0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 05/06/2023 20:19:19This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?It will eventually end up in both the Earth and the Earth's atmosphere. Heat spreads until it finds an equilibrium.As for your idea of heat released from powerplants causing the Earth to heat up, let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so. That's a temperature increase of more than 30 times what can be explained by humanity's heat emissions alone. So we know something else is the primary driver.
Alright how if greenhouse gasses are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, how and why is the heating mostly occurring over the north pole?
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 06/06/2023 00:51:44Alright how if greenhouse gasses are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, how and why is the heating mostly occurring over the north pole?What's your source for that claim?
instead of using air to release the pressure, just spray water into the piston and drain the water.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 06/06/2023 01:19:35instead of using air to release the pressure, just spray water into the piston and drain the water.What are you going to do with the hot water afterwards?Quotehttps://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-PoleHere's your answer: https://www.npolar.no/en/themes/climate-change-in-the-arctic/#:~:text=This%20significant%20regional%20warming%20leads,of%20the%20Greenland%20ice%20cap.&text=The%20Arctic%20is%20warming%20three%20times%20as%20fast%20and%20the%20global%20average.,-This%20is%20mainly
So the sun's heat keeps earth a steady temperature, then burning of fossil fuels is adding the heat moment to moment that is causing a warm up.
Although the sun rains down a lot more heat then we are burning, without the sun it would probably be damn cold
hence the large amounts of heat from the sun is not damaging
heat from burning fuels is?
Water would hold onto the heat longer and release it slower. Thermal conductivity between the hot water and the ground might heat up the earth below a pool of hot water faster then the at least a portion of the heat that will enter the atmosphere?
The ground where you injected the water would continue to heat up until it reached an equilibrium. So if you are pulling a megawatt of waste heat from a powerplant, the ground where you are injecting the water will eventually start releasing heat at a rate of one megawatt anyway. I see no advantage to doing this.
Well Kryptid instead of a 24 hr direct current through the atmosphere of heat building in the north arctic, putting the heat into water and distributing it evenly through the oceans would at least cut down on the melting of the NORTH which I think is probably most important? Also I imagine the ocean would have to raise in temperature enough for the heat to be absorbed considerably or at least a portion of it back into the atmosphere? Water is denser then air and will absorb more energy?
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 07/06/2023 20:09:44Well Kryptid instead of a 24 hr direct current through the atmosphere of heat building in the north arctic, putting the heat into water and distributing it evenly through the oceans would at least cut down on the melting of the NORTH which I think is probably most important? Also I imagine the ocean would have to raise in temperature enough for the heat to be absorbed considerably or at least a portion of it back into the atmosphere? Water is denser then air and will absorb more energy?Your argument hinges on heat from man-made sources being the primary cause for global warming. It isn't, as the math I did shows.
I would say the north arctic is like a chimney for heat to escape into space.
So what's your answer as to where all the heat from burning goes?
or you think its irrelevant?
though it is a fraction of the heat from the sun, how can you rule it out when its directly going into the atmosphere as heat?
Well good luck to you guys! pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.
pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 08/06/2023 22:24:36pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.What's this obvious thing that you are talking about?
we can't just rely on your maths