vtsnowedin wrote:
The amount of "new water" being released into the atmosphere is tiny in comparison to the amount available for transpiration by plants and evaporation from the ocean surface. Let the ocean surface temperature rise by a couple of degrees C (as we have) and the rate of evaporation increases increasing the total water vapor in the atmosphere.
In other words a positive feedback effect. I don't think the rate of release is that important - just a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour full stop.
In my opinion the worst effects of water vapour and methane releases will be from natural releases that are increased by the increasing global temperatures as a result of the warmer atmosphere being able to hold more water vapour (scientifically it is due to the higher saturated vapour pressure of a warmer gas). Methane could be released from natural sources such as deep ocean clathrates and melting arctic tundra. In my opinion, man-made releases of methane and in particular fugitive releases of methane from the fossil fuel industry will not be a significant global warming factor.
Do you discount the latent heat and CO2 emissions from a hundred years of fossil fuel burning that now has grown to some 125+/- million barrels of oil a day equivalent? I think that is the real cause of the problem and also something we have no ability to stop before the fossil fuels run out.
In the mean time we must deal with whatever adverse effects come from this burning of fossil fuels and sound leadership about how to proceed on that front is sorely lacking.
I once read that the earth receives the same energy from the sun in the form of solar radiation (UV, IR and visible radiation) in one hour than the total global energy use (i.e. burning fossil fuels, nuclear energy, renewables, tidal and geothermal energy) in one year. So I think the amount of heating from fossil fuels contribution to the heat of the earths atmosphere is less than 0.1% of that received as heat from the sun. The following website explains it quite well.
Now the energy received from the sun is very diffuse, and the energy available from fossil fuels is very compact which may explain why we don't go around in solar powered cars or aircraft just yet.
Yes, the effect from the actual heat emitted is very small. The problem lies the the massive effect that a very small amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere can have.
I see the only way that we can have a major impact on human behaviour to help the climate will be another serious economic crisis. According to many commentators it's just round the corner. From our environment's point of view, and therefore ours, it can't come too soon nor hard enough. We are going to be hit hard economically by climate change anyway so the sooner the hit comes the less bad the long term effects will be.
There are too many vested interests with no thought other than money to change the way the economic system works enough to change the trajectory of climate change so an economic bust is the only way to go. Hopefully those vested interests will do the right thing, as they did in the 1930s, and jump off the top of a skyscraper. Good riddance!
Yes,and there are too many vested interests who are going to benefit hugely from taxing carbon. Not for good reason, other than it keeps people under the thumb and in fear. You know, the type of the peak oil doom/fear. Instead of worrying about climate change, you should be worrying seriously about 5g. Really seriously.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
woodburner wrote:Yes,and there are too many vested interests who are going to benefit hugely from taxing carbon. Not for good reason, other than it keeps people under the thumb and in fear. You know, the type of the peak oil doom/fear. Instead of worrying about climate change, you should be worrying seriously about 5g. Really seriously.
Woodburner. Could you explain more about the dangers of 5G perhaps on a separate post. As we all know a little bit too much of almost everything is bad for you, whether CO2 or mobile phone use. My understanding of 5G is that the frequency is much higher resulting in shorter ranges and hence more cellphone towers and the result that people are 'bathed' in that little bit more electromagnetic radiation than before.
BritDownUnder wrote:
I once read that the earth receives the same energy from the sun in the form of solar radiation (UV, IR and visible radiation) in one hour than the total global energy use (i.e. burning fossil fuels, nuclear energy, renewables, tidal and geothermal energy) in one year. So I think the amount of heating from fossil fuels contribution to the heat of the earths atmosphere is less than 0.1% of that received as heat from the sun. The following website explains it quite well.
Now the energy received from the sun is very diffuse, and the energy available from fossil fuels is very compact which may explain why we don't go around in solar powered cars or aircraft just yet.
Not bothering to check your facts let me say that that amount of solar radiation was in perfect balance for the last ten thousand years or so and when something is balanced adding even one straw to one side of the scale will tip the balance. One hundred twenty five BOE equivalent per day is a pretty heavy straw.
BritDownUnder wrote:
I once read that the earth receives the same energy from the sun in the form of solar radiation (UV, IR and visible radiation) in one hour than the total global energy use (i.e. burning fossil fuels, nuclear energy, renewables, tidal and geothermal energy) in one year. So I think the amount of heating from fossil fuels contribution to the heat of the earths atmosphere is less than 0.1% of that received as heat from the sun. The following website explains it quite well.
Now the energy received from the sun is very diffuse, and the energy available from fossil fuels is very compact which may explain why we don't go around in solar powered cars or aircraft just yet.
Not bothering to check your facts let me say that that amount of solar radiation was in perfect balance for the last ten thousand years or so and when something is balanced adding even one straw to one side of the scale will tip the balance. One hundred twenty five BOE equivalent per day is a pretty heavy straw.
You are right! All that 125 million barrels of oil and the other equivalent gas and coal energy along with the tidal, nuclear and geothermal power that is powering human civilization will certainly heat the earth up a small amount, compared with the times early humans lived in caves, until it again becomes in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe. I would be guessing it would be about 0.01degC temperature rise on average but may be more in some localities - one of the many factors behind the urban heat island effect perhaps.
Note that I did not count solar, wind, sustainable biomass, hydro or wave energy as they are already accounted for in, and converted from, the solar flux that the earth receives.
You can read more about the fascinating Stefan-Boltzmann Law that equates a black body's temperature to the rate of its energy loss and can even be used to estimate the theoretical surface energy of the earth's surface.
woodburner wrote:Yes,and there are too many vested interests who are going to benefit hugely from taxing carbon. Not for good reason, other than it keeps people under the thumb and in fear. You know, the type of the peak oil doom/fear. Instead of worrying about climate change, you should be worrying seriously about 5g. Really seriously.
But we can switch off 5G at any time we want, woodburner. Can't do that with climate change.
If we can't believe the crap that he talks about climate change, BDU, how do we know that he is not talking crap about 5G. Some of the tales that he believes about climate change are such rubbish that I wouldn't put any weight on what he says about anything else.
Edited to correct spelling mistake referred to below!!
Last edited by kenneal - lagger on 04 Sep 2019, 17:26, edited 1 time in total.
