wanton dwarf
Member
Air source Heat pumps work by compressing energy within the air strangely enough.
How exactly does CO2 retain the Suns energy in the air, yet somehow - magically - the CO2 doesn't get hotter. But everything else does ?
New IPCC Climate Change Mitigation Report coming monday...
- Thread starter Chris F
- Start date
Air source Heat pumps work by compressing energy within the air strangely enough.
How exactly does CO2 retain the Suns energy in the air, yet somehow - magically - the CO2 doesn't get hotter. But everything else does ?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Because it reflects energy radiated outwards from the ground and vegetation ball downwards.
Your joking right, you still think that using concentrated co2 makes heat pumps super efficient?
While what you said is valid, it still has no magical effect on heat pumps, sorry.
your bubble of CO2 is effected by your radiant losses and it can only retain what the sun provides if it’s a cold day in winter it’s a cold bubble of C02,
Co2 effect is cullative and small the best way to describe it, it’s like the plug hole in a sink, the sun pours in water the plug hole lets it drain co2 is just fractionally reducing the size of that plug hole so fractionally more water per second is being retained so we have net increase in the water in the sink it may only rise by a single drop of water per day but the long term effect adds up. The same is true for an ice age , that plug hole widens and fractionally more water escapes and the net result is a slow reduction in water in the sink ie heat.
the suns energy reaching earth is vast most just escapes back into space via means like you explained above.
but it’s a balancing act between what arrives and what escapes change the balance you change the climate.
If you have read any of the pages I have shared over the years on varies threads you read, and reply to on these subjects you should know.
It slows the escape of the suns energy it creates back scatter that slows the suns energy that’s escaping our atmosphere and gives it longer to be absorbed by the land, clouds, basically everything on the planet, it’s still escapes but fractionally more is retained, it’s been proven in bench tests multiple times.
This is a kids program they run a very basic experiment about half way through with a flame and your favourite an inferred camera.
the c02 can only retain the energy present don’t forget the heat pump will be constantly removing it it’s only what’s being replenished from the sun and the basic efficiency of the heat pump still is the governing factor. Not the co2
wanton dwarf
Member
I think you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
How you can attempt on one hand to say CO2 increase temperatures and then state it won't work in an enclosed box. Note that the propganda experiment above - which doesn't state ANY of the CO2 ppm values being used or the calibrations of the camera - is in an enclosed space.
A gas is the same regards of where it is.
You hold a belief system and demonstrate no ability justify that belief.
CO2 does practically nothing, if it did it would be great because energy could be harvested simply by having large concentrations of CO2, CH2 or Water vapour within a space exposed to the sun. Very efficient because of the readily available resources.
BUT it is not done.
The reason it is not done is because there IS no energy retained, harvested, reflected, blanketed, green housed or indeed anything else.
According to YOUR belief system 100ppm of CO2 extra in the atmosphere leads to 2+ degrees increase in temperature. However, I bet you wouldn't see an increase of 0.02 degrees probably a lot less.
wanton dwarf
Member
YOU say CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures.
Link up a heat pump to a glass box with an extra 100ppm of CO2. Increased temperatures into the heat pump - hey presto higher efficiency. It's obvious.
The experiment you showed demonstrates high volumes of CO2 absorbs energy - note the lack of a plug or hole. That energy increases temperatures - this is the idea of climate change.
So, a glass box in the garden full of 100% CO2 should in theory reach a temperature of several thousand degrees - for Methane the temperature should get to one hundred thousand degrees. IF the maths is linear. Buy hey, I'm not greedy, even 10 to 50 degrees would be something.
However, I doubt even an increase of 10 degrees would happen even in the case of vilified Methane. (Unless you set it on fire).
Ok first you must read some strange science books to think a box full of any gas even made up super gas from a comic book can sit in your garden and reach 7 thousand degrees, from just the sun the energy reaching it is never over 45 c on avery hot day then trapping it may pump that up to 100 c on a very sunny day but that’s limited by its ability to retain it and have heat escape through the many ways energy moves, so you don’t seem to live under the same scientific rules the rest of the universe does, then we have your 100,000
Climate change is based on area of effect it’s effecting the entire planet and it’s atmosphere, so 0.00001% incenses times the area of the planet is how CO2 works not 100,000 in a glass box full of methane.
Do you know how a heat pump works and what mechanism it uses to extract heat?
it just refrigerates the source be that water or air, after a certain point efficiency maxes out, and if the external air is above 20 degrees c just open a window and let the heat in why run a heat pump to warm a cold house.?
A ground loop for a ground source heat pump even a small one like mine that’s only 5kw needs 500m2 of area to extract heat from and even then it can begin to cool THe ground if the loop is incorrectly sized they can actually freeze the ground, so no a small box connected to a air source heat pump will not work.
the size of the glass box, do you know how much air a heat pump uses per Minuit?
Performance Issues with Heat Pumps
Heat pumps can have problems with low airflow, leaky ducts, and incorrect refrigerant charge. There should be about 400 to 500 cubic feet per minute (cfm) airflow for each ton of the heat.the fact that it may run for hours at night when there is no sun to reheat your nice glass box, means it must contain all the air the heat pump will consume they say per tonne most are classed as 3 tonne, so that’s 18,000 cubic feet of volume or over 500m3 in volume if it only runs for 2 hours per night as you can see that box is bigger than most houses, so please do some research before replying. And the moment the heat pump starts running the box will be cooled so the net effect, of even a large box would create will have little effect, if it started 10 degrees hotter than the ambient air it would soon be colder as the heat pump ran over night.
So it will not work, apart from its dangous to have a large enclosed space that would kill anything put inside it and the air would try to escape and any number of other reasons it will not work.
the main flaw it it still requires the suns energy to replenish the heat inside the enclosure or it. Ends up being worse.
Last edited:
The extra 100ppm only has to cause a 2 degree increase in temp over a 100 years, that is what they are claiming so yes I belive it can, and if you want to run that experiment then have at it.
believe it can have that effect like I said. The tiny 0.000001% increase in co2, causing a 0.000001% increase in temp over the entire planet over 100 years to create a total of 2 degrees of warming is total possible.
Grow up and use that brain.
wanton dwarf
Member
The question is if CO2 at 100ppm heats up a planet by 2 degrees. How much would 1,000,000ppm heat up and can it be put to good use. CH4 and H2O are supposedly 100x greater climate gases and should yield far higher harvests of energy.
All are VERY cheap resources and readily available in 1,000,000ppm concentrations. 10000 times greater than the 2 degree increase you highlight.
It is very easy to create large buildings with glass or even plastic to hold the gases exposing them to the sun - cheap in comparison to a Nuclear power station and with relatively no danger.
CO2 is used in green houses today at around 2000ppm.
But they are not used to harvest the suns energy even at these far higher rates.
The reason being is they are utterly rubbish at harvesting the suns energy.
No matter how you obfuscate the observation, it remains that CO2, CH4 and H2O are not the causes of warming. Cities are 3 degrees higher than their surrounding countryside and there is no difference in any of these resources in the atmosphere in a locality to explain the difference. The atmosphere above a city will be very similar to that 1 mile away in the countryside - especially if the wind is blowing in that direction.
CO2 is a busted flush. It does practically nothing of any real interest - other than make a few people very rich and the rest of the people VERY VERY poor.
I await your scientific demonstration of how increased concentrations of "Climate Gases" yield higher planet temperatures yet somehow won't work in isolation at higher rates and enclosed spaces. I think humans have created buildings of at least 2000ft high and I'm sure the side of a mountain could be used to gain further height without significant costs incurred - the excuse you put forward was a lack of mass I think or height. Plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your science works or indeed does not.
I predict the later.
Oh and I'd also point out that given 100ppm to 1,000,000ppm is a 10,000 fold increase this would simulate 10,000m3 of gas stacked on top of each other - in regards of the CO2. So obviously it should be quite easy to simulate the properties you describe using higher concentrations of CO2 and a relatively small height, especially as the pressure drops at higher altitiudes.
Our climate is the result of the balance of energy delivered by the sun balanced against the energy escaping from it to space, over the span of the last 120 years to deliver what we have now including all the energy we release while burning fossil fuels and the 2 degrees is what’s predicted to happen in the next 80 years. That 2 degrees is over the best part of 200 years of time so yes small shifts in the balance over 200 years is what climate change and co2 is all about. So even a small 0.0001% increase in energy retained by the planet by CO2 over what’s lost to space over the size of our planet, times a total of 200 years at which point it’s predicted will increase the earths average temp by 2 degrees. Yes that sounds total possible.
You could heat an Olympic size swinging pool by a few degrees with a candle if you have 2 hundred years to do so! And that’s the point changes that naturally could take thousands of years are happening in hundreds.
let’s make a hypothetical experiment.
we will setup 2 identical tests each has an an air mix starting at 300ppm of CO2 , an Olympic size swimming pool and 10 acres of dome covering it, full of soil, and full of plants, and animals, to sustain the plants life cycle this will include artificial rain that will all be drawn from inside the domes closed environment, the domes are sealed perfectly for this experiment, and they both get an identical amount of sunlight, the only factor that will change is one will have a burning source of fossil fuel being burn inside it to accurately replicate our burning of fossil fuels and our increasing levels of CO2 ppm we then run this experiment for 120 years to get it to the present day inside dome 1 the air is still has a CO2 level of 300ppm the pre industrial level, and dome 2 is at our current levels of CO2 with is 416ppm.
Now the experiment has been running for 120 years do you expect the results of the internal temp of the domes to be the same?
In dome one no man made influance, in dome 2 we replicate the effects of us burning fossil fuels in scale and the release of CO2 and increasing the C02 to 2022 levels, and you think that even after 120 years the experiments would still be identical?
Because that’s what your saying in your posts is that even small changes over 200 years have no effect and can have no effect.
Like you said the co2 has a tiny effect it maybe only retains an extra watt of the suns energy per square m2 of our and m3 of our atmosphere over our entire planet, so times that effect by the size of the planet and then by 200 years that is how you get to a 2 degree warming effect. It’s the accumulation of energy we are releasing and the accumulation of energy CO2 is trapping over the 200 years since the industrial revolution. That will deliver a 2 degree rise in climate temp by 2100, at best.
it’s simpler to capture energy with solar panels, and wind and waves, than try to trap energy with CO2. At concentrations of 1000,000ppm
CO2 is a green house gas, so you would get the same effect from building a green house over your house. The problem is that creates as many problems than it can solve, as over heat is just as much a problem as the need for heat in winter.
In effect solar water on your roof is doing exactly what your saying but the green house is with glass not gas, gas is very difficult to retain cheaply, it’s cheaper to build a artificial greenhouse and put your solar water collector in that, I know it works because I can get 60 degrees of water off my roof on a sunny day even when the air temp is -5 degrees. That is your 1000,000 ppm co2 in action but protected from any wind and direct air losses because it uses a box covered in glass and south facing on a roof. It’s only works when the sun shines so it’s intermittent at best.
Yes you can heat your home I do but all these things cost money I have a large thermal store a large solar hot water system on my roof and it still only helps heat my nearly passive house, a normal houses heat demand would not be covered.
and these tricks will not boost a heat pumps efficiency, as like I said the heap pumps efficiency, is more effected by the required delivery temp of the water in the radiators than the air temp outside, it’s not much harder to take 10 degrees out of the air when it’s starting at 10 degrees, than if the air is 0 degrees and the heat pump is chilling it to -10 degrees.
It’s the fact the radiator temp requirment has jumped from 30 degrees when it was 10degrees outside to 40-50 degrees radiator temp when it’s -10 degrees outside. To keep the house warm, thats what cuts heat pumps efficiency.
it’s cheaper to insulated than make any other change to a house. And that’s simpler than playing with co2 gas at concentrations that would Suffocated anything that breathed it. And the expense of trying to trap the gas in boxes or panels. Solar thermal does what your saying we could do with 1000,000 ppm of CO2 but I speak from experience in winter when we need heat in the uk, it has only a small effect, and only when it’s a nice sunny day at best. And it’s simplest to directly use the heat in the home to pre heat the cold feed for a hot water system or in a low temp underfloor system like I do, even then it’s Limited in winter. And in summer I am dumping heat from it, and wishing it was solar electric I had on my roof. Which I could use to cut my electric bill.
Last edited:
wanton dwarf
Member
Rather than prevaricating about something else.
Why not stick to the point of whether CO2 actually does anything at all AND either harvest the resultant energy gain - which according to YOU will heat the planet by 2 degrees.
You'll note that "Climate Change" does NOT state that increae in temperatures is due to warming from heating, fires, engines etc That's because we don't use enough energy to create the temperature rise required.
However YOU say CO2 creates a 2 degree temperature rise.
So over to you. Either CO2, CH4 & H2O can be targetted to capture this VAST amount of energy - or it didn't happen. So far it looks to me as though you've given up.
Last edited:
wanton dwarf
Member
I agree with one thing, both will continue at the same temperature. The reason being CO2 does very little compared to the other actors.
How about a THIRD dome. This one has no plants, no water on the surface because all water is drained to the sea, is full of man made materials. I bet this one has temperature increases of degrees within DAYS and sustains the temperature increase well into the night. On a hot day I bet the temperature would be unsustainable for life of any kind.
How about a FOURTH dome. This one has crops which are irrigated from the water table BUT the water drains to the sea. All things are fine initially until the water table drops below the water pumps. At which point all the plants die and the temperatures increase dramatically. Not as bad as the 3rd dome because the soil is not as good at holding the suns energy as man made materials.
CO2 does fudge all. Man made structures and the manipulation of the environment and the environmental damage from cheap water table pumping - further a denial that fixing desertification yields far better results than mucking about with minute fractions of CO2.
not, because there are cheaper ways to capture energy that are simpler. than using green house gases.
Then you would be incorrect, every action has an equal or opposite reaction, expecting the same result when differences exist, is always a flawed assumption.
all movement or change in energy has an effect, the fact you deny this, shows yourself belief, is incorrectly placed.
you're basically saying your car engine makes no heat, and the glass of your car doesn't keep you warmer than a car without glass.
It's in their names, greenhouse gases, and it's in your post "co2 does very little", that is not nothing, very little over the span of 200 years can have noticeable results. the fact you deny that doesn't stop it happening or that its real can be seen and has been measured.
I can see your happy to deny, and I am happy to except, we will never agree that doesn't matter, I can see the path forward, its set and its away from fossil fuels, will it be as fast as needed I am not sure, but we will all live with the results, I may get to see 2050 by then we will know one way or another as the results will be very clear by then.
I actually hope you are right, but the evidence and basic science, don't support those conclusions.