Energy transformation
| Energy transformation28-01-2019 21:07 | |
| leempoels☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
(First entry here on this forum). I started wondering if the climate change is a consequence not of rising CO2 levels, but rather due to our energy use itself. Every source of energy be it fossil or nuclear and even renewable is -after being used- transformed to heat. This heat generation could cause temperature rise and maybe disturb the balance of CO2 (air/oceans). If this reasoning would be valid than efforts should concentrate on reducing energy use in all its forms instead of bringing down CO2 emissions. Relying on conversion to renewables only and not on the reduction of the volume of energy consumption would in that scenario be unwise. |
| 28-01-2019 23:11 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
I thinking any warming trend, is just the natural recovery from the great ice age of the distant past. Al Gore's hockey-stick graph was slightly exaggerated, for the dramatics. It was an award winning film after all... It should reach an equilibrium eventually, and stay more or less in the same range for a while, then head back into a cooling trend. Many thousands of years, not a couple of centuries, like the condensed version of the IPCC. Keep in mind that the 'trend' has only been a few degrees, over centuries time, not a huge amount, and well within any reasonable margin of error. It's no crisis, the link to CO2 very weak, a long, circumstantial case, least from the stand point that CO2 is a very minor component of the atmosphere, and the few degrees rise isn't noteworthy. Fossils fuels were the target, as they have been for a long time. First it was just the noise and fumes, which was fixed with mufflers and cleaner burning fuel. Then there was air pollution, and leaded fuel, so again, they fixed those problems as well. CO2 is the only thing left, and I won't be surprised if new technology, captures or converts the CO2, before it gets released. Probably get bad mileage afterwards, but hey, it save the planet from a smoldering death, not to mention many trillions of dollars going-green, the hardships for those who can't afford it, and the many acres of land, that would have been used for solar and wind farms. Energy use, is part of what makes us human. We make tools, that reduce labor, make us more productive, protect us. Machines are tools, and need energy. Energy is also power, and not in the mechanical sense, as we are all very dependent on having use of it. Those that control the production, have a lot of control over our lives. Carbon-based fuels are by far the best energy source we currently have, and it's very profitable. Been a target since it's many benefits were discovered. The really disturbing part of all this mess, is should we be messing with the planetary mechanics, the keep us alive? It's done a great job by it's self, longer than we can imagine. Our most basic food source, plants, really like CO2, and at 3-5 times higher levels than the IPCC is reporting as crisis level. Reducing CO2, is going to also reduce our food source. Doesn't matter what you fill your plate with, it had something to do with plants. No grass to graze on, no ribeye steaks... If CO2 did trap heat, like in a greenhouse, the temperature would pretty much stay the same, day or night, much of the year. Weather is driven by a difference in temperature, the greater the difference, where they meet, the more intense the weather event. |
| 29-01-2019 02:08 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21582) |
leempoels wrote: If you want to talk about 'climate change', please define what you mean by 'climate change'. Do not define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. As for use of energy: All of the energy use on Earth combined is nothing, compared to the energy contained within the Earth itself (remember, it's molten ROCK down there! A whole planet of it!). Even the Earth's energy, molten rock and everything, is completely insignificant compared to the energy of the Sun, even if you consider only that sunlight that is intercepted by Earth. It's a problem of scale, you see. leempoels wrote: If you reduce the amount of energy used, people will die. We use that energy to heat our homes and businesses, cool them in the summer, grow our food, pump our water, light our streets to reduce violent crimes, build our homes and businesses, clean them, transport food, water, and other materials to where we need them when we need them, etc. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-01-2019 04:22 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
leempoels wrote: No. Add up the amount of energy (in joules or kilowatt-hours or BTUs or calories or whatever and compare it with what we get from the Sun. Not significant. This is a problem presented in various undergraduate courses. |
| 17-02-2019 14:50 | |
| Ingvar Åberge☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
Hello, everybody! I am new to this forum, but I have had a keen interest in the climate debate for a long time. I also suspect more and more that human made heat emissions are causing some of the global warming observed. It would be very interesting to see some of those calculations from undergraduate courses. How strong is the heating effect from direct heat emissions compared to the heating effect caused by CO2? - So they teach this in undergraduate courses, where students are not yet able to evaluate it critically? That makes me even more suspisious. |
| 17-02-2019 17:09 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196) |
Climate Change is a one sided 'science', more of a political group. They use only parts and papers that make there arguments look stronger, than they really are. CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the total of the atmosphere. This is where I got suspicious, simple molecule, small concentration, yet the claim is that it can be the only significant cause. Also kind of have a problem with the warming trend, they claim to be tracking. Proxy data, isn't hard data, it also carries a huge margin of error. Global temperature and CO2 measurements can only be a rough estimate as well, again, huge margin of error. The few degrees rise, fits easily in the error region. Regardless of CO2, we've changed the landscape a lot, over the same industrial period. We've cleared a lot of land to build on, pave over, farm. We go to a lot of effort to save lives, human and animals, but vegetation is mostly either food, product, or a nuisance. Every machine, contraption, device, produces some heat, released as a waste product. But, the focus is always on fossil fuels, everything else is discounted as not significant. All these other things do add up, and are significant. Changing over to electric, from internal combustion, would significantly reduce waste heat. I'm mostly skeptical of the CO2 connection though, and the part about reducing the already tiny concentration that plants need to be productive. Plants for the basis for all the food that feed the planet, and do very well at much high concentrations (1200 to 2000 ppm), we are at 400 ppm. We eat plants, and the flesh of animals, that feed on plants. All life on this planet is based on carbon molecules. I don't know of anything that consumes carbon out of the ground. The carbon comes from plants, which pull CO2 from the atmosphere, and convert it to other carbon chemicals, everything else needs and uses. The IPCC is mostly producing scenarios, computer simulations, and a consensus, of what they believe will sell and urgent need to stop burning fossil fuels. There are contradictions, inconsistencies, and half-truths, in most of their reports, hard to spot through the hype, and the confusing paper trails the cite. Overall, I think most people feel the flaws, but either don't care enough to look closely, or they see some benefit in just following along. If you're an environmentalist, and care about cleaner, more efficient use of resources, following along gets you closer to your goals. Investors like trendy things, that move lots of money around, best way to make a lot of profit, quickly. Governments like it, because they gain more control. |
| 18-02-2019 00:57 | |
| Ingvar Åberge☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
But is there nobody who can tell how great the warming effect from anthropogenic greenhouse gases for Earth as a whole is, measured let's say in W/m2? And how much does energy is released from burning of fossil fuel and use of nuclear energy account for, measured also let's say in W/m2? |
| 18-02-2019 08:01 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Ingvar Åberge wrote: Nah. It's simple math, really. All of the energy we use to warm our homes, businesses, and anything else (including your CPU!), added up together is insignificant next to the amount of energy in the sunlight intercepted by Earth. An unknown amount is actually absorbed, but that is still far greater than anything we generate. You can see the effect every day during nightfall when temperatures drop. Your little house (and even littler CPU) are nothing compared to the great outdoors. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-02-2019 08:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Ingvar Åberge wrote: This question can be answered by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. According to the 'greenhouse gas' model, CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gasses prevent infrared light from leaving Earth. This necessarily means the radiance of Earth is reduced by these gasses. At the same time, the temperature is increasing, also by these gasses. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, however, temperature is proportional to radiance. If the radiance is reduced, temperature MUST also be reduced. The Earth would have to be colder to achieve that, not warmer. In other words, a 'greenhouse' gas is simply not possible. The entire 'greenhouse gas' model utterly fails. So the answer to your first question is a simple one: Zero. No gas or vapor has any capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. These gasses DO absorb certain frequencies of infrared light, but that does not warm the Earth. The Earth's surface is cooled by emitting light. The whole process is nothing more than just another way for the surface to warm the air above it and cool itself in the process. The second question is therefore nonsensical. It has no answer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-02-2019 12:47 | |
| Ingvar Åberge☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
Into the Night wrote: So why cant't you show me this math? I actually found some numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic_sources The anthropogenic greenhouse gas drive should according to this be 1.88+0.49+0.17+0.4+0.3574 = 3.2974 or 3.3 W/m2 (And of course the greenhouse effect is real. I am not going into a discussion about that.) So how much energy do fossil fuels release in W/m2? |
| 18-02-2019 18:22 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196) |
This seems like an odd use to me, but I'm more into electronics. W/m2 is the efficiency of solar panels, which I guess is related to global warming. Solar panel specs are usually over-hyped, ideal lab conditions, usually disappointing out in the real world... Fossil fuels are used in many ways, not all the energy is released as heat. Some is burned, specifically to produce heat (the people up north of here,know more about that), fortunately, our climate has changed to spring, hitting highs in the low 80s, daily. Fossil fuels cover a lot of chemicals used for fuel. Gas for your private jet, is different from the cheap unleaded I feed my poorly maintained, 15 year old SUV, which also burns 5W30 motor oil. But, I'm sure you could find the breakdown somewhere online, and the energy potential for each. Oh, my unleaded, is also 10% alcohol, but guess that doesn't count, since it's "carbon-neutral", and doesn't add much CO2, to the 0.04% already in the atmosphere. Basically, there is a lot of room to play with the numbers, but you can only get a rough guesstimate. No way to really get real numbers. Not ever fossil fuel has the same potential, and not every application uses it with the same efficiency. |
| 18-02-2019 18:32 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Ingvar Åberge wrote:Into the Night wrote: I already showed you the math. Starting with random numbers for data does not work in the math. The 'greenhouse effect' is not real. It is not possible under the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just ignore these laws. Fossils fuels release nothing. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. The amount of energy from fuels we DO use is unknown, but it is nowhere near the energy Earth receives from the Sun. No energy is received from 'greenhouse effect'. Wikipedia is not a valid source. It is summarily discarded on sight. This article is just making up random numbers. Too many of Wikipedia's articles are incomplete, badly written, or just plain wrong. You can't use this reference with me. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 18-02-2019 18:35 |
| 23-02-2019 13:10 | |
| Ingvar Åberge☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
Is there nobody who can tell if it is correct to simply numerically add up the sum of the effect of the greenhouse gases found on Wikipedia, or do we have to make a subtraction for the effect of different greenhouse gases overlapping one another? |
| 23-02-2019 17:38 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196) |
Ingvar Åberge wrote: The great thing about mathematics, is you can do magical things with numbers. You can pretty much produce any results you want to impress other with. Great thing is that you can also be selective of the data, and sources, incase someone wants to pick at your calculations, you have excuses, and a backup plan. |
| 23-02-2019 19:21 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Ingvar Åberge wrote: Don't have to do either. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from Earth's surface. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-02-2019 19:30 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Ingvar Åberge wrote: No, mathematics is a closed functional system. Everything done in mathematics in mathematics is provable and predictable. The only thing where the power of prediction is lost in mathematics is through the importation of elements from another Mathematics Domain, such as the use of random numbers in the Real Math Domain (the one taught to you in school). Statistics is a great summary tool, but it's dependence on random numbers renders statistics unable to predict anything. A simple average of data is not a statistical summary. This is the biggest mistake made by people, since they were never taught statistical math at all well. All summaries MUST include the margin of error calculation. Only raw data can be used. The raw data must be available. The raw data must be unbiased. The problem is that an average of several thousand thermometers somehow represent the temperature of the Earth. They don't. These thermometers are scattered around the world, but they are grouped in cities and wherever there is a road (they must be serviced). The ones at sea are more or less uniform, but the ones on land certainly aren't. Assuming uniformly space thermometers, we have enough now to have one thermometer to cover an area the size of Virginia. Since temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile, all we can do is guess. Guessing is not statistics, but statistical math can show that one is guessing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate Energy transformation: