Some thoughts on thermal conductivity

[preoccupied]

I have some thoughts on thermal conductivity. I base my beliefs about global warming and innerplanetary heat on thermal conductivity. So I am at odds with the general scientific consensus on those two topics.

I believe all heat that hits the Earth, from nuclear weapon, or from the sun, or a warm buttocks, or candle laying in the dirt, spreads to the center of the Earth or at least some of the heat. This is pretty easy to start my hypothesis about heat in the atmosphere and underground. Basically this is the most simple way to look at heat, thermal conductivity, in that it's fallible to think thermal conductivity could be false. Thermal conductivity is as real as the elements on the periodic table. What's less likely is to make assumptions. Assumptions like the kind of materials located in the Earth, such as nuclear decay creating heat. I guess it's possible, but prove it. You can't without some degree of doubt to be had. What you can always understand about heat is that thermal conductivity is real.

My hypothesis is that thermal conductivity spreads in all directions for all matter. My hypothesis is that because the Earth is a sphere more heat concentrates towards the center as thermal conductivity travels through the sphere. The reason it concentrates in the center is because there is less space there. Imagine you have a pyramid but it is upside down and you start at the top. Put an equal amount of heat energy is each layer of the upside down pyramid and you have a high concentration of energy in a small amount of space at the pointy end of the pyramid. The sphere will have upside down pyramids toward its center and if I'm right and thermal conductivity spreads heat in all directions then the heat spreading in the direction towards the planet will have increasingly less space to store its energy and it will build up and become very hot. Am I wrong? So the next time I hear someone say the Earth is losing temperature, and that it is relying on nuclear decay to stay warm, I will cringe a little because I fundamentally disagree with that assumption.

Global warming effects non-solid objects, or air. I'm sure there are a lot of factors but I think the biggest influence on climate change is using basic irrefutable facts about chemistry like thermal conductivity. I know thermal conductivity is used to say carbon dioxide traps heat. It's a good point. However it's not enough. All matter taken from underground and added to the atmosphere makes the atmosphere thicker. Which increases the surface area for heat from the sun to have contact with. The Earth will get warmer faster and cooler faster and temperatures will shift to warmer and colder areas more quickly, if the atmosphere becomes a big pressure cooker from having a really thick atmosphere. Therefore I hypothesis that the sun itself and its temperature changes have very little effect on the global climate but rather how much surface area the atmosphere has to collect heat from the sun more likely effects the climate temperature.

The solution to global climate change is to turn gasses into solids until the atmosphere isn't getting thicker because of industrialization. The polar ice caps are so important that I think they should be refrigerated. The pure fresh water stored in the ice caps should be preserved, as if like a wild life preservation would. I know that water is mined and sold to wealthy people as expensive bottled water, and that is horrifying. So horrifying that I want revenge. IMO, we can easily refreeze the ice caps during a winter and cool them during the summer using equipment and then work on turning gases into solids. If we don't do this, we will lose the natural beauty of our planet. The water cycle might be damaged if we lose too much ice, which could effect the ocean and whatever consequences that would have. I hypothesize that if the northern ice is completely melted forever that all life on Earth will be killed because algae will die and there will be too little oxygen on the planet to support life on Earth.

EDIT/ If the atmosphere is thicker, there is more surface area in contact with the ice from the air and therefore the ice will melt faster because of that. So temperature can be the same on the thermometer on average for the entire planet, ie. the planet can be not warming, but if the atmosphere is thicker, it will melt more ice during the warm season anyways. If it is dangerous to melt the northern ice caps, it is imperative to make the atmosphere less thick. The planet could literally be colder but if the atmosphere is thicker it will melt more ice during the warmer season. Know what I'm saying? I'm saying thermal conductivity is real and anybody who disagrees with that is challenging basic chemistry over their more complicated less likely assumptions. /EDIT

I believe a lot of people don't believe in global warming because of faith in God. But God never said to wait for him to come in person to save you from your troubles. There is an analogy of a man waiting for God to save him from a flood. God sent the man men in boats and the man turned them away and said he need God's help. When the man drowned he asked God why he didn't help him and God told him that he sent him boats. So if I'm right and I'm the man in the boat, then everybody who disagrees with me is just going to let this planet die because they are stubborn and can't see God sending them the help they need. In fact, God had a man build an enormous ship which took incredible effort to do. I know this because Emma Watson is in that movie and she is so fine. I believe freezing the northern ice is another ark that man might have to build to survive, since God is not going to come down himself to do it, he wants man to help himself, if he can. It's biblical.

Sincerely,
Preoccupied

[terry5732]

Yes, you are wrong

Why would it stop traveling in the center?

A cold planet is a bad thing for life

If it was possible for humans to warm this one it would be a good thing

[preoccupied]

terry5732 wrote "Why would it stop traveling in the center?"

I'm not sure what you are saying. One molecule gives out its energy in all directions according to my hypothesis. Granted it's just what I think is true, but if I'm right then the heat energy would divide itself and go up and down but the fraction of heat going into the planet would concentrate into smaller space. More heat in smaller space is hotter molecules.

Cold isn't that bad. Don't you like snow men? I like warm weather as much as the next guy, but I like to breath oxygen also. If I'm right about my hypothesis then there will be not enough oxygen after the ice disappears. I think what I was saying was just furthering hypothesis on the matter of temperatures. If you don't like what I said, why not be more specific? It would make better conversation.

[TGM]

At the risk of entering a tin-foil hat area, I'd like to add some comments.

What you are forgetting is that the Earth is floating in an enormous absolute-zero cold soak. This will never change.

Had the Sun been some number of million miles further away right now than it is, we would not be having this conversation. It would be impossibly cold.

The energy from the Sun causes almost all energy including heat to be realized on this planet...not including man made nuclear releases.

Most of the Sun's heat reaches the core and allows it to stay molten. There is even a small group of scientists that think there may be a nuclear reaction at the core, keeping the planet warm.

New discoveries are showing that the Earth radiates a substantial amount of excess heat into space via some mechanism along the equator. Kinda like the radiator in a car.

Mankind may be polluting the air and water on the planet, but the Sun is controlling the temperature. Anyone who thinks AGW exists is bonkers or being influenced by political agendas.

This planet is still in an ice age; anything we can do to keep it warm is a plus for the human race.

[preoccupied]

TGM wrote "Mankind may be polluting the air and water on the planet, but the Sun is controlling the temperature. Anyone who thinks AGW exists is bonkers or being influenced by political agendas.

This planet is still in an ice age; anything we can do to keep it warm is a plus for the human race."

Hey TGM,

I don't think I'm bonkers for thinking "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) is real. I think the reason you think it's bonkers is because you haven't understood a convincing argument in its favor. It's hard to accept something that is mostly based on observations, such as melting ice and more extreme temperatures in the winter and summer. Maybe if they had a good explanation for those occurrences you would be more interested in their argument. I hope my hypothesis provides that explanation for you and others who share the same opinion as you.

If for example, you were to accept my hypothesis, it wouldn't necessarily be about the "Temperature" that the planet is at but rather how much energy is in the planets atmosphere. Each molecule holds its own energy. In a thick atmosphere "A" with twice the amount of molecules would be twice as much energy in the atmosphere during the warm season as a half as dense atmosphere B with the same temperature.

Let me redefine what it means to have AGW based on my hypothesis. It maybe shouldn't be considered a change in temperature but a change in total heat energy in the atmosphere. A thermometer is not going to measure the power level in the atmosphere. Is it over 9,000? It doesn't know. If you measure the heat energy in the atmosphere, you will get a different result than measuring the temperature on the thermometer. It's the heat energy in the atmosphere that will make more extreme weather conditions that will create storms, fires, melting ice and damage to the ecosystem. If you measure the temperature only and not the amount of matter that is holding that temperature, I hypothesize that it's bad scientific measurement. I like my hypothesis A LOT better than what I understand from other people.

The most important part of my hypothesis is that I think when the Northern ice caps melt it will kill all life on Earth because the algae will die. Most of the Earth's oxygen supply would be gone if that's correct! Are you just going to let that happen, if it could happen? If I'm supposed to be motivated politically, how do I know that you and other people who share your opinion aren't just anti government? Because it seems like anybody who is anti government will just say whatever they want to make themselves be "right". I am not motivated politically. If my hypothesis is correct, all life on Earth, or at least all life that breaths oxygen could die when the ice caps melt!

Do you still want to visit in a few months?

Sincerely,
Preoccupied

[preoccupied]

This planet is still in an ice age; anything we can do to keep it warm is a plus for the human race.

Would you tell me how warming the planet has improved the ecosystem without omitting something really bad that it also does at the same time? I bet Harry Potter's knuts that you can't. =-D

I'm pretty sure the biggest reason people want to promote that AGW is real, is not because they understand the science of climate but because some crazy bad stuff is happening to the ecosystem and weather. They want to blame the right thing for the damages. You can debate all you want on how their science is wrong but can you seriously tell me - and I mean this - Can you tell me why a warming planet is beneficial?

I think I understand the science of climate and that my hypothesis here will be good in the long run. Of all the factors that could be effecting climate, I think I've isolated the biggest and most important factor, that was somehow omitted in research, and that is total heat energy in the atmosphere and the effects of larger volumes of gaseous matter's greater surface area. The thermal conductivity hypothesis uses the variables of total heat energy and volume of matter, and also temperature. As far as I know, and I could be ignorant on this a little, but I swear, by all the honesty that can be mustered = that I've only heard people talk about temperatures. Not one time have I heard total heat energy in the atmosphere or surface area volume of air effecting things. Carbon dioxide is bad if it traps some heat but every single molecule added to the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more dense, and at least to me - that is the most important factor in the climate cycle in the air.

I'm feeling a little sluggish. Forgive me. I don't mean to sound defensive.

[murilo]

preoccupied:
- Common sense will help a lot.
Take care, but not so much!
M#i#

[TGM]

Ice is actually INCREASING in the Antarctic. The Arctic isn't doing as badly as you would like.

The problem is people like the AGW crowd are using data that is relatively incomplete. After all, a few decades is hardly enough time to amass any useful trends. But the AGW types seem to be able to do so and with precision.

Method for calculating sea-ice extent:

The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC) exceeds a threshold (15% for AMSR-E). SICs are derived from various satellite-borne passive microwave radiometer (PMR) sensors using the algorithm developed and provided by Dr. Comiso of NASA GSFC through a cooperative relationship between NASA and JAXA. The following sensor's data were used;

• Jan. 1980 - Jul. 1987 : SMMR
• Jul. 1987 - Jun 2002 : SSM/I
• Jun. 2002 - Oct. 2011 : AMSR-E
• Oct. 2011 - Jul. 2012 : WindSat
• Jul. 2012 - the present: AMSR2

The key thing to note here is the ice extent is derived from an ALGORITHM applied to satellite PMR sensor data. I have read studies from scientists that state certain atmospheric conditions need to be considered in this data method. Maybe they are, maybe they're not.

The point is you can manipulate any data with the proper algorithm to reveal any conclusion. Just depends on your competence and political orientation.

One other thing, if the oceans are rising, the rivers and lakes attached to them should as well. Consider this comment from a North Carolina resident on another website I visit:

I don't buy into the rising sea B/S thing...There's a 8"x8" piling in front my house that I keep my skiff tied too thats been there for 30yrs...oddly, there's a small chunk missing from that piling right at the mean high water mark, and that chunk got knocked out the day I sunk that piling into the bottom. If the seas are rising, so should the ocean fed rivers, and as the crow flies I live three miles from the inlet. That water mark and the barnacles on that piling have not moved up...at all, since the day I put it there...period.


Don't drink the AGW Kool-Aid, my friend.

[oldNick]

preoccupied,

You seem worried about CO2, I'm just trying to help so please don't take this the wrong way.

CO2 is heavier than air and will sink to the lower levels. Plants of all types need CO2 to grow, they retain the carbon for their structure and release the oxygen for us to breath.

Cold water retains more oxygen than warm water.

The only way CO2 can get into the atmosphere is in water vapour, water vapour in the air magnifies the suns rays but without it we would be dust. plus I would like to add : when sea ice melts the sea level drops only when ice on land melts can sea level rise but lots of it evaporates and stays in the air, because warm air holds more water.

Hope that helps
Nick

[Ed]

CO1 (carbon monoxide) spews from billions of orifices (man-made orifices) and travels up into the atmosphere, not having benefited any plants, and then combines with oxygen to form CO2.

That's right, don't drink the Kool-Aid, because everyone knows it's made of mostly water... and too much water (like most substances) will kill you!

Dang, I just ran out of ant spray and I really hope that the seven billion of them still left alive don't decide to start working together to lock me in the garage with the windows closed and the lawn mower running, 'cause that would surely give me a taste of me own medicine! Or would it?

[preoccupied]

Ice is actually INCREASING in the Antarctic. The Arctic isn't doing as badly as you would like.

You are engulfed in you evidences that you neglect to acknowledge my hypothesis that I invented. First part of the hypothesis: The atmosphere is thicker. True or False?

Arctic ice and glaciers are melting. True or False?

My hypothesis is about thermal conductivity. I think, maybe 80% sure that the atmosphere is thicker from industrialization, so one trait of this is gases collect more energy from the sun by having more gases be in contact with the sun's radiation. The average temperature is not going to change but the fact is more molecules will have that energy putting greater heat energy in the atmosphere. True or False?

Antarctic is the coldest place on the planet. True of False?

Thermal conductivity trades heat at different rates at different temperatures. Warm temperature travels to warm temperature areas faster and cold temperature travels to cold temperature areas faster! Therefore, a thick atmosphere would create temperature poles on the planet. True or False?

I hypothesize that during the warm season both more energy is being collect by the sun because of greater surface area gases to collect that energy and store it, and, (this is important) thermal conductivity pushes the colder temperatures towards the Antarctic faster because the air is thicker. To reiterate thicker air is faster thermal conductivity. Anything not in the Antarctic is going to be more likely to melt and the Antarctic is more likely to freeze. This is just because the atmosphere is thicker.

My hypothesis still stands that if the Northern Ice melts - the arctic ice which is melting - if it melts completely and forever that all life on Earth would die because the algae would die. I hypothesize that the Antarctic ice will not cause enough algae to grow to support life's oxygen requirements!! I will go one further. If the ice melts in the Arctic, the ice in the Antarctic will continue to grow! It would consume the entire planet with ice until the planet stabilizes with two poles of ice over a long period of an actual ice age - not some ice age that you are inventing because you don't understand temperatures, guys. This is an important hypothesis. Maybe you should tell me why it's wrong so that I don't have an aneurism from all of the stress from thinking that I'm the only one that understands that the planets life could be almost completely destroyed by human actions.

New discoveries are showing that the Earth radiates a substantial amount of excess heat into space via some mechanism along the equator. Kinda like the radiator in a car.

The Earth is leaking heat from the equator. The equator has less gravity. I hypothesize that heat is held, at least a little, by gravity. I will even, and I might risk entering a tin foil hat area here, that the Sun collects heat before it releases it because of its great gravitational force. Therefore the sun could possibly have only a small amount of nuclear material, if any, and is giving out heat it is pulling in using gravity.

preoccupied,

You seem worried about CO2, I'm just trying to help so please don't take this the wrong way.

CO2 is heavier than air and will sink to the lower levels. Plants of all types need CO2 to grow, they retain the carbon for their structure and release the oxygen for us to breath.

Cold water retains more oxygen than warm water.

The only way CO2 can get into the atmosphere is in water vapour, water vapour in the air magnifies the suns rays but without it we would be dust. plus I would like to add : when sea ice melts the sea level drops only when ice on land melts can sea level rise but lots of it evaporates and stays in the air, because warm air holds more water.

Hope that helps
Nick

I don't know what kind effect CO2 specifically has. The CO2 argument might be completely false and the only relevant hypothesis might be my thermal conductivity hypothesis EDIT.

Like I said before, maybe they don't know the exact science behind climate change? However they know there are bad things happening in which to blame something on. Finding the right description to an observation might not be easy. I might have found the correct observation for the chain fountain and a Cambridge University Professor could be completely wrong and all of the climate scientists in the world and their tens of thousands of labor hours and study hours might have failed and my logic that I spent a few minutes thinking about might be correct. EDIT... I am pretty sure, maybe 80% sure, that climate change and the behavior of the planet right now is just because of thermal conductivity changes caused by having a thicker atmosphere.

The problem is people like the AGW crowd are using data that is relatively incomplete. After all, a few decades is hardly enough time to amass any useful trends. But the AGW types seem to be able to do so and with precision.

Polar bears are dying. The trend is not measured in data but ecosystem suffering. Like I was saying, they don't have to understand why it's happening or even it it's natural to happen, they just look at = is it painful and how badly should I cry about it? Pain is usually a good indication that something is not happening right.... My hypothesis, if it is correct, explains why something is going wrong. EDIT

Method for calculating sea-ice extent:

The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC) exceeds a threshold (15% for AMSR-E). SICs are derived from various satellite-borne passive microwave radiometer (PMR) sensors using the algorithm developed and provided by Dr. Comiso of NASA GSFC through a cooperative relationship between NASA and JAXA. The following sensor's data were used;

• Jan. 1980 - Jul. 1987 : SMMR
• Jul. 1987 - Jun 2002 : SSM/I
• Jun. 2002 - Oct. 2011 : AMSR-E
• Oct. 2011 - Jul. 2012 : WindSat
• Jul. 2012 - the present: AMSR2

The key thing to note here is the ice extent is derived from an ALGORITHM applied to satellite PMR sensor data. I have read studies from scientists that state certain atmospheric conditions need to be considered in this data method. Maybe they are, maybe they're not.

The point is you can manipulate any data with the proper algorithm to reveal any conclusion. Just depends on your competence and political orientation.

EDIT/ To reduce my risk of sounding too sarcastic - this section is out of here! Algorithms might work to find specific details to support a hypothesis. If I were to use an Algorithm I would find terrible ice loss on land and in the Arctic but this can simply be observed without satellites because it is so prevalent. Forgive me for originally writing something very sarcastic/EDIT

One other thing, if the oceans are rising, the rivers and lakes attached to them should as well. Consider this comment from a North Carolina resident on another website I visit:

I don't buy into the rising sea B/S thing...There's a 8"x8" piling in front my house that I keep my skiff tied too thats been there for 30yrs...oddly, there's a small chunk missing from that piling right at the mean high water mark, and that chunk got knocked out the day I sunk that piling into the bottom. If the seas are rising, so should the ocean fed rivers, and as the crow flies I live three miles from the inlet. That water mark and the barnacles on that piling have not moved up...at all, since the day I put it there...period.


Don't drink the AGW Kool-Aid, my friend

I think oldNick partially explained the rising and falling of the water. I am particularly not interested in the water levels. However to reiterate what should be taken from oldNick is the increased ice in the Antarctic would cause water levels to drop and in order for them to rise land ice has to melt. If for some reason there is an increase in Antarctic ice and the water levels don't drop significantly, it is a bad sign because then it might mean a lot of land ice melted such as valuable glaciers. We should protect our glaciers as if like a wild life preservation. You yourself reported to this forum topic that Antarctic ice is increasing, therefore water levels should drop by what oldNick said, assuming both of you are right, and you both look like geniuses to me.

EDIT/ LOL

EDIT on Ed

EDIT I became defensive and was a little too sarcastic on this post.

Sincerely,

Preoccupied

[preoccupied]

Noah's Ark is a pretty neat story. God floods the Earth all at once and promised that it would never happen again.

If Earth were to not have much water and then water is added all at once it would flood, but never again, - never again because when the ice freezes it will attract more cold air due to thermal conductivity.

Cold air becomes colder faster and warm air becomes warmer faster. True or False?

The added water to planet Earth would make the atmosphere a little thicker which would ensure the Earth would forever have ice. If we were to heat the planet by non-nuclear means such as making the atmosphere super thick, the ice would take control, and consume the entire planet in ice rather than flood the Earth. That is because during the warm season cold air would want to be near the ice. Ice would spread from the Antarctic all of the way to the Northern Arctic space over a long period of time and then the equator would start to melt later because during the warm season two areas would be attracting the cold air instead of one.

Since old Arctic ice is perfectly pure water, God gave us some very nice quality water when he flooded Earth, way back when. We should protect it by not letting people mine the arctic ice for expensive bottled water. It should all be protected like as if it were a wildlife preserve.

Noah's Ark story makes perfect sense to me, especially from my hypothesis about thermal conductivity perspective.

[oldNick]

Hi preoccupied,

Thermal conductivity, water as you know takes a long time to warm in the sun but it also takes a long time to cool.

So what are your views on man made reservoirs ?

They are built in a valley with a river flowing through, the effects of the river would cool the surrounding air. Now we have a massive body of water holding it's heat and creating it's own micro-climate.

Has science said this is ok, or did they just skip that part for convenience ?

Best regards

Nick

[preoccupied]

Has science said this is ok, or did they just skip that part for convenience ?

I don't speak for science but I'm sure it will want me to in the future because I am right. *wink*

Reservoirs cool area. It is because of thermal conductivity.

If by the Earth's atmosphere becoming thicker, the planet warms some, the ice would never melt and flood the Earth. The thermal conductivity would shift how fast it trades temperature and the whole planet would freeze until the Northern ice is restored over a long period of time. If my hypothesis is correct then BIG INCENTIVE - if we don't stop the Northern ice from melting then Humanity would have to live through a few hundred thousand years of ice age again. Another incentive is that there would a lot less oxygen for a while. Only the frogs would survive.

[preoccupied]

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139577789 ... as-its-own

I am listening to this NPR link right now. I don't know about other people who might have stake in the Arctic but I think the Russian Federation [color=dark blue]could[/color] take complete control of the Arctic and maybe everybody should pay them to do it. Why should Russia be paid to control the Arctic? If my hypothesis becomes the scientific consensus, then the Arctic has to be cooled during the summer and frozen some extra during the winter. I think Russia would put great effort into protecting the Arctic if it is required to save all life on Earth. If the world believes freezing the Arctic will save all life on Earth, whoever does it should be paid handsomely.

Transportation through the Arctic area would be very easy without a water bound ship, because I just so happened to have released design on this forum on how to create momentum without external force. Russia could easily fly over the Arctic at high speeds and transport goods or fuel, if I'm right about my hypothesis for my #flyingcar. I am thinking that I'm about 80% sure I'm right. Maybe 100% sure. If people don't go and build flying cars, they are fools!

I am very confident about what I have said. #flyingcar #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity