Equivalent Climate Change 3

[TugboatEng]

That other thread got me thinking. Perhaps global warming is happening due to heat being released into our atmosphere and is not primarily driven GHG emissions.

https://environmentalsystemsresearc...uggest that,global warming or climate change.

This is bad news for nuclear because so little of it's energy produced becomes useful power. Remember that all energy, no matter it's source, eventually becomes heat.

Perhaps the solution to global warming is space lasers . Energy cannons that can radiate heat off into space.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

This is bad news for nuclear because so little of it's energy produced becomes useful power. Remember that all energy, no matter it's source, eventually becomes heat.

Not bad news for nuclear. Because almost all power is generated by steam turbines. True for coal, gas, nuclear, geo-thermal, et cetera. The only forms of electrical energy that do not generate power this way are hydro electric, wind, and solar.

My guess is the whole basis of this post is fraudulent / comical. It cannot be difficult to calculate the amount of energy coal and natural gas burned. You could even throw in gasoline as well. That is a relatively simple energy calculation.

Then we have a reasonable idea about energy loss through the atmosphere on a day to day basis. Based on volume and density of air along with air temperature through the atmosphere. So, we have a ball park (i.e. order of magnitude) measure of how much heat is emitted out into space. Or, converted into other sources of energy (i.e. evaporation of water and creating of pressure / wind).

It should be a reasonably simple calculation to compare the heat we put into the system vs the heat released from the system on a day to day basis. If the heat lost per day is 100x the heat we put in through these power sources, then this would be a ludicrous theory.

 

[rb1957]

"Not bad news for nuclear." ... no, I thought TBE's point was the waste heat generated when we do useful work.

and maybe all the energy created turns into heat at the end of the day ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[TugboatEng]

Earth’s land–atmosphere system, while the heat from non-renewable sources constitutes a climate forcing term, with a global average value of 0.028 W/m2. The latter is compared to GHG’s forcing of 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate 2007) and, thus it is concluded that waste heat from human activities is only about 1% of the GHGs’ effect (Skeptical Science 2020).

It looks like the IPCC does have numbers they used to estimate the impact but the author has found issue with their numbers.

However, estimating waste heat’s forcing at the top of the atmosphere itself neglects its absorption by air, exaggerated its effect, if that is appropriate.

It appears the IPCC only considered the rate (flux) of heat leaving the atmosphere but did not account for the amount of heating within the atmosphere.

 

[Tomfh]

That other thread got me thinking. Perhaps global warming is happening due to heat being released into our atmosphere and is not primarily driven GHG emissions.

That'd be pretty funny if that's all it was.

 

[TugboatEng]

I wouldn't say funny. Reducing our total energy consumption is going to be a lot harder than reducing our GHG emissions.

 

[TugboatEng]

Maybe lasers aren't the best choice. The highest energy conversion efficiency is a FEL laser and that's only 30%. Microwaves on the other hand can be 85%. I found this article about transmitting power by microwave.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484720317273

Only 1% makes it to the target at 10km but I don't know how much of that is due to widening of the beam or dispersion in the atmosphere (becoming heat).

 

[Guest102023]

Greenhouse effect:

The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.[8] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. She concluded that "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature..."[9][10] John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorption and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[11] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[12] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.

Atmospheric trapping of heat by some gases including carbon dioxide and methane, colloquially know these days as the Greenhouse Effect, is a thing!!

Recently (since the Industrial Revolution kicked off) it is the thing that is now rapidly pushing the atmosphere and oceans away from the norm that we have experienced in recent centuries. Hence, anthropogenic, or human caused. There are effects such as ocean acidification and alteration to weather patterns that have been predicted and which we are seeing play out (you would have to be blind, infected by

http://www misinformation,

or financially incentivized to deny it). Various tipping points have been predicted as a consequence of these initially gradual, but accelerating changes. Affects on some biomes have already been drastic. These tipping points represents massive risks to life as we know it, and no amount of technological mitigation can prevent them. Maybe some means of space-based blocking could do it, but that in itself is extremely risky. Compounding this (and often linked to it) are the deadly effects of pollution, overfishing and factory aquaculture, habitat loss, oil-based farming practices, war, etc.

Scientifically none of this is controversial. When scientists apply the same climate modeling methods to other planets and their moons it does not make people upset. None of what I have just outlined is not fully comprehensible to an average grade 9 student in any country with a quality public education system (that is not a given in the West, and some nations are deliberately moving backwards).

So in anno 2022 to throw up flack like "Perhaps global warming is happening due to heat being released into our atmosphere and is not primarily driven GHG emissions" can only be understood as willful ignorance or deliberately spreading disinformation. There is no scientific, moral, or other equivalence or symmetry between the consensus view and opponents of change. Unfortunately those delusions are promoted by a brain dead media with built in ulterior motives (follow the money; e.g., NBC is owned by GE, a major US defense contractor aka arms dealer).


I am now obliged to declare this thread as a distraction and a waste of space. Your time would be far better spent scrapping your vanity pickup truck and getting off a McDonalds spec diet.





"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[GregLocock]

"I am now obliged to declare this thread as a distraction and a waste of space"

Bye

The problem with making CO2 solely responsible is that the CO2 effect is not strong enough by itself. Anthropogenic emissions in general have tracked anthropogenic CO2 emissions (heat, methane, etc) and so it is very hard to use a regression type analysis to identify the CO2 contribution as opposed to anything else.

If you just go by gas properties then doubling CO2 would increase the global average temperature by about 1 deg C, which is not enough to really bother anybody, so there must be some other effects to cause the 1.0 deg C rise 1880->2018, in response to half a doubling of CO2 in that timeframe (291->410 ppm). So prima donna foot stomping aside, looking for other mechanisms to explain that is entirely valid.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Guest102023]

regression

Hammer, meet nail.

The problem with making CO2 solely responsible

Who is saying that?

Actually I struggled to make sense out of much of your post (but you are bang on about my being a prima donna foot stomper).
I'll break down events to their simplest:

1) People have been (anthropogenically) burning FF at an accelerating rate for 2+ centuries, generating (among other more directly harmful pollutants) carbon dioxide aka CO2;
2) Atmospheric trapping of energy by certain gases (CO2 being prominent) was prognosicated early in the industrial age, and has since been scientifically validated;
3) In recent decades we have seen negative consequences of a significant warming effect, some of which were predicted;
4) These effects are proving very problematic in many ways to life as we have recently known it, which is highly dependent on burning of heavily decayed flora, aka fossil fuels, mined from the earth.

Not a lot of mathematical ability is required to know this, only a bit of trust in the highly trained scientists trying to warn us against collective suicide.

Questions?

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[TugboatEng]

1. That doesn't refute the author of the study I made this post about. Both CO2 and energy released into the atmosphere increased together so it's impossible to blame one or the other.
2. Science is never settled. None of the models available are entirely predictive of the future or even representative of the past. There is a missing link.
3. What negative consequences? Drought? Many scientists believe warming will increase rainfall.
4. Proving problematic? Is Texas' poor quality power grid the result of climate change or politics?

Mathematical ability is not the problem. We have data scientist dictating our world's future based on temperature measurements. They have excellent mathematical ability. Engineers should know that temperature is not representative of energy within a system, mathematicians may not.

You can sit there and whine and insult. I was simply trying to bring forward additional information and then add some admittedly ludicrous ideas that are not intended to be thought of as a solution but to bring some fresh thought in. Energy expulsion instead of energy storage. For entertainment purposes...

 

[Guest102023]

Thank you.

I could not state my case much better than you just have. Sadly I do not have the time to explain it back to you (and we all know it would be futile anyway).



"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[TugboatEng]

I think we found the missing link. Brimstoner IS the sole cause of global warming with all of the hot gas he emits. Too bad there is nothing meaningful that comes with it.

 

[Guest102023]

Aw

http://www TBE,

I was really hoping you would not resort to ad hominem attack again.

You are aware of what that indicates, no?

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[TugboatEng]

That you have talked yourself into a corner?

 

[rb1957]

@brimstoner,

"We have data scientist dictating our world's future based on temperature measurements. They have excellent mathematical ability." oh ?

are you aware of the count-point studies of McIntyre and McKitrick ? how they have demonstrated that the statistical models used by Mann and others are fundamentally flawed.

those of us who work with models know how easy it is to get the model to produce the result you expect (and once producing the expected result it isn't challenged).

going back to an earlier point ...

"who said that?" ... seriously the IPCC and every "scientist" involved says that. that is the "settled science". not merely highly significant, but solely responsible. ok, later IPCC may have tried to water that down but the whole ACC offensive is against CO2 emissions.

or, by challenging the statement, are you (now) saying that there are other influences affecting climate change ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[GregLocock]

Here's a paper written by a couple of people who work in the general area of testing the robustness of forecasts. So they applied their methodology to the IPCC's favored selection of temperature forecasts

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1169&context=marketing_papers

It was published in Energy and Environment. Long story short, the methodology of the scary graphs fails the vast majority of the criteria for a robust model.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Guest102023]

GL,

It took all of 2 minutes of googling to reveal Armstrong as a paid climate Denier. The name 'Heartland Institute' is kind of a dead giveaway to their ideological skew.

From Wiki:
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.
Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans. Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.

Fun fact: organized Denialists borrowed heavily from the Big Tobacco playbook. Remember them?

Try harder next time.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[Guest102023]

Ross McKitrick - know him well, he's a local contrarian nobody takes seriously.
Fortunately two of my kids managed to avoid his classes at U Guelph and went on to have brilliant careers - probably not a coincidence!
One is in environmental engineering, PhD, and will find ready work in the rapidly expanding field of flood mitigation.

The reason consensus is called consensus is that it is a consensus, of many scientists around the world whose business it is to understand the subject matter and collaborate for the common good.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[TugboatEng]

You probably still believe in craniology... It had scientific concensus after all.

I am no longer allowed in the Pub for pointing out other examples of scientific concensus.