Things are Starting to Warm Up Part III 6

[dik]

For earlier thread, see

thread1618-496010: Things are Starting to Warm Up.
thread1618-496614: Things are Starting to Warm Up Part II

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

@TBE ... ok, nukes are inefficient at extracting power (and have a lot of waste heat. but the power they generate eventually becomes heat. so I thought your point was all energy extracted ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[TugboatEng]

Aether was an emerging theory too.
Then it went away, and today physics students ask “what were they thinking?

Bingo!

rb1957, It's the total power of the fuel. Whether it leaves the generator as electricity or is blown out the exhaust pipe, it all contributes to heating the environment. The effect is delayed if you store some in batteries. Since the temperatures of all of this waste heat is low, little makes it out of the atmosphere as radiation.

The studies I have found correlating heat generation to warming make an large assumption. They assume that all of the heat is absorbed a very thin layer near the surface. 50m in the atmosphere and 0.125m in the sea. This seems wrong at first but when we're only talking 1° of heating there really isn't a lot of convective force to move that heat vertically so it makes sense to assume it will stay low.

 

[Guest102023]

I have no words

[flush]

"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's because you keep giving them to me. Perhaps you should consider keeping some to yourself.

 

[rb1957]

"Whether it leaves the generator as electricity or is blown out the exhaust pipe" ... ok, so we're agreed. Then nukes are worse than FF PPs 'cause there's more waste heat (for the same useful energy output).

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[dik]

We are in a new 'space' here. I thought you were up to speed with that... there has to be a conservation of energy with electrical power maximised. The waste heat has to be stored and re-used during cold months, as a possible solution.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

Maybe not if you can store and use the waste heat... we are in new territory and lots of things have to be evaluated. If things turn south we could be looking at some horrendous problems that we don't have already.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Guest102023]

This makes me think there must have been a lot of nuke or other plants driving peak temperature in the interglacial Eemian period, and that atmospheric heat trapping was not very significant. However no archaeological traces have been found so far. (Or are the authorities keeping that information secret?)


"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]

rb1957,
Please don’t confuse the issue with your facts

"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 might be on to something there brim. A significant amount of heat comes from radioactive decay within the Earth's crust.

Heat Flow
There are basically two sources of heat for the interior of the Earth:
Heat produced by radioactive decay of unstable isotopes
Heat left over following the formation and differentiation of the Earth
The contribution of radioactive heating can be understood by reference to the following two tables. The first shows the energy produced per year from the decay of Uranium, Thorium and Potassium in granite, basalt and peridotite, rocks characteristic of the continental crust, oceanic crust and mantle respectively. From this table, it ia apparent that differentiation resulted in the radioactive isotopes being primarily concentrated in the continental crust. We would thus expect radioactive heat production to be highest in the continents.

https://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~drt/Classes/201_99/Rice/Tectonics.html

 

[Guest102023]

I’m gaining a grudging admiration for your skill at shifting the topic by branching off from a single word. You could have made a good medieval theologian.

You might enjoy the 2021 film Everything Everywhere All the 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?"

 

[TugboatEng]

I have been quite consistent. I think it is wrong to base climate change models solely on CO2! Here we are exploring other contributing factors.

 

[dik]

[Updated] A big one, if anyone is curious:

Preamble
If you do not think that climate change is happening or that it might be severe, there’s no point in reading this.

Some first steps:

The world has to agree that climate change is ‘happening’ and at an accelerated rate. It’s serious, this could be the beginning of the next mass extinction. There are numerous potential problems that need to be addressed.

The world has to come to an agreement that the increased carbon footprint is largely responsible for climate change and that to mitigate this is it essential that the carbon footprint be reduced and everyone has to work to that end. What happens when responsible countries reduce their carbon footprints and other irresponsible countries refuse to? What happens when the State of Florida or Texas doesn’t want follow the Federal mandate? There could be huge unexpected changes; how are the people going to react to this? There’s no rocket science here. We don’t know what the end result of climate change is or how it’s going to end. Changes are occurring in decades which normally take millenia to accomplish. The weather is likely going to become more severe. Records are being broken far more often and by greater values; the increases are no longer slightly incremental. The increases are orders of magnitude.

There was a recent huge increase in climate change funding by the US. On first glance this was a welcomed improvement. Unfortunately there were a lot of caveats that clearly showed the US is not at all interested in reducing the carbon footprint. This type of ‘faux action’ may be indicative of the activity in the near future. Eventually some type of definitive action will likely have to be undertaken.

The effects of climate change can impact the earth is several ways. Some of these effects will be increased sea level. Estimates about the increase, vary, but can be as high as 70’. Some countries, near sea level, will be inundated. Other countries may lose a substantial part of their shoreline. Some areas may have to construct ‘seawalls’ or barriers to protect cities. The substantial source of this ‘new found’ water is a consequence of the polar icecaps thawing. In addition to the polar caps thawing there has been an increase in the thawing of inland glaciers. The thawing of these may impact the water supply of many nations that rely on the seasonal meltwater provided by glaciation. In addition to the increase in sea level caused by polar caps melting, there will be an addition effect caused by the thermal expansion of water due to its increased temperature. Many countries are experiencing increased frequency and increased levels of flooding.

Another impact will be large areas of the earth may warm greatly. This can cause major droughts and large areas of the earth will no longer be arable. Food production may suffer greatly. This may cause some major geo-political changes if nations starve and the land is no longer suitable to live on. Some areas of Europe are experiencing temperatures that greatly exceed those earlier recorded. This increase is a matter of a few degrees, not fractions of a degree as is usually encountered.

Many parts of the world are experiencing drought conditions and some of the major rivers are shrinking significantly. On the continental United States, areas of the southwest have been experiencing drought conditions for several decades. One of the major waterways in that area, The Colorado river that sources the Hoover Dam and provides water and hydro for millions of people is rapidly ‘drying up’. Future declines may result in the Hoover Dam, no longer providing electric power or needed water for household use or irrigation. There is the remote possibility that the Colorado river may stop flowing.

Unfortunately the increased heat is not uniform and the northern areas are experiencing 2 to 3 times the average temperature increase. For example, last year (2021) parts of Siberia, Russia had record temperatures in excess of 30ºC. The increase in temperature has an adverse effect by thawing existing permafrost. Permafrost contains large amounts of methane frozen in it. Methane has a much greater effect on climate change than the release of CO2. For comparison, “Since CO2 is being used as the reference, it has a GWP (Global Warming Potential) of one. Methane has a GWP of between 28 and 36 over 100 years, according to the EPA.” Because of the long term effect of methane, it can be considered as the ‘gift that keeps on giving’, again with unpredictable results.

The drought conditions cause the vegetation to dry significantly. In the event of a fire, this allows the plant material to burn more vigourously. Large areas of the countryside can be consumed by large bush and forest fires. These increase the temperatures as well as increase the carbon footprint. Many areas of the world have experienced an increase in the number and size of these burnings. In the southwest United States, they have very large and old trees called Sequoias that have survived numerous exposures to fire. Some of these has succumbed to the new climate changes.

Another impact may be the effect on overall weather that may occur with the weather patterns changing. This may cause major flooding over extended areas. This canl have a major impact on already developed areas that have not been designed for this amount of precipitation. It could also have a major impact on food crops, etc.

In an extreme, some areas may become markedly colder if climate change has an impact on ocean currents. An example of this change would be a change in the intensity of the Gulf Stream flow. This has been modelled by a program called AMOC. Northern Europe and the UK could become quite a bit colder without the warming effects of the Gulf Stream.

There are numerous other outcomes, that likely haven’t been investigated yet. The above may not occur, but there is the strong indication that some or all may ‘happen’.

So, how is the world going to reduce the carbon footprint? There has to be a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, mostly coal and oil. This will have a big effect on several areas: transportation, shipping, travel, agriculture, etc.

Transportation by air, both commercial and private will have to change to reduce fossil fuel. The amount of change is uncertain, but it could be significant. What will the government do for infrastructure work on airports, if many of these are phased out? What of all the surplus commercial and private aircraft that will become available. National and international travel will be affected. There’s the potential for huge changes; the effects will only be determined over time. Air transportation may have to be replaced by high speed rail; I’m referring to speeds in excess of several hundred kph. It’s a big change from air transport.

There was a recent article about Canada investigating a high speed train hyperloop electric train, with anticipated speeds of over 600 mph. Experimental only, but this may become transportation of the future. With hydro power which is low carbon footprint this might be the preferred long distance transport of the future.

Unless wind powered, even private yachts might be affected or become a ‘part of the past’.

Transportation by private vehicles may also change significantly. Will people have to give up their vehicles. What will the government do for infrastructure work on roadways, bridges and interstates. Serious restrictions may have to be placed on automobile transportation. Limits on fuel consumption may have to be implemented. This could restrict the size of automobiles as well as their engines. It’s not just a matter of letting fuel prices reach their supply/demand value. Those with little or no money will be penalised. There may have to be a dramatic increase in public transportation and a large reduction in private automobile transportation.

Shipping of commodities and food products will likely have to change. This will include national and international shipping. Food may have to be grown locally and the selection may be restricted in future. Household items may have to be produced locally to minimise transportation costs. Manufactured items will have to last longer. We will not be able to continue this disposable lifestyle. This will result in a reduction in manufacturing.

What will become of conventions and international events? What will become of these with travel restrictions? Even the people holding climate change conferences are still ‘flying and meeting’; Properly, these could be held by teleconference. Thousands of people would have to travel.

The same goes with sporting events. With travel restrictions how will travel across the country easily to taken in the next World Series? There could be a serious impact on professional sports. What about events like Nascar and Formula 1?

The construction industry may change to reduce the carbon footprint. The carbon footprint can be reduced by using less energy for heating and cooling buildings be increasing the amount of insulation. Building materials can be selected to reflect the carbon footprint required for their production. More recycling will have to occur and the ‘carbon cost’ of using various products will have to be evaluated with a greater value placed on the actual building envelope.

Alternative energy sources will have to be found and improved on. The materials for doing this have to be ‘friendly’ or you may be replacing problems with bigger problems. This can be wind, photo voltaic, or nuclear. There are downsides to nuclear power, mainly the waste heat generated. It may be possible to use the waste heat and store it for heating in the colder months. All matters of energy production and reduction have to be reviewed in detail.

In closing, you can have a million fatalities due to covid, this could have been drastically reduced, and there was no government intervention. With the same attitude, you don’t know how this will play out with climate change. There is a huge inertia not to do anything because of the huge cost, the huge unknown changes and the huge uncertainty of it. There will be a lot of snakeoil salesmen coming out of the woodwork. You have to be careful about this because it’s possible that some ‘far fetched’ ideas may be workable.

It is possible that none of the above will happen, the downside is that we are looking at the next extinction event. When we were youngsters, we were taught that dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a significant brain (from lessons 65 years ago, things have changed). They were on earth for approximately 170 years. People have been on earth for about 6 milion; we have a bit to go, and Mother Nature just doesn’t care. Engineers will be needed to address the potential of these events and finding means of mitigating them. How do you react to a ‘thing’ that may be catastrophic?

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Who wrote that?

 

[dik]

I did... not copied from anywhere and there are a few grammatic errors, that I just caught. It's not necessary going to happen, but it gives you an inkling of the problem if it does. I will build on it over time, as I think of things.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

I'm beginning to think that a mass extinction may be beneficial.

 

[TugboatEng]

What if we accept climate change as inevitable and instead of wasting resources on green projects focus on moving everything 70 feet higher?

I doubt anybody in Atlantis drowned. Maybe Noah can build another Ark. Remember, Noah didn't build the Ark during a storm.

 

[Tomfh]

20 years is less than the time we have to start turning this around.

Yes I know the rhetoric. “We only have 782 days to act”, etc. It doesn’t change the reality of how long a transition will actually take, and how brief 20 years really is.

The alarm was pulled almost 40 years ago now. Carl Sagan gave his address to congress about the situation we face. The alarm accelerated quickly from there, leading to Rio summit and Kyoto protocols within a decade or so. Another 30 years has quickly sped by, our emissions have increased another 50% since then.

And you won’t be happy with 20 years? Crazy. 20 years is the blink of an eye given the task at hand. It’s going to take centuries.

 

[Guest102023]

Noah didn't build the Ark during a storm.

No he didn’t!
He got advance warning, and he heeded it!
All the neighbours (the flood denialists) mocked him, saying “why are you building that stupid boat?”

Try to guess the moral of the story!

You are better at arguing against yourself than anyone else here.

 

[TugboatEng]

Noah building his ark was likely a lifetime endeavor. He did not have advanced warning of a storm. That was during the time period where sea levels rose 400 feet. He probably saw the water levels rising and or had a flock trapped in a newly islanded pasture

If you think Noah's ark building was weather related, how did he get advanced warning of a storm 10+ years in the future when my weatherman can't do 5+ days?

I don't care about the moral of the story, that is irrelevant to this conversation.