Climate Change - Yes or No

General tips, questions and answers about going green in your home and business. Achieve a more environmentally friendly lifestyle!

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby rg767 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:03 pm

We have used the specific heat capacity of air to calculate the temperature rise created by that amount of energy. It is a simple concept. Specific heat capacity is the amount of energy, in joules, required to increase the temperature of 1g of the material in question by 1 degree Kevin (or C). If we supply X number of joules to "air" with a specific heat capacity of 1.01joules per gram per degree K, we increase the temperature by X divided by (1.01 X mass of air in grams). We are not talking "proportional", or "a bit more heat", we are talking about a direct calculation.


No, as you mentioned a direct increase in heating only adds a small amount to the heating effect as a balance. It doesn't store up.

I am saying that we are currently stuck on the concept that CO2 is responsible for "global warming" when in fact there is at least one far more likely and easy to calculate cause. That being the case, why are we stuck on the AGW concept? You will also note that the IPCC AR4 actually states that AG gases are "very likely" to have contributed "most" of the temperature increase. "Most" is defined as more than 50%. So even they have not the confidence to state categorically that it "is" responsible, and only attribute potentially as little a half the warming to it! The rest is attributed to land use, solar radiation etc (see another point below).


Well you should bring this up with them then if you feel it would be a big enough factor. I disagree, but they might not. I find it unlikely that it is a factor though and they havent picked it up?

Yes, but it's not relevant. A lump of coal is primary energy, but so what? It might stay as primary energy (buried coal) for the rest of eternity. That being the case it has no bearing on global warming, solar radiation or the price of cheese. By the way, the heat produced is not "proportional" to the primary energy contained in the rock, it IS the primary energy in the rock. It is measured in joules because thats the only current unit of energy (calories etc. are old hat!). So a piece of coal when burnt releases 5 joules of energy. If it is in the ground it is "valued" at 5J of primary energy. But in the ground it is neither heating nor cooling anything (releasing or absorbing energy in any form) and therefore has no impact on the discussion.


It does, because the figure I was talking about was Primary energy usage per year. Energy that is used from primary energy sources every year. It is relevant, especially as I was comparing energy with energy.

You seem to not grasp the concept here, but I'm not sure how to explain it any better.

If incoming = outgoing, then any addition to one side of the equation has an impact. If both incoming and outgoing are huuuuge, then a small addition to either side will still cause an imbalance. The imbalance is the only thing that is important, and the impact of that imbalance is the same no matter how large or small the incoming and outgoing.

For example;

+1 - 1 = 0 = no change
+1000000 - 100000 = 0 = no change

+2 -1 = 1 = an increase of 1
+1000001 - 1000000 = 1 = an increase of 1

The size of the equilibrium is not important, it is the size of the change that matters. We know the size of the change (or at least Wiki thinks we do!), and we can easily calculate the effect that change will have.


No, I don't think you get it. Adding a tiny amount of heat to very large amount of energy is additive and a very small variation when considering the equilibrium as you are saying. You cant calculate the size of the change, because you are not taking into consideration everything that absorbs heat.

anyway: 1000001 - 1000000 = 1 = an increase of 1 = increase of FA! Like heating of the atmosphere from the thermic heating effect of burning fossil fuels.

I asked for experimental evidence. You have simply stated that "it does". You have also stated that other gases have effects for thousands of years, a statement that will be even harder to back up with experimental evidence because it is totally theoretical. However, I'll ask again. Please point me to some experimental evidence that 350ppm CO2 has an effect in the atmosphere. I am genuinely interested because I have only seen "high concentration" data of actual effects, with the "low concentration, real world" theories extrapolated from them.


The existence of the greenhouse effect? Not exactly empirical, but evidence. I cant point you to it, but I am sure it exists. I think Arherrienus first figured it out in 1780-something?

You are correct, I haven't included ice melt energy, nor water temperature rise. I have only included air. But equally I have not included other sources of local heat such as energy released from an extra 6 billion humans metabolising vegetation that would otherwise have stored incoming solar energy for decades or millenia.


Oh please... When did that ever happen? Oil deposits are not made from land based vegetation, they are algae die off from two major geological periods only! Fossil fuel deposits are not cumulative over long periods.

For overall temperature, why would you leave out the elements that actually make a huge difference? Like water and ice?

So for every square meter of ground that is not growing a plant, nearly 100% of the solar energy is converted to heat. Now consider how much land area has been cleared of vegetation (not to be replanted with other vegetation). All the energy in that vegetation has been released as heat (OK, so some trees have been made in to houses or tables, but you get the point) and all the energy arriving there is now creating heat, rather than new plants. Even farmland that is "fallow" between crops has the same effect.


There are a few things in here:
Lighter coloured areas tend to reflect radiation. Trees tend to increase cloud. yes, the albedo has changed. But whatever comes in must go out, and an enhanced greenhouse effect will result in greater warming.
rg767
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:22 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby zzsstt » Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:55 am

rg767 wrote:No, as you mentioned a direct increase in heating only adds a small amount to the heating effect as a balance. It doesn't store up.


It does store up unless the outgoing energy increases. Given a balance of 1, with 1 incoming and 1 outgoing every year;

1+1-1 = 1
1+1-1 = 1
etc.

Now add the extra 1 produced locally:

1+1+1-1 = 2 (new balance)
2 +1 +1-1 = 3 (new balance)
3+1+1-1 = 4 (new balance)

It is entirely additive

rg767 wrote:Well you should bring this up with them then if you feel it would be a big enough factor. I disagree, but they might not. I find it unlikely that it is a factor though and they havent picked it up?


zzsstt wrote:You will also note that the IPCC AR4 actually states that AG gases are "very likely" to have contributed "most" of the temperature increase. "Most" is defined as more than 50%. So even they have not the confidence to state categorically that it "is" responsible, and only attribute potentially as little a half the warming to it! The rest is attributed to land use, solar radiation etc (see another point below).


They HAVE noticed it, it's just that they don't make a big song and dance about it. They only attribute "most" of the temperature increase to AG gases. The remainder (potentially 49%) IS attributed by the IPCC to other factors (land use, solar activity etc.).

rg767 wrote:It does, because the figure I was talking about was Primary energy usage per year. Energy that is used from primary energy sources every year. It is relevant, especially as I was comparing energy with energy.


OK, the table you quoted was a mix of figures (solar, wind, biomass etc.), only one of which represented use, the rest were "existing" primary energy rather than "used". So lets simply concentrate on "primary energy use" as 474x10^18, and assume that most of that is fossil fuel (for the sake of argument).

rg767 wrote:No, I don't think you get it. Adding a tiny amount of heat to very large amount of energy is additive and a very small variation when considering the equilibrium as you are saying. You cant calculate the size of the change, because you are not taking into consideration everything that absorbs heat.


Actually it is just as possible to calculate the result as it is to calculate any other aspect of global warming. The concept that a tiny amount of heat makes no difference but a tiny amount of CO2 does is interesting. The amount of energy added is known, and we can directly calculate the rise in temperature as a result. I have done so simply for the atmosphere in isolation, but extending that calculation to cover the other factors would not be too hard - the top 40cm of soil, the top layer of the oceans etc. The melting ice is also easy to calculate, as we know the enthalpy of fusion of water. So the calculation is not that hard. The only complexity would be the rate of distribution of that heat (how long does it take to permeate through the oceans, land etc.). Like I said, it is no harder than any other aspect of climate change.

rg767 wrote:anyway: 1000001 - 1000000 = 1 = an increase of 1 = increase of FA! Like heating of the atmosphere from the thermic heating effect of burning fossil fuels.


But if the balance originally was 1, then the "FA" increase of 1 is actually a doubling! In our case, of course, the increase on the energy balance is indeed relatively small. However as I calculated it would have a measurable effect on the atmosphere. It seems strange that you are happy to believe that a change of 0.005% in the composition of the atmosphere can have a massive impact, whilst the release of sufficient energy to increase the atmospheric (in isolation) temperature of the planet by 0.08C each year will have none!

rg767 wrote:The existence of the greenhouse effect? Not exactly empirical, but evidence. I cant point you to it, but I am sure it exists. I think Arherrienus first figured it out in 1780-something?


So after all the request that the "deniers" scientifically disprove AGW, you entire argument relies on a theory for which you cannot find any experimental proof, but simply are "sure it exists".

rg767 wrote:For overall temperature, why would you leave out the elements that actually make a huge difference? Like water and ice?


Because we are simply debating a subject, and I am not running a funded project.

rg767 wrote:Lighter coloured areas tend to reflect radiation. Trees tend to increase cloud. yes, the albedo has changed. But whatever comes in must go out, and an enhanced greenhouse effect will result in greater warming.


Ah, the enhanced greenhouse effect. Which relates to a couple of very narrow wavelength peaks, far beyond the wavelengths involved in photosynthesis. What I was talking about was the difference between the radiation in the photosynthesis wavelengths being converted to chemical energy ("cold") or absorbed by the earths surface as heat.

Whilst it is true that lighter colours reflect more energy (and also radiate less energy), and the overall reflectiveness of the planet (the albedo) has perhaps increased, that is not the end of the equation. If the temperature of the planet stays the same, then my comment earlier about energy in = energy out is not strictly true. If the incoming energy is all (100%) converted to heat, then indeed a stable temperature indicates energy in = energy out. But in fact that is not the case. Vegetation captures energy and stores it in chemical form ("sugars"). In the natural cycle, some of the solar energy arriving is stored in chemical form by plants. Now whilst you have argued that "fossil fuel" creation is not an ongoing process
rg767 wrote:Fossil fuel deposits are not cumulative over long periods
in fact the process by which they are created is indeed ongoing. Everytime a dead organism falls to the floor of the oceans, or a dead tree is buried by the build up of litter under a forest, the chemical energy (and CO2) is being stored. Some of that material is recycled quite quickly by various flora and fauna, but some remains trapped. This is, of course, how the CO2 cycle works and one of the reasons why the seas can absorb CO2. At the same time as absorbing CO2, the plant life is absorbing energy.

My point was that by removing the plant life we are stopping this process. If we clear a forest and build a road, the energy that would previously have been trapped by photosynthesis will now be absorbed as heat, which in turn radiates back out and warms the atmosphere.

So from that concept it would appear that energy in may be more than energy out, without any warming, the difference being trapped as chemical energy by photosynthesis. As we remove these "chemical energy sinks", so the temperature of the planet has to increase to stabilise the equilibrium between energy in and energy out.

I can already hear you screaming "but its a small effect", and it may well be - I haven't calculated the numbers so I don't know. The point however is that with only a few pages of posts we have seen that the direct energy output from burning fossil fuels IS enough to cause an impact. We have seen that potentially energy in <> energy out, and that by removing chemical energy sinks we may impact the equilibrium and cause the temperature to shift.

Don't get me wrong, I am actually not saying that these effects are 100% what is causing the problem. I am simply saying that I am not sure that we should be that confident as to say "very likely more than half of the temperature increases are caused by AG gases", although that in itself (the IPCC AR4 conclusion) does not inspire too much confidence!

Yet even that ("very likely more than half") statement is forgotten as people rush around blaming everything on greenhouse gases........
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby renewit » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:32 pm

Google these terms and be amazed at much credible evidence for climate change:

"real estate rising oceans"
"melting glaciers"
"rising global temperatures due global warming"
"maldives global warming"
"bangladesh global warming climate change"
"climate change patterns"

and associated problems like:

"loss of biodiversity causes and effects"

It's real folks, we have a big role to play in it and better get our act together now.
Alternative Energy Sources for a Flourishing Future is about more than just technology.
renewit
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:03 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby zzsstt » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:28 am

Maybe also Google terms like:

"peer pressure"
"profit"
"religious fervour"

or perhaps

"phil watson sea levels" (or just go to http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056)
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:37 pm

Dragging an old topic back to life a few years on, the evidence is even more clear

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-27/s ... d=newsmail

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener ... evel-rise/
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby jimbo » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:10 pm

Are we really that worried about 1m of sea level rise over such a long period of time? How did the aboriginals cope with 150m and an ice age?
jimbo
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:48 pm
Location: Ballarat

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:46 pm

They didn't have cities of tens of millions of people, and billions of dollars worth of infrastructure located within a metre or 2 of SL. Many small Pacific islands will become uninhabitable, a large part of coastal Bangladesh will be inundated- all those people will have to move somewhere- if you think the refugee numbers are high now, just wait 50 years.
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Dave » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:50 pm

You're a latter-day Achimedes, Inspector! Floating ice (icebergs) merely displace their own volume. Land ice (ice shelves and glaciers) add volume to the oceans, however. Next, you should try heating water to see how much it expands as the temperature rises. All basic physics.
Dave
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby jules » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:00 am

Floating ice (icebergs) merely displace their own volume


... displace their own mass, not volume. That's why they float.

Interesting thought in relation to the amount of ice stored in the Antarctic ... Antarctica is nearly twice the area of Australia. That's not something that's obvious when you look at a map. I have no idea how much ice that translates into but the vast area of the place puts the amount of sea level rise it's capable of causing, into perspective.

Jules
Primary system: .8KW Trina panels; Plasmatronics PL40; 1,000Ah VRLA 12X2V battery bank; 1.7KW Selectronic inverter

Veteran system, semi retired: 6 X 55W Solarex 12V panels; Fangpusun CC; 6 X 2V, 35 year old 550Ah lead acid flooded cell batteries.
jules
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:32 pm
Location: Port Macquarie, NSW

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Dave » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:19 pm

Quite right, Jules. The mass of the volume of water displaced by floating ice is equal to the mass of the floating ice, which is less dense than water (but not as dense as me).
Dave
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:48 pm

Previous

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

new solar power specials