 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:26:49 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote: If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values - WAY below 32F. Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it would cause no melting. -- Cliff |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:47:51 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote: For those non-mechanically minded, make sure your mechanic does not put the anti-freeze/coolant into your car radiator at full strength. Surprising, but some of my friends will do just that. Water inside the radiator initiates your engines radiator to allow it to dissipate heat. In a closed system like a radiator, the water provides this boiling point to protect against such catastrophes like overheating engines. Um .... Ethylene Glycol has a lower heat capacity than water or a mix? Don't go zooom zoom or fail to maintain the engine & it's systems. By the time that water boils off you are already overheated or your cooling system has failed. Not good news. Most current cars & trucks will tell you when they are getting too hot IIRC. -- Cliff |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Sep 2005 18:48:50 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Cliff wrote in : On 25 Sep 2005 02:07:19 GMT, D Murphy wrote: "shu" wrote in news:48bf0$4335e6c2$18d6c3f0$1522 : here check this out http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html Heh. I've pointed that out to him before. But some are still confused G. I also had to show him that most ozone depleters are greenhouse gasses, and far stronger than CO2. Fortunately CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas Too bad that we release so many millions of tons of it compared to the few pounds of all the rest. See how it works yet? I do, but apparently you are having some trouble. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is around 380 ppm. Or .038% Of the anthropogenic releases the ocean alone is absorbing roughly 50% of it. And the other 50%? Compare that to H2O which varies up to 4% of the atmosphere. Water accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is around 2.5%. So 2.5% = 1.025. 1.025 * 1.025 * 1.025 * ...... = ? And you say that you are growing it (1.025) at 50% ? Do a spot of calculus, assuming current projected grown rates. Don't forget .... thw US & Canada alone have something like 300 years worth of Coal deposits to produce CO2 from .... Consider too .... what is the planet's climate thought to have been like before Oxygen producing life evolved? That life sequestered much of the Carbon from the CO2 & Methane rich (no Oxygen) atmosphere in those fossil Carbon deposits over time, as did later plants. Now, if we just put much of it back in the atmosphere in a few decades .... and much of it is re-absorbed by the ocean and stored away in plants. "Much" is by no means all ... that's why it's concentration is going up & what the problems is. Part of it, anyway. In addition, many of the forests are no more. Even if they were their storage capacity is quite finite. The wood, when burned, rotted or eaten, releases even more CO2. Gasses dissolve in water. As the water warms up they become less soluable and the water my release them .... and all of that Methane as well (see "other greenhouse gasses" above). In the ocean it's plankton that "eat" the CO2. They convert it to calcium, HUH? etc. die, then the carbon ends up on the ocean floor. Subduction send it ever deeper into the earth. That's the cycle that later emits it as volcanic gasses. Think of this as a story problem involving rates. It's also not how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere that matters. Gee, where does it go? It makes for some impressive sounding numbers the scare mongers use "Chicken Little" style. The resulting reduction in free Oxygen may make a few slower too. The only CO2 that has any effect is what gets trapped in the upper atmosphere. How much does it matter -- the altitude? More a matter of depth I think ....... Do you have this confused with the Ozone layer? Nope. Is CO2 heavier or lighter than air? It does not settle out. The effect of CO2 on infrared is about the same at all altitudes I think, neglecting several factors such as density of the air. If the CO2 in the upper atmosphere were doubled it would raise temps by 1 degree. Who sez? Look it up. Who sez? See any good charts? And how much has it risen already? What are the projected rises? In the last one hundred years temps have risen between .3 and .6 degrees depending on which numbers are used. None of that rise can be attributed with any degree of certainty to anthropogenic causes. Who told you that one? There is no scientific way to project the long term temperature rise or decline. When the incident radiation exceeds the radiated (counting heat from the planet's core) it gets warmer. And there is where the problem lies. The underlying data used in computer models is/was bad, and much of the input is prejudiced speculation. No, the uncertainties in some of the data and the pure computational complexity lead to some uncertainties. It's a chaotic system too. But the overall effects are not in doubt. These "scientists" can't predict the weather 24 hours in advance and yet you believe they can predict it 100 years in advance? What will the sun's output be for the month of June in 2021? Where will the water vapor be concentrated in May of 2011? How about Ocean currents? Will the NAO be positive or negative? What about solar winds? When will the giant caldera in Yellowstone erupt? Perfect wingerisms, right? And that would be over a long time. 250 million year cycles again? No. CO2's weak effects are not immediate. Out of sight, out of mind? Let the grandkids curse your name? So the world will be the same 100 years from now? No new technologies? In 1900 did anyone predict nuclear power? The automobile as primary transportation? Etc.. Who knows? What are your plans? But ignoring the problems or claiming that they don't exist is not a good start towards solving them. You would have been running around predicting the world in the year 2000 would be buried in horse **** due to the population growth and everyone owning a horse. Rubbish. We have clear effects NOW. And it can become rapidly worse. Clear effects of CO2? The only effect that is clear is worry over wildly speculative conclusions based on some pretty shakey data. Per Exxon? It started out that bad things would happen when the earth warmed by five or more degrees. Now bad things are happening over a tenth of a degree according to the "experts". ?? All of which reminds me, you stated that anthropogenic CO2 caused the oceans to warm by one degree IIRC. I asked you how that was possible since the air temperature hasn't risen by that amount. Air is a lot easier to heat than water. I don't remember your answer. What is it anyway? ?? -- Cliff |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:26:49 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values - WAY below 32F. Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it would cause no melting. -- Cliff UV speeds it up, although, it the ice melts at night but at a reduced schedule. Like photons from our sun, gravity says stay equal, but following a greater medium like our sun, which interacts to gravity, like an amplifier upon the image itself. John |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:47:51 -0500, "John Scheldroup" wrote: For those non-mechanically minded, make sure your mechanic does not put the anti-freeze/coolant into your car radiator at full strength. Surprising, but some of my friends will do just that. Water inside the radiator initiates your engines radiator to allow it to dissipate heat. In a closed system like a radiator, the water provides this boiling point to protect against such catastrophes like overheating engines. Um .... Ethylene Glycol has a lower heat capacity than water or a mix? Don't go zooom zoom or fail to maintain the engine & it's systems. By the time that water boils off you are already overheated or your cooling system has failed. Not good news. So then, do you recommend pouring 100% prestone into your radiator ? Most current cars & trucks will tell you when they are getting too hot IIRC. -- Cliff John |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:09:54 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote: The only way I know of to lower the boiling point is to reduce pressure. Azeotropes. http://eweb.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/chem_en...rope_bank.html Example: Water boils at 373.15 K Ethanol boils at 351.65 K Water/Ethanol = 0.1053/0.8947 boils at 351.35 K Lots are well known. -- Cliff |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
It does not take huge changes to result in large effects. Fairly small changes in ocean currents, as an example, can have huge effects. Years ago I read someone's ideas about what would happen if the Isthmus of Panama sank or was otherwise destroyed (*) and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were joined significantly near the equator. It wasn't pretty -- the Gulf Stream no longer taking warm waters to Europe, etc. I haven't found anything Googling. Does anyone have any links. I know, OT, but interesting to me at least. -- Mark (*) Apparently a large asteroid hit near there a long time ago, and a smaller rock could take out the Isthmus... |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: Blah,blah,blah,blabber,blah,blabber,blabber,Blah. ..... Cliff, on your next weekly Psychiatrist visit, please apologize to him for me, that I confused you so much this week. I hope he does not charge twice as much tis next time... Grummy |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: building over a fault line. DUH. Where's Gunner? I bet Gunner is the LAST guy whining about how things get "handled" by the "administration" if he experiences such a problem.... He already knows they are not prepared, and also knows they never will be. Some Natural Disasters are unavoidable. Grummy |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote: the people youre flying back and forth tend to be lower wage earners Incorrect... I know personally a fellow who was a Chef on a rig. His wage was not low , NOR did he have to live within walking distance. That is not the point though.... It would be rather EASY to evacuate just the employees of a few large companies than tying to do so to people who no longer can think for themselves. Just because a City once was in a very precarious spot does NOT mean we should rebuild it so it can happen again, and again, and again. (NOT a reference to increased storms, rather, a reference to the storms that have already proved the point over past years) they need supporting players like shopkeepers and all the rest of the economic web of a town Not really.... Rigs do not have "Shopkeepers",and no traditional "City" as you are thinking. Many workers simply work X months ON and X months Off. They WORK round the clock when working, and visit "ShopKeepers" when they are home, thousands of miles away from the Oil Industry. Land based Oil Refineries and other facilities certainly could apply the exact same techniques... Grummy |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: All this hype about taking responsability. Then comes the denial. Denial ? What Denial ? You can't find one stitch of evidence that the 1900's Galveston KILLER storm was cause by man. Your in Denial, not me. Have two SUVs, eh? No. PAY ATTENTION ! I Have one BIGGER truck that could drink 2 SUV's under the table ! Grummy |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it would cause no melting. HO ! WOW ! YIP ! YIP! Cliff Finally said something that makes sense and is accurate !!! GOOD JOB CLIFFY !!!!! :-) Grummy |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Surmudgeon wrote: "Anne Waple, a research climatologist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said it was the second warmest summer on record for the planet Finally, a warmer ( and I noticed longer) Motorcycling Season. Grummy |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote in news:j2sgj1dqrl3lnt0lmcdlmv2crp35lbroua@
4ax.com: In addition, the air trapped in the ice can be analyzed for trace gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. This was done in laboratories in France (in Grenoble, by the physicist Claude Lorius and his co-workers) and in Switzerland (in Bern, by the physicist Hans Oeschger and his team). Results show that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere closely follows the ups and downs of temperature. Whenever it was cold, carbon dioxide and methane were low in concentration, whenever it was warm, they were both high. Warmth equals more life. More life equals more methane, CO2, etc. When things cool down life dies off, carbon gets sequestered and waits for the next round of global warming. -- Dan |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote in news:dhjgj1hb4t6e82rd4ugmoh4gbtpcu4b331@
4ax.com: right? Always. Get used to it.g -- Dan |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Gunner wrote: heeessss baaaaccckk Some Natural Disasters are unavoidable. All natural disasters are unavoidable. We are not God. not all natural events are disasters we know there is a fault in mississippi valley we know its going to rupture again we know how to build buildings that do not collapse arf meow arf - dogs and cats living together if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
So you say, CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Of course it is. The concentrations seen at that time (seen by examining carbon content of sedimentary calcium carbonate) Umm ..... How does that tell anything? -- Cliff |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
The increased ice cover prevents infra red radiation from warming the surface. So with the polar ice caps & glaciers melting ..... -- Cliff |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Sep 2005 23:21:26 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Coversely if the sun were to get 6% stronger than it is today things would get very ugly in a hurry. Sort of like the CO2 trapping 6% more of the heat, eh? -- Cliff |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:18:06 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:47:51 -0500, "John Scheldroup" wrote: For those non-mechanically minded, make sure your mechanic does not put the anti-freeze/coolant into your car radiator at full strength. Surprising, but some of my friends will do just that. Water inside the radiator initiates your engines radiator to allow it to dissipate heat. In a closed system like a radiator, the water provides this boiling point to protect against such catastrophes like overheating engines. Um .... Ethylene Glycol has a lower heat capacity than water or a mix? Don't go zooom zoom or fail to maintain the engine & it's systems. By the time that water boils off you are already overheated or your cooling system has failed. Not good news. So then, do you recommend pouring 100% prestone into your radiator ? In some cases it does seem to be the thing to do. Examples: no radiator cap that works, perhaps small leaks into the engine ..... REALLY cold weather ..... knowing that you will have to add water in a bit .... -- Cliff |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:32:56 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
wrote: Cliff wrote: It does not take huge changes to result in large effects. Fairly small changes in ocean currents, as an example, can have huge effects. Years ago I read someone's ideas about what would happen if the Isthmus of Panama sank or was otherwise destroyed (*) and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were joined significantly near the equator. The North & South America were joined by plate tectonics a bit back. Before that it was open water. See "Cocos Plate" & "Farallon Plate". www.gswweb.org/minutes/GSW1989.htm "Species on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Panama became isolated only about three million years ago, when the isthmus formed." It wasn't pretty -- the Gulf Stream no longer taking warm waters to Europe, etc. I haven't found anything Googling. Does anyone have any links. I know, OT, but interesting to me at least. -- Mark (*) Apparently a large asteroid hit near there a long time ago, Not such a large rock. and a smaller rock could take out the Isthmus... Or elsewhere .... -- Cliff |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Sep 2005 03:26:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Cliff wrote in news:j2sgj1dqrl3lnt0lmcdlmv2crp35lbroua@ 4ax.com: In addition, the air trapped in the ice can be analyzed for trace gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. This was done in laboratories in France (in Grenoble, by the physicist Claude Lorius and his co-workers) and in Switzerland (in Bern, by the physicist Hans Oeschger and his team). Results show that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere closely follows the ups and downs of temperature. Whenever it was cold, carbon dioxide and methane were low in concentration, whenever it was warm, they were both high. Warmth equals more life. More life equals more methane, CO2, etc. When things cool down life dies off, carbon gets sequestered and waits for the next round of global warming. Immaterial to the problem, if true. But you knew that I suspect. Or don't begin to grasp the problem at all. -- Cliff |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:01:04 GMT, Gunner
wrote: How we deal with them..however..is something we CAN do something about. Gunner deals with them by living in a bunker on the San Andreas fault, right? And not having health coverage so that the liberals will save his life ..... -- Cliff |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cliff" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:18:06 -0500, "John Scheldroup" wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:47:51 -0500, "John Scheldroup" wrote: For those non-mechanically minded, make sure your mechanic does not put the anti-freeze/coolant into your car radiator at full strength. Surprising, but some of my friends will do just that. Water inside the radiator initiates your engines radiator to allow it to dissipate heat. In a closed system like a radiator, the water provides this boiling point to protect against such catastrophes like overheating engines. Um .... Ethylene Glycol has a lower heat capacity than water or a mix? Don't go zooom zoom or fail to maintain the engine & it's systems. By the time that water boils off you are already overheated or your cooling system has failed. Not good news. So then, do you recommend pouring 100% prestone into your radiator ? In some cases it does seem to be the thing to do. Examples: no radiator cap that works, perhaps small leaks into the engine ..... REALLY cold weather ..... knowing that you will have to add water in a bit .... -- Cliff Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water. Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water. Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?, this is essential to proper function operation of engine temp sensors that work in conjunction with the ecm computer. Timing, sensors, you name it can really be adversely effected from a situation of no water in the radiator. Ideally the 50/50 concentration is the best setup for year around climate. No wonder why their engine frequently overheats, then I'll ask why they have 100% ethylene glycol concentration in the radiator, answer, to keep the radiator cleaner. Don't do that I tell them. http://www.prestone.com/products/95.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...t/1272436.html John |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:27:41 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote: (snips) "Anne Waple, a research climatologist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said it was the second warmest summer on record for the planet, based upon temperatuers in June, July and August recorded from more than 800 stations around the globe." When was THE warmest summer on record? I live about 100 miles south of Sacramento, and the warmest summer on record here was 1913, IIRC. (No, I don't recall 1913. I hope I can recall what I previously read.) -- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria. http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/ |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Scheldroup wrote:
Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water. Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water. Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?, this is essential to proper function operation of engine temp sensors that work in conjunction with the ecm computer. Timing, sensors, you name it can really be adversely effected from a situation of no water in the radiator. Ideally the 50/50 concentration is the best setup for year around climate. No wonder why their engine frequently overheats, then I'll ask why they have 100% ethylene glycol concentration in the radiator, answer, to keep the radiator cleaner. Don't do that I tell them. http://www.prestone.com/products/95.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...t/1272436.html John ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Several years ago I had the radiator partially clog on my 1850 Celica. A new OEM unit was over 300$. A good after market was 100$. The only hitch was it would take a week to get the aftermarket in. After some research I drained all the fluid from my cooling system and ran with "straight" water. I used quotes because there was about 10% left in the system. Enough to provdie moderate corrosion protection for the 8 days it took to get the new one in. My car ran fine even though the ambiant temps was around and 100F for 5 of those days. Gear heads often use "Purple Ice" to boast the cooling capacity. It allows waterr to carry more ehat, IE raises the specific heat,. See: http://www.royalpurple.com/prodsa/prpice.html It does work. I have a friend who drives a Grimlin and the stock radiator is a tad too small. By adding purple ice he solved his overtemp problems. Terry |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... John Scheldroup wrote: Really cold weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water. Really hot weather and your engine can overheat from lack of water. Water conducts heat, does ethylene glycol ?, this is essential to proper function operation of engine temp sensors that work in conjunction with the ecm computer. Timing, sensors, you name it can really be adversely effected from a situation of no water in the radiator. Ideally the 50/50 concentration is the best setup for year around climate. No wonder why their engine frequently overheats, then I'll ask why they have 100% ethylene glycol concentration in the radiator, answer, to keep the radiator cleaner. Don't do that I tell them. http://www.prestone.com/products/95.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...t/1272436.html John ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Several years ago I had the radiator partially clog on my 1850 Celica. A new OEM unit was over 300$. A good after market was 100$. The only hitch was it would take a week to get the aftermarket in. After some research I drained all the fluid from my cooling system and ran with "straight" water. I used quotes because there was about 10% left in the system. Enough to provdie moderate corrosion protection for the 8 days it took to get the new one in. My car ran fine even though the ambiant temps was around and 100F for 5 of those days. Gear heads often use "Purple Ice" to boast the cooling capacity. It allows waterr to carry more ehat, IE raises the specific heat,. See: http://www.royalpurple.com/prodsa/prpice.html It does work. I have a friend who drives a Grimlin and the stock radiator is a tad too small. By adding purple ice he solved his overtemp problems. Terry Thanks Terry, when I head down to my favorite meat store http://www.louiesfinermeats.com/bizweb.asp next month, I just might swing around and pick one up. 30 mi Ben's Rod Shop 69250 Range Line Road Iron River, WI |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:26:49 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values - WAY below 32F. Actually, you may recall that below a certain temp they stop salting the roads. No matter how much salt they might use it would cause no melting. Calcium Chloride is exothermic. It releases heat as it disolves in water. Crushing the snow under car tires momentarily melts the snow allowing the CaCl to get started. If it is too cold, perhaps the snow doesn't melt when crushed. ALso, some places apply hot brine to problem spots. AFAIK in NE Ohio they appy somethign to the roads down to -20 F, which is about as cold as it gets there. -- FF |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kirk Gordon wrote: wrote: There is a reason why it is around 28.4 degrees F at high latitudes, see below. Here is an explanation of latent heat of fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat_of_fusion ... About three and one-half degrees F below the freezing point of pure water. ... I am familiar with the concept of freezing point suppression. Regarding the Arctic ice cap being freshwater, that is partly because when seawater freezes the salts are mostly 'excreted' (for want of a better term) from the ice. Some of the Arctic ice cap is freshwater because it is formed by precipitation on top of the sea ice. Based on the following information it would appear that today the freezing point of seawater is around 28.4 degrees F. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freezing-point_depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_water http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/gen99263.htm http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2ofreezecalc.html If the salinity were twice what it is today then the freezing point would be about 25 degrees F. That does not agree well with the assertion that the average ocean temperature was 30 to 40 degrees cooler ten thousand years ago, or ever. I'm not a great fan of Wikipedia; but even the articles you cite say that salinity varies a lot. If the water near Iceland really freezes at 28.4, then that's probably because those same waters are some of the freshest. The articles indicate average salinity of seawater today is near 35 and that corresponds to a freezsing point of about 28.4 degrees F. The reason the ocean temperature is at 28.4 F at high latitudes is because 28.4 degrees F is the freezing point of ocean water. Although, as I understand what I've read, no one suggests that the sea is freezing around Iceland or Greenland. ... If the sea water cold really freeze at 28.4, then there'd be coastal ice around Northern places in winter, just like you see in lakes and ponds. I'm not aware that any such thing exists, or ever has existed. Have you heard of the Arctic Ice Cap? Have you seen pictures of the ice that forms on the shores at Northern Latitudes? Have you heard of 'Warm Water Ports'? In places where salinity is high, freezing points will be much lower. Sure, like the Dead Sea. The oceans, being contiguous, have far less variability. I daresay you will not find anywhere in the oceans where the salinity differs from the average by a 30%, or stated differently where the freezing point is more than one degrees F below the average, and that will be in warm shallow seas. And, as I said earlier, when lots of the Earth's total water turns to ice, then there's less liquid water to contain the same amounts of salt. Salinity rises, freezing points drop, and you still have only fresh water in a solid state, with sea water increasingly resistant to cold. And as I stated earlier, if the ocean volume were to drop in half, with the total dissolved salts remaining the same, the freezing point will only be about 25 F. That is still too high for an average ocean temperature 40 degrees F cooler than today and a 30 degree difference would seem highly improbable. Aside from the observation that your earlier assertion ranges from improbable to impossible, you haven't presented and one presumes cannot find any credible source stating that the Earth's average ocean temperature was ever 30 or 40 degrees F below what it is today. In fact, it occurs to me that there may be some self-governing mechanism at work. No matter how cold it gets, there might ALWAYS be liquid water on Earth. Each little bit of sea water that evaporates, freezes, and then returns to Earth in a fresh and frozen state, leaves its salts behind in the water that remains liquid, thereby protecting that liquid from freezing. It's possible that even the most extreme cold that can occur on this planet won't be cold enough to freeze all the water, or to freeze out all the life-forms. I suggest you read up on osmotic pressure and how it affects living cells. That would also work if sea water actually "excretes" its salt, though I've never heard of that before, and have a hard time seeing how it could work. You should have studied Chemistry in High School. I don't think heat of fusion has much to do with overall temperatures. That's really just a little bit of hysteresis in the freeze/melt cycle. But heat that has to be withdrawn from water to solidify it also has to be returned before the water can re-liquify. A zero sum game. And, since Earth's water is part liquid, and part solid, the game is always giving at the same time it's taking. I can't see how that would make much difference in average temperature. Do you understand that the heat of fusion is absorbed or released at (near) constant temperature? It might make a tiny difference in how much water is solid, and how much is liquid, at any given temperature; but it doesn't change the total kinetic energy involved. You should have studied Physics in High School too. -- FF |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rex B wrote:
Maybe it's already been posted, but this from Michael Chrichton was very much on target, in my opinion. http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html I wish they had not formatted that to a skinny column. I only read half, but got the point. Knowing what information to look for is not the same as finding the information. Guesses don't count. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:52:56 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote: It's possible that even the most extreme cold that can occur on this planet won't be cold enough to freeze all the water, or to freeze out all the life-forms. There seems to be liquid water in Antarctica below some of the frozen lakes, perhaps a few miles down ..... Lake Vida, a sal****er lake, fairly shallow ..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2581485.stm Lake Vostok, fresh water?, 3,500 metres of ice on top .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1345583.stm -- Cliff |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:52:56 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote: That would also work if sea water actually "excretes" its salt, though I've never heard of that before, and have a hard time seeing how it could work. The salt would be expelled from the freezing water. Can you make frozen salt water? -- Cliff |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:52:56 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote: I don't think heat of fusion has much to do with overall temperatures. That's really just a little bit of hysteresis in the freeze/melt cycle. Ice has a heat capacity of 0.502 BTU/lb-°F and a heat of fusion of 143 BTU/lb. Liquid water has a heat capacity of 0.999 BTU/lb-°F (I don't know why it's not exactly 1.0000 -- it should be IIRC) and the same heat of fusion (naturally). Thus it takes as much heat to melt one pound of ice (same temp) as it does to raise the resulting water to 175 degrees F. Note that the heat capacity of ice is much less than liquid water's. BTW, For those of you with an interest in materials (water & ice are but two) see http://matweb.com/ Try the search function by name ... or you can search in many other ways, such as min/max elemental composition for alloys, etc. -- Cliff |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT there is "significant global warming" | Metalworking | |||
| OT - Global Warming (Was "Lying Liberals.") | Metalworking | |||
| Completely OT Preparing for life with global warming | Metalworking | |||
| Global warming - timber frames | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
