Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8246 sci.misc:986 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc Subject: Re: the "greenhouse effect" theory Message-ID: <114@aplcomm.UUCP> Date: 16 Mar 88 16:46:47 GMT References: <22138@bbn.COM> Sender: news@aplcomm.UUCP Reply-To: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Lines: 106 In article <22138@bbn.COM> eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >In article <3772@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >>>>In article <781@lf-abe.BBN.COM> eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > >jfc>[ In response to description of the greenhouse effect, which, accelerated >jfc> by fossil fuel consumption, may raise the level of the oceans enough to >jfc> flood coastal cities.] > > my comment about nuclear power is in response to JFC's statement > that nuclear power will help us avoid the "greenhouse effect". > >se>: : : nuclear power plants also contribute nontrivial amounts of >se>: : : thermal pollution into the environment, a significant factor >se>: : : in the greenhouse effect, especially if more plants are built. webster's new collegiate: greenhouse effect - warming of the earth's surface and the lower layers of atmosphere that tends to increase with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the earth's surface and re-radiation as infrared which is absorbed and partially reradiated back to the surface by carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air. note: no mention of thermal pollution as a direct cause. Perhaps you mean the increase in water vapor caused by the cooling of the reactors? >jfc>The quote above reveals a lack of understanding of thermodynamics, > > wrong. it reveals that i don't agree with your opinions on > the greenhouse effect theory. > > there is no valid model for the greenhouse effect. expletive deleted! Check definition of greenhouse effect. Everything measurable. No theory. Thus, there is a model. As to its validity, the effect itself is easily measured, and thus validified. Do you mean "possible long term results"? > the issue is only partially a thermodynamic one. planetary and > atmospheric science issues are also key. If you mean "long term results", this is a definite understatement! They are more than the key, they are the issue! > the "greenhouse effect" is pure theory, whether it is applied to > Venus or Earth. it may be a commonly accepted theory, but it is > far from proven. negat: see above! >jfc>Thermal pollution is seperate from the greenhouse effect. > how do you know? seriously! You could always check the definition of "greenhouse effect" >jfc>It is likely >jfc>that the Earth is stable to the addition of small amounts of heat. > > it is unlikely that your statement can be backed up. I don't know - seems that you could model this from a conservation level. Meterologist do it all the time! > power generation generates far more than a "small" amount > of waste heat, regardless of the resource used for fuel. Not on the world-wide scheme of things.check: solar constant: the quantity of radiant solar heat received normally at the outer layer of the earth's atmosphere and having an average value of about 1.94 gram calories per square centimeter per minute. Note: the world is BIG!!! What do you think melts a few feet of snow every year? Nuclear waste heat??? >jfc>Nuclear or chemical power plants both produce waste heat. > > waste heat is not a global issue unless the energy for it originates > outside the earth/atmosphere system. that's the thermo concept > i'm trying to stress. the greatest thermal danger is from solar > power satellites, or solar farms on earth. The waste heat from solar farms on earth is not from outside the earth/ atmosphere system. If the solar farm were not there, the dirt would absort just as much heat as the farm. More, infact, because none would be converted to electricity. Of course, more would (possibly) be re-radiated because solar collectors are designed to prevent just that. Now, importing it from outside might cause problems, but it would have to be a LOT of energy! Nuclear power may be viewed as originating as "outside" the earth/ atmosphere system. From the thermodynamic viewpoint, the heat was not there before. Anywhere else either, so should say "not in" the system instead of "outside" of it. For you sci-fi readers, recognize the problems from Larry Nivel's "Known Space" stories, in particular the ones associated with the Puppeteers (sp?) home world? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5