Ice Melt

[JasperFrank]

Tj, the mass of the ice is the same as the mass of the water. The state of a material does not change its displacement. You got the lesson wrong. The water level didn't change. Do it again today. You will see there is no change in the levels. Your teacher should have been fired. Ice is bigger than water, the oxygen makes an expansion when it goes to a solid, but it isn't heavier, its the same "weight." So do the experiment, Fill a glass half way with water, put in one ice cube so that it is freely floating, measure with a line where the water is. It will be the same level after the cube is melted.

 

[JasperFrank]

Egon, I'm a nerd, with a degree in computer science, that understands how those statistical models are made, both from understanding the data collection, to the computer program models that try to tell people stuff. And as a nerd, I can say these models are F*^Ked.

 

[tjkubota93]

Tj, the mass of the ice is the same as the mass of the water. The state of a material does not change its displacement. You got the lesson wrong. The water level didn't change. Do it again today. You will see there is no change in the levels. Your teacher should have been fired. Ice is bigger than water, the oxygen makes an expansion when it goes to a solid, but it isn't heavier, its the same "weight." So do the experiment, Fill a glass half way with water, put in one ice cube so that it is freely floating, measure with a line where the water is. It will be the same level after the cube is melted.

The volume of ice is greater than water right? That's why pipes burst?
So ice takes up more space than water. The mass stays the same.
If the polar ice caps are 90% under water and frozen, they will take up less space, the volume will decrease if they melt. That would make the ocean level go down.

I didnt say the glass of ice water weighed less, I said the level in the glass went down.

 

[JasperFrank]

Yes. Water expands when it goes to a solid state. The molecules arrange so that ice is less dense than water. The atoms "Tent." its unusual in that way. And thank the Physics of the Universe that Ice Floats. If Ice wasn't less dense, we wouldn't be here. Other combinations of elements don't act this way. And good for us, cause Hydrogen and Oxygen, if separated are explosive. They will expel all that energy used to separate them, to come back together. Its the perfect battery if we can master it.

 

[gsganzer]

If a warmer climate is such a bad thing, then why do all the yankees keep moving south?

Just joking around:dance1:

 

[tjkubota93]

If a warmer climate is such a bad thing, then why do all the yankees keep moving south?

Just joking around:dance1:

Carpet baggers......

LoL

 

[Egon]

Egon, I'm a nerd, with a degree in computer science, that understands how those statistical models are made, both from understanding the data collection, to the computer program models that try to tell people stuff. And as a nerd, I can say these models are F*^Ked.

I am not a Nerd. I do not have any degrees. I got to sit on the high stool and wear the conical hat when at school.

So please, tell me how you know they are faked. Perhaps describe the Data Collection and computer models involved.

 

[Egon]

The useless windmill:
[video]https://medium.com/@info_78345/the-windmills-of-netherlands-271e425a7374[/video]

A working windmill:
[video]https://www.google.ca/search?q=texas+water+pump+windmill&client=safari&hl=en-ca&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj90MORkajkAhWumeAKHZM1CVoQ_AUoAXoECA8QA Q&biw=1024&bih=671#imgrc=_LNZq69exYfOwM[/video]

Ancient windmill:
[video]https://images.app.goo.gl/kvSZBxKtT9pqzzM39[/video]

Wind powered sawmill:
[video]https://images.app.goo.gl/USZeS5frZKMh5r8X6[/video]

Windmills have seen Yeomen Duty over the course of many years. They have been a very viable aspect of their community economies. Makes me wonder why the modern more efficient version is considered a failure by many?

 

[EddieWalker]

See, this is where your confirmation bias is kicking in. There is no clear pattern of "the leaders of global warming" (whatever that means) repeatedly lying about anything. What you have latched onto is a series of well funded attempts to intentionally discredit various scientists and organizations. You want to see that people have been lying to you about the very real evidence of climate change, so you seek out these manufactured stories, and believe them without researching them yourself.

The only reason that things at NASA have appeared to become at all politicized is because certain politicians chose to disagree with their real, scientific findings (GOP members whose campaigns were directly funded by fossil fuel industry). So now whenever NASA tries to publish their research, it is intentionally attacked by those who seek to profit from de-legitimizing it. They are still scientists trying to do real work.

Do you seriously think that a spinning wind turbine is not generating actual, usable electricity? Maybe go study some basic physics? Wind power generates 16% of the electricity in Texas, for pete's sake (~6% nationally). It's real and very effective. P.S. wind farms are not the only energy provider getting federal subsidies... just google it.

Nobody is saying that windmills do not generate electricity. They do not generate enough electricity to be profitable, and since they lose money when operating, they are junk.

What I find interesting and why I enjoy threads like this is my curiosity as to why people intentionally mislead and distort the simple facts to support a position that they want others to believe to be true.

There is more then enough evidence that NASA has become a corrupt government bureaucracy. Probably the last one to do so, but when their funding is dependent on their politics, it's no longer a reputable organization.

NASA's Rubber Ruler

 

[EddieWalker]

There is a kernel of truth in what you've written here, Eddie. I can imagine that some windmills, because of gov't incentives, resistance from neighbours, etc., get built in places where the wind doesn't blow hard enough for them to be viable economically. When wind farms are sited for the logical reason of where the winds blows the strongest, they are definitely cost effective compared to other sources now. According to the following, they weren't not that long ago.

Here's a table copied from the following Wikipedia entry:
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

View attachment 618968

The source of the data is a US government agency, the Energy Information Administration (so please read my other post first). The "LCOE" is the "all in" cost of generating electricity including the costs to build, fuel, maintain, etc.

Natural gas electricity generation has dropped in cost in recent years, as the price of the raw material has dropped. The interesting sections (blue highlight) is how the cost of generating electricity through wind power and solar (PV) has dropped to about the same as natural gas. I know that gov't subsidies are an evil concept to many of the folks on TBN, but that is responsible for a lot of this price decrease. Subsidies help to generate a market, which spurs innovation and drives down the cost through scale of production.

Of course, until we have a better way to store electricity, solar and wind power are never going to be the entire solution.

Chris

How many power plants have been shut down due to windmill farms replacing them? Any? Or do they keep on running 24/7 because the wind isn't reliable?

What happens to every windmill farm after they are built? They fall apart. Maintaining them is extremely expensive. Wind means dust, and dust means abrasion. The blades themselves wear away from the dust at an extreme rate that requires replacement, or on site rebuilds, or what happens most of the time, they are abandoned.

Innovation only happens when there is free market. Windmills are paid for by federal funds regardless of how well they perform, or how much money they lose. This is why I am against windmills. If they actually did what they are supposed to do, I would be all for them.