excessive heat creation factor

bfoster wrote:
I am inclined to think that your reply may be a bit quick, in that a full moon is said to raise the earth's temperature by .02 degrees for a short interim. If this should be a fact, then it is apparent that the earth's temperature is very susceptible to changes due to very slight phenomena. I find it interesting that you so easily dismiss the premise I have proposed. The production of our electrical energy is only a small part of the heat factor I have in mind. If we consider the heat generated by the prodigious number of distribution transformers operating during our dark cycle, it should be clearly evident that we are adding a considerable burden upon the planet's ability to dissipate the heat. Please bear in mind that the ability to dissipate heat from our surface is to be considered something of a fixed constant. And the disparity that may exist between heat production and heat dissipation could be adding greatly to the problem. This is the reason I have suggested the possibility that a ratcheting effect may also be creating even more problems. Thanks for your reply.

bfoster wrote:
I am simply suggesting that the problem that exists may only be that the earth's cooling capacity is no longer sufficient to dissipate all the heat which is being created, regardless of the source of the heat. I am a retired master electrician and all too aware of the amount of heat produced by a single distribution transformer. Incidentally, all transformers produce considerable heat even when they are not operating under a load. Additionally they are so widely dispersed in our world that they quite likely present something of a single heat source in major cities. That the blanket effect of greenhouse gases further adds to the problem can not be denied. It appears to me that we are experiencing a duality of factors, and we are up against a bit of a conundrum, and likely will have to make some tradeoff decisions. The use of low energy requirement LED lighting for our streets will go a long way for starters, since they do not use the energy to operate, nor do they produce the heat of operation that current lights do. I opine that the various means of power production do not produce nearly the amounts of heat that the devices being powered, en masse, do. Again, the heat, itself, and the means of dissipating it, given earth's obvious limitations, are the core problems. Thanks for the reply

still learning wrote:
"I am simply suggesting that the problem that exists may only be that the earth's cooling capacity is no longer sufficient to dissipate all the heat which is being created, regardless of the source of the heat."

Not enough cooling capacity?
Yes, exactly.

More CO2 in the atmosphere, enhanced "greenhouse effect," things don't cool off quite as fast. A little warmer.

bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.

bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.

Tim the plumber wrote:

bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.

The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.

The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.

To be direct to Mr. Foster - he had a totally valid question and it was answered. But it then became bickering other than simply answering the question.

Mr. Foster, you may think that every little bit hurts but in fact it does little since it simply causes a heated atmosphere to generate more stratospheric clouds and reflect more of the Sun's energy.

The sunny side of Mercury and the ground level on Venus are very close to the same temperature because the orbital period and the rotations period are the same so that they heat to the level at which the energy necessary to maintain this temperature (the level of molten rock or lava flows) where they can absorb no more energy and reflect the rest of it into space.

The Earth reflects something like 37%, if memory suffices, and tiny differences in MGT make tiny differences in the Earth's reflections. The thing that is now the controlling factor is the amount of heat placed upon the Earth caused by both solar cycles and the Milankovitch cycles. The severity of these increases in energy input overwhelm the Earth's protection system to some but not very large extent.

In short - there ain't no man-made climate except in an air conditioned building.

bfoster wrote:
I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's.

bfoster wrote:
I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

bfoster wrote:
Finally someone is connecting the dots! As I have previously said, we undoubtedly need to evaluate the variables. The expanded use of heat pump technology to heat our homes, although it would appear to be a small contribution to the solution, would at least be a beginning. It may be that we could eliminate the continuous operation of the current number of street lighting in use. As we have arrived at this semi-critical point in small incremental steps, the adoption of small steps to alleviate the problem should not seem unwarranted. The amount of heat created in the production of electricity is infinitesimal when compared to the heat created when we use it.

The "evaluation" youwant done is something that is done as a simple example in a physics access course.

It is easy and trivial.

The direct heating of the world due to the energy use of humans is tiny. This effect is only at all significant in cities.

To be direct to Mr. Foster - he had a totally valid question and it was answered. But it then became bickering other than simply answering the question.

Mr. Foster, you may think that every little bit hurts but in fact it does little since it simply causes a heated atmosphere to generate more stratospheric clouds and reflect more of the Sun's energy.

The sunny side of Mercury and the ground level on Venus are very close to the same temperature because the orbital period and the rotations period are the same so that they heat to the level at which the energy necessary to maintain this temperature (the level of molten rock or lava flows) where they can absorb no more energy and reflect the rest of it into space.

The Earth reflects something like 37%, if memory suffices, and tiny differences in MGT make tiny differences in the Earth's reflections. The thing that is now the controlling factor is the amount of heat placed upon the Earth caused by both solar cycles and the Milankovitch cycles. The severity of these increases in energy input overwhelm the Earth's protection system to some but not very large extent.

In short - there ain't no man-made climate except in an air conditioned building.

You're sort of getting there, but you have some way to go yet. Small changes in solar irradiance due to Milankovitch cycles are indeed thought to have been the trigger for the interglacial warm periods, but these small changes are nowhere near large enough to account for the large swings in temperature by themselves. They must have been amplified by positive feedback effects such as ice albedo and greenhouse gases.

The fact that CO2 concentrations vary so closely with temperature indicates very strongly that CO2 has been the main factor involved in amplifying the initial Milankovitch perturbations. This, as well as radiative theory, shows that CO2 has a strong warming effect and, hence, that recent warming has been driven by human emissions of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases.

bfoster wrote:
I see that I am quite well undone by those, who have obviously dedicated a great deal of time and energy in their search for relief from this crisis. I also appreciate the time they have taken to help me along. I first noticed the trend toward climate change upon observing the beginnings of the changing of habitats in wildlife. Mourning doves began to appear in Maine in the early 60's. We now have opossums, buzzards, etc. that were unheard of prior to the 60's. Is it at all possible, that we still do not really know the true cause for global warming? It almost appears that for every answer we seem to find, we also seem to find evidences for doubts. Since this seems to be so at this point, perhaps we need to question other areas of potential. Far-flung as it may be, could the rotation of the earth's core be slowing. Or ?perhaps the reversal of earth's poles, as is predicted, may be a factor? America has done much to cut back on CO2 emissions. There are no longer smog-filled cities, as Los Angeles once used to be. There are no more of the images of billowing smokestacks from England's industrial era. We appear to be unable to curb the pollutants being created by China and India. It appears the only third world country that makes no contribution to the problem is North Korea. In a manner of speaking, it is dark both night and day in that hapless nation. Has anybody considered the possibility of trying to remove some of the CO2, possibly by things akin to cloud seeding techniques? To end this reply, I submit that all things are worth looking at, even as Thomas Edison found ten thousand things which wouldn't work before trying carbonized silk!

still learning wrote: A gallon of gasoline has about 5.5 pounds of carbon in it and results in about 20 pounds of CO2.

"tipped the leaky plunger" puffed: total energy output for all human activity is trivial in comparison with the energy levels of the natural world.

bfoster wrote:
Many thanks to all who have responded to my inquiries and thoughts! Not unexpectedly I have one more tangent of inquiry. I remember that in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers there appeared an interesting report. It was reported, that during the grounding of air traffic for a small time period the temperature of the planet was observed to cool slightly. Unless that report was fake news, it perhaps deserves to be revisited. If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere? I know very little about the various strata of our atmosphere, but I do know that most of the air traffic is occurring at altitudes of 30,000 feet, and in a zone we call, the jet stream. It was thought at the time of the referenced report that the effect had something to do with the contrails from planes being absent for a time. Now for one more amateur attempt at analysis, please bear with me. Could it be that the relatively new advance of jet traffic at such high altitudes has created a situation whereby the CO2 emissions, being injected into the jet streams are necessarily suspended at those levels, since there must be extremely energetic mixing of the air via the super high velocities of the winds present, and even ever present? I am fearless enough to postulate, that it is doubtful that the heavier than air CO2 would be able to separate from such an energetic condition, and return to the ground levels of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, should this turn out to be the actual case there would be a morass of socioeconomic upheavals, and political harangue! Have some fun with these conjectures, folks.Thanks to all, again.

bfoster wrote:
......If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere?.....

still learning wrote:

bfoster wrote:
......If CO2 is indeed heavier than air, should it not remain at the lowest levels of our atmosphere? If this premise be true it raises the question of how is it accumulating in the upper atmosphere?.....

So why don't gasses with heaver molecules separate out from lighter molecules?

Diffusion. Molecules are in constant motion at any temperature above absolute zero, more motion at higher temperatures. Gas molecules aren't stuck to each other as in solids so they end up moving about randomly. Run into one another, bounce off Will eventually mix thoroughly just by diffusion. Eventually.

Advection, winds, turbulence, the mass flow of gasses also mix things up.

See http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2010/01/if-co2-is-so-heavy-why-doesnt-it-sink.html

Part of the content at that above link brings back an 11th grade memory, 1956-1957, we did the bromine-in-a-jar thing in chemistry class.

Wake wrote:
....There is far greater percentage of CO2 lower to the ground than in the upper atmosphere....

Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.

bfoster wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the entire question of CO2 emissions is still in doubt. If it can not be agreed upon concerning the PPM'S of CO2 extant between 430000 feet and the amount at sea level, how can we attribute global warming to such a theory?

bfoster wrote:
..... If it can not be agreed upon concerning the PPM'S of CO2 extant between 430000 feet and the amount at sea level........
.....For now I must stay where I am, and consider if it might not be worthwhile to experiment with the feasibility of using H and O2 for jet fuel. Feel Like I'm following the Yellow Brick Road!

still learning wrote:

Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.

"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.

Wake wrote:

still learning wrote:

Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.

"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.

If the latent heat content isn't quoted for most common gases in the latest books all I can say is that the mighty have fallen pretty low.

The latent heat content of a gas is the maximum heat (vibratory energy) that a molecule can hold at a 1:1 energy in vs energy out basis.

In the chart supplied with the article you referenced you can see that virtually all of the Sun's emissions are absorbed into water. This means not JUST the 4% average of water and water vapor in the atmosphere but all of the 70% of the Earth that is covered in water.

Near the extreme bottom there are a couple of narrow spectral lines that are CO2 absorption lines. The chart demonstrates that there is very little energy in that region. Below that is where the Earth's emission begins so CO2 misses almost all of that energy as well. Is there any spectral lines within the Earth's emission band? Yes but at the far upper end where little energy is available.

There are three primary absorption lines of CO2: A very weak one at 4,000 mm, a strong one around 2,300 and a weak one about 700 mm.

Looking at:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/oxygentable2.htm

You can see that not only is there a higher latent heat content of O2 as you noted but there is overlap in the absorption spectra.

Therefore O2 is a more powerful "greenhouse gas" that the CO2 which replaces it.

The story is illustrated and little better by:

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Quite frankly I first read spectra and latent heat in a high school textbook in the 50's. In a public school. In Oakland.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Wake wrote:

still learning wrote:

Wake wrote:

....Pick up any freshman's chemistry book and look up the difference between CO2 and O2 from which CO2 is generated. Surprise - O2 has a higher latent heat content. So more O2 = more heat held in the atmosphere and more CO2 the less heat is held.

Also look up the emission spectra of the Sun. Then look up the emission spectra of the Earth. Then look up the absorption spectra of CO2 - surprise - CO2 is below the Sun and above the Earth. You can't hold any energy that you can't find.

The "greenhouse gas" of the Earth is water which is 100 times more that CO2 and 400 times more than the quantity of CO2 that they claim is dirty, evil, mean, rotten and nasty. CO2 has tiny absorption lines where very little energy resides. Water has EXTREMELY wide absorption lines over almost the entire spectrum.

"Pick up any freshman chemistry textbook....O2 has a higher latent heat content....more heat held."

My copy of Pauling's General Chemistry doesn't seem to have anything about the latent heat of oxygen or carbon dioxide. Maybe you could point out an example.
Not sure what latent heat of oxygen or CO2 has to do with anything under discussion here. By "latent heat" folks usually mean what is sometimes called heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Heat having to do with a phase change, not a direct temperature change. No phase change of either oxygen or CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars maybe. Water certainly involved with phase change though. Evaporation/condensation/freezing/melting. Water's latent heat definitely a factor in moving heat around in the atmosphere.
Maybe you meant "specific heat," related to the amount of heat it takes to heat a given mass of substance a given temperature change. According to my old (39th edition) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CO2's specific heat is 0.1989 calories per gram at +15C and oxygen is 0.2178 cal/g at +15C. Pretty close.
None of this latent heat or specific stuff of O2 or CO2 has anything to do with climate change though. Near as I can tell.

"Look up the emission spectra...."
Regarding spectra of CO2, it absorbs right in the middle of Earth's radiation curve. See figure 2.9 here http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Regarding water vapor, it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.
No idea what you mean with the "100 times" and 400 times" stuff.
Please clarify.
Water vapor isn't really a problem though. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Get too much water vapor and it rains or snows or something. It does amplify the effect of CO2 some though in that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air before saturating.
Then there are clouds. Complicated effects on climate.

If the latent heat content isn't quoted for most common gases in the latest books all I can say is that the mighty have fallen pretty low.

The latent heat content of a gas is the maximum heat (vibratory energy) that a molecule can hold at a 1:1 energy in vs energy out basis.

In the chart supplied with the article you referenced you can see that virtually all of the Sun's emissions are absorbed into water. This means not JUST the 4% average of water and water vapor in the atmosphere but all of the 70% of the Earth that is covered in water.

Near the extreme bottom there are a couple of narrow spectral lines that are CO2 absorption lines. The chart demonstrates that there is very little energy in that region. Below that is where the Earth's emission begins so CO2 misses almost all of that energy as well. Is there any spectral lines within the Earth's emission band? Yes but at the far upper end where little energy is available.

There are three primary absorption lines of CO2: A very weak one at 4,000 mm, a strong one around 2,300 and a weak one about 700 mm.

Looking at:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/oxygentable2.htm

You can see that not only is there a higher latent heat content of O2 as you noted but there is overlap in the absorption spectra.

Therefore O2 is a more powerful "greenhouse gas" that the CO2 which replaces it.

The story is illustrated and little better by:

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Quite frankly I first read spectra and latent heat in a high school textbook in the 50's. In a public school. In Oakland.

What has latent heat capacity got to do with the IR absorption and re-emission thing?

I ask because I don't know. This is the first I have heard about the heat cpacity of the atmosphere being any significant factor.

Surface Detail wrote: I don't think there is any such thing as the "latent heat content/capacity" of oxygen or carbon dioxide.

There is such a thing as "latent heat of vaporization" but since we're not dealing with phase changes between liquid and gaseous CO2 and O2, it's hard to see what this would have to do with global warming.

It's possible that Wake actually means "specific heat capacity", but that too has nothing to do with global warming. The specific heat capacity of the gases in the atmosphere determines how much thermal inertia they have, but makes no difference to the warming effect.

The greenhouse effect is, of course, a consequence of the radiative properties of gases, in particular, the ability of poly-atomic gaseous molecules to absorb IR. It has nothing to do with their latent heats of vaporization or specific heat capacities.