with a climate scientist. The answer to the Nordell paper was to quote forcings of watts/m2. High school physics says thermal energy = change in temperature * specific heat * mass. No wonder the climate scientists are confused quoting watts/m2.

So how do you convert W/m2 into temperature change with a couple of missing variables? Put it in a big computer model.

Report this

00

]]>