Post by: iacopo.russo on 13/10/2021 14:55:25
Mike wrote to us to ask:
If the Earth overall is losing mass, the effect it has on gravity, however slight, may affect our atmosphere in a much different way than simply allowing hydrogen and helium to escape as a natural consequence. As we convert solid fuels (fossil and other) into heat, two factors occur at a minimum: release of hydrocarbons and infrared heat. Add to this the loss of water stored in 3 trillion trees lost, and the amount of water vapor / heat being created by combustion is a SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER.
If the Earth is a bubble per se, inside an atmosphere containment, what is the result of increasing gaseous releases and total heat / vapor produced by all combustion sources? What are the chances that the atmosphere is expanding relative to the stable size of the Earth itself, increasing atmospheric volume to store billions of tons of more water vapor?
What do you think?
Post by: Zer0 on 20/10/2021 09:10:43
Probably a Good Thing Earth is getting Lighter.
(Drastically slow)
Ps - Let's Go Elon Musk!!!
🖖
Post by: chiralSPO on 21/10/2021 19:34:19
Perhaps the Atmosphere will expand & extend to engulf the Moon.Not in any meaningful way, thankfully!
If the Earth overall is losing mass, the effect it has on gravity, however slight, may affect our atmosphere in a much different way than simply allowing hydrogen and helium to escape as a natural consequence.Well, yes, you're right that decreasing the mass of the earth will naturally lead to a lower surface pressure, and allow the atmosphere to puff out a little more. I think it's important to consider the magnitudes involved though. The change in mass that we can expect the earth to have over the next several centuries is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. This will not have a significant effect on the composition or mass of the atmosphere.
As we convert solid fuels (fossil and other) into heat, two factors occur at a minimum: release of hydrocarbons and infrared heat. Add to this the loss of water stored in 3 trillion trees lost, and the amount of water vapor / heat being created by combustion is a SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER.
The heat being released by burning fossil fuels is surprisingly insignificant compared to the heat budget of the earth. (One full 24 hours of sunlight on the whole earth is many times greater than all of the heat produced by all of our power plants and cars and industry etc. in an entire year!)
But the generation of carbon dioxide, and to a lesser extent, water, is significant. The amount of water in the atmosphere is essentially a function of how warm it is (higher temperatures allow more water to be in the vapor form), so producing a bunch of water vapor doesn't necessarily mean that the atmosphere will get more massive (it may just lead to more precipitation).
With carbon dioxide the story is different. There is some degree of solubility in water which is temperature-dependent, but the solubility of carbon dioxide in water is not very high, so most of the carbon dioxide that is produced does go into the atmosphere.
The atmosphere used to have LOTS of carbon dioxide. Before photosynthetic organisms there was no significant concentration of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere: basically, for every molecule of oxygen in the atmosphere now, there is an atom of carbon buried in the ground in the form of fossil fuel, and it used to be a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and the atmosphere is currently about 20% oxygen, and 0.0004% carbon dioxide)
And before THAT, there were a bunch of microorganisms that pulled carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make their calcium carbonate shells. As they died, their shells piled up and eventually became the limestone deposits that cover the earth (limestone is basically just crushed ancient microbe exoskeletons). That was a LOT of carbon dioxide.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/10/2021 11:53:21
much of the solar radiation is returned to space, hence why all the furore over a slight increace in co2, which is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere.
The heat being released by burning fossil fuels is surprisingly insignificant compared to the heat budget of the earth. (One full 24 hours of sunlight on the whole earth is many times greater than all of the heat produced by all of our power plants and cars and industry etc.)
water also has "greenhouse" properties and is there in significant quantities.
But the generation of carbon dioxide, and to a lesser extent, water, is significant. The amount of water in the atmosphere is essentially a function of how warm it is (higher temperatures allow more water to be in the vapor form), so producing a bunch of water vapor doesn't necessarily mean that the atmosphere will get more massive (it may just lead to more precipitation).
Post by: chiralSPO on 24/10/2021 15:56:14
much of the solar radiation is returned to space, hence why all the furore over a slight increace in co2, which is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere.
For the Earth to remain at thermal equilibrium the amount of energy radiated to space must equal the amount of energy that comes in (mostly from the sun, but there is also some geothermal energy too). If the amount of energy that is radiating out is less than the amount coming in, the average temperature on earth will increase until the the balance is re-established (hotter objects radiate more). So any change in how effectively the atmosphere allows heat out (no matter how small) will also result in a change in the average temperature on earth. It turns out that even very small changes in average temperature have significant changes on climate. Hence the furor.
water also has "greenhouse" properties and is there in significant quantities.Yes. But there hasn't been a major change in the amount of water available to the atmosphere recently (other than driven by climate*). We have increased the amount of available carbon dioxide by more than 35% in the last 100 years (and methane by 100%)
*As the temperatures increase, more water vapor gets into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, but there are also complications with cloud cover, snow/ice distribution, and heat distribution... so unlike co2, where it's a simple more co2 means stronger greenhouse effect and more warming, with water, there is no simple relationship.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/10/2021 19:34:37
obviously it has to attain equilibrium, for the temperature to remain equal, hence the meaning. Most of the solar radiation is reflected or reemmitted into space without having any effect on the temperature of the earth which means it has no effect on the atmospheric expansionmuch of the solar radiation is returned to space, hence why all the furore over a slight increace in co2, which is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere.
For the Earth to remain at thermal equilibrium the amount of energy radiated to space must equal the amount of energy that comes in (mostly from the sun, but there is also some geothermal energy too). If the amount of energy that is radiating out is less than the amount coming in, the average temperature on earth will increase until the the balance is re-established (hotter objects radiate more). So any change in how effectively the atmosphere allows heat out (no matter how small) will also result in a change in the average temperature on earth. It turns out that even very small changes in average temperature have significant changes on climate. Hence the furor.
Yeh, the first part contravenes the second part, you are not getting away with that. I'll remind you, green house effect is to do with long wave solar radiation that is not filtered by the atmosphere, being reflected or re-emitted from earth as short wave radiation that is filtered by the atmosphere, water and co2 primarily plus methate etc.water also has "greenhouse" properties and is there in significant quantities.Yes. But there hasn't been a major change in the amount of water available to the atmosphere recently (other than driven by climate*). We have increased the amount of available carbon dioxide by more than 35% in the last 100 years (and methane by 100%)
*As the temperatures increase, more water vapor gets into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, but there are also complications with cloud cover, snow/ice distribution, and heat distribution... so unlike co2, where it's a simple more co2 means stronger greenhouse effect and more warming, with water, there is no simple relationship.
Higher temperature, greater water bearing capacity, more water vapour, more greenhouse effect, higher temperature.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/10/2021 21:25:50
I'll remind you, green house effect is to do with long wave solar radiation that is not filtered by the atmosphere, being reflected or re-emitted from earth as short wave radiation that is filtered by the atmosphere, water and co2 primarily plus methate etc.Did you read that through before you posted it?
Post by: Zer0 on 24/10/2021 23:13:18
I'll remind you, green house effect is to do with long wave solar radiation that is not filtered by the atmosphere, being reflected or re-emitted from earth as short wave radiation that is filtered by the atmosphere, water and co2 primarily plus methate etc.Did you read that through before you posted it?
I guess Not!
(Sounds like someone has rheumatoid arthritis of the brain)
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/10/2021 00:04:02
Most of the solar radiation is reflected or reemmitted into space without having any effect on the temperature of the earth
Again... ALL of it is eventually emitted to space, but between when it arrives and when it departs, it is part of earth's energy budget. Earth's albedo is somewhere around 0.3, so just under a third of the (visible) light is immediately reflected. The rest will have to take the long way out, enjoying the majority of its stay as heat. The more co2 is in the atmosphere, the longer the stay. (And it hardly reduces the amount of incoming energy, so overall it is a greenhouse gas).
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/10/2021 00:39:50
At 0.3 reflected the negligible increase in a miniscule co2 component of the atmosphere, that would mean earth absorbs the 0.7? . This is someone's recconing of Earth's energy [ Invalid Attachment ]Most of the solar radiation is reflected or reemmitted into space without having any effect on the temperature of the earth
Again... ALL of it is eventually emitted to space, but between when it arrives and when it departs, it is part of earth's energy budget. Earth's albedo is somewhere around 0.3, so just under a third of the (visible) light is immediately reflected. The rest will have to take the long way out, enjoying the majority of its stay as heat. The more co2 is in the atmosphere, the longer the stay. (And it hardly reduces the amount of incoming energy, so overall it is a greenhouse gas).
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/10/2021 02:03:54
At 0.3 reflected the negligible increase in a miniscule co2 component of the atmosphere, that would mean earth absorbs the 0.7? . This is someone's recconing of Earth's energy [ Invalid Attachment ]Most of the solar radiation is reflected or reemmitted into space without having any effect on the temperature of the earth
Again... ALL of it is eventually emitted to space, but between when it arrives and when it departs, it is part of earth's energy budget. Earth's albedo is somewhere around 0.3, so just under a third of the (visible) light is immediately reflected. The rest will have to take the long way out, enjoying the majority of its stay as heat. The more co2 is in the atmosphere, the longer the stay. (And it hardly reduces the amount of incoming energy, so overall it is a greenhouse gas).
This image looks reasonable to me. As you can see about 30% of the light is reflected (6% atmosphere + 20% clouds + 4% ground 6+20+4 = 30). Increasing CO2 will not significantly change the percent reflected (or the amount of time it takes the reflected light to leave), and it will not change the amount of energy that gets radiated out into space (it's still the other 70%), but it will take longer for that energy to get out because the CO2 will absorb some of the outgoing radiation and then radiate it a random direction (probably not the same as the initial one), or it will get truned back into heat through non-radiative processes.
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/10/2021 03:43:20
Higher temperature, greater water bearing capacity, more water vapour, more greenhouse effect, higher temperature.Yes, to some extent. But also more water vapor, more clouds, more reflection of sunlight before it gets to the ground, but also more heat retained at night. My understanding is that the overall net effect of water vapor is also going to depend on how much carbon dioxide and methane we put up there (the reflection of sunlight is much more important and retention of heat much less important if the greenhouse effect is very strong).
Water also cannot be the forcing aspect of climate change, even if it does end up having a positive feedback loop to it. It's the carbon dioxide that is pushing the loop, and if we reign that in we can limit or even (eventually) reverse the change.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/10/2021 14:40:26
The planet holds much energy, forgoing the small internal energy from radioactive decay, the earth is subsidised to roughly 300 kelvin throughout, the core of the earth retaining some of its primeval heat.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2021 15:23:15
Again... ALL of it is eventually emitted to spaceNot quite, some goes into warming the place up.
That's the important bit.
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/10/2021 16:16:16
That picture shows that only 30 percent of the sun's energy entering the earth system, 23 percent in the latent heat of water evaporation and 7 percent in convective conductance. The remaining 70 percent is either reflected (30%) or re emitted into space somehow (40%).
That's not how I interpret the diagram. 100% comes in from the sun. Of that, 30% is reflected immediately, without contributing to the energy budget on Earth. The remaining 70% does all manner of things; and it really doesn't matter what happens to it, due to conservation of energy, it will just convert from one form to another until it is eventually radiated out to space.
Not quite, some goes into warming the place up.The important bit is that the amount of energy at any given time is increasing. The flux of energy coming in is currently ever-so-slightly greater than the flux going out, but every bit in eventually gets out.
That's the important bit.
We could model it in such a way that there is some fraction that gets permanently stuck, and that's nice and easy for accounting, but it doesn't aline nicely with the actual physical processes responsible for the greenhouse effect, and that then leaves the argument open to pedantic (and often bad-faith) arguments.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/10/2021 17:04:08
I read it as 30 percent reflected radiation, 40 percent reemmitted radiation, 7 percent convection and conduction, 23 percent latent heat of evaporation of water.That picture shows that only 30 percent of the sun's energy entering the earth system, 23 percent in the latent heat of water evaporation and 7 percent in convective conductance. The remaining 70 percent is either reflected (30%) or re emitted into space somehow (40%).
That's not how I interpret the diagram. 100% comes in from the sun. Of that, 30% is reflected immediately, without contributing to the energy budget on Earth. The remaining 70% does all manner of things; and it really doesn't matter what happens to it, due to conservation of energy, it will just convert from one form to another until it is eventually radiated out to space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2021 18:48:17
The flux of energy coming in is currently ever-so-slightly greater than the flux going out, but every bit in eventually gets out.OK. Where is the energy coming from that heats the Earth?
Because it really is warming up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2241/why-so-many-global-temperature-records/
The heat from radioactive decay is (very slowly) falling, and the primordial heat is (very slowly) dissipating.
The Sun doesn't seem to have got brighter.
But the temperature has gone up, and that's because we have trapped more of the heat.
Over some timescale, it will cool again but the heat death of the universe isn't what people are talking about in this context.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2021 18:48:56
23 percent latent heat of evaporation of water.What do you think happens to this heat?
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/10/2021 19:44:29
Obviously, the energy is primarily coming from the sun, and the increasing temperature has to do with the fact that the changing composition of the atmosphere is decreasing the rate at which energy can leave. I am fairly confident you know what a steady state is... if it were trackable, what do you think the average dwell time is of the energy in the earth system?The flux of energy coming in is currently ever-so-slightly greater than the flux going out, but every bit in eventually gets out.OK. Where is the energy coming from that heats the Earth?
Because it really is warming up.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2241/why-so-many-global-temperature-records/
The heat from radioactive decay is (very slowly) falling, and the primordial heat is (very slowly) dissipating.
The Sun doesn't seem to have got brighter.
But the temperature has gone up, and that's because we have trapped more of the heat.
Over some timescale, it will cool again but the heat death of the universe isn't what people are talking about in this context.
The energy flowing in and out of the earth system is analogous to the water flowing through a length of river, given a very constant source of water. When at steady state equilibrium, flux of water in = flux of water out, and the level of the river remains constant. If the downstream end of the length of interest is narrowed, then to maintain a steady state the water must either flow more quickly or become deeper (maintaining the cross sectional area). In our analogy there is no meaning to the former, so I will focus on the latter: by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, we are essentially pinching off the flow of energy out, narrowing that river at point of efflux. Since energy (water) is pouring in at the same rate, the depth in the length of interest will increase until the steady state is re-established.
Note that I don't have to talk about water getting trapped in the river. It's not trapped, it still flows freely. But clearly the increase in depth of the river is a direct result of the change in how wide the exit is. This increased depth (if it wasn't clear already) represents the increased thermal energy in the earth system.
Isn't this easier to understand and defend than invoking some sort of abstract "trap" holding on to the excess heat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2021 19:54:08
Post by: Halc on 25/10/2021 20:39:15
It will reach a steady state where the average power in is the same as the average power out, but there will have been a net increase in the Earth's energy to make it hotter.An increase in thermal energy, yes. That doesn't mean that there was necessarily ever more incoming than outgoing. That nice picture doesn't show the magnitude of the arrow coming from below as the Earth generates its own heat through nuclear decay, tides, and other sources other than the solar radiation depicted in that nice picture.
So no:
Quote
And there's only one place that energy came from.
Post by: chiralSPO on 25/10/2021 20:44:18
It will reach a steady state where the average power in is the same as the average power out, but there will have been a net increase in the Earth's energy to make it hotter. And there's only one place that energy came from.I don't think we are in any disagreement about any of this. But this oversimplified explanation/model neatly avoids any description of the mechanisms involved, and is therefore not (in my opinion) a good choice of description for the discussion at hand. Additionally, to "correct" a more complex and nuanced description with an oversimplification is in poor form. I may as well accuse you of forgetting to mention that the caloric is piling up, even though that is not in any sense contrary to anything you said.
Again... ALL of it is eventually emitted to spaceNot quite, some goes into warming the place up.
That's the important bit.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/10/2021 00:16:49
An increace in energy in the system would however mean that the volume under the constant pressure of gravity would have to increace, or the actual quantity of the atmosphere decreace.
Post by: chiralSPO on 26/10/2021 00:39:00
Anyway, back to atmospheric thickness, a fairly established and accepted fact is the temperature is rising. The gas laws mean either increaced pressure or increased volume or a bit of both, pressure in this case would be the gravitational attraction, so the atmosphere must be expanding . An increace in 2 degrees k would mean a significant variance in pressure and volume.
As I think about it more, I think the magnitude of temperature variation of the atmosphere by altitude is far more important than a few degrees K. Also, while, the greenhouse effect will lead to overall increased temperatures at low altitudes, at high altitudes the temperature can actually be slightly decreased.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/10/2021 01:10:46
50 percent of the atmosphere is located beneath 6km of the surface, 80% beneath 10,000m. A temperature of 300k at 50km is remarkable considering the scarcity of the atmosphere.
Also, while, the greenhouse effect will lead to overall increased temperatures at low altitudes, at high altitudes the temperature can actually be slightly decreased.At what altitude and why would that be? Because less is allowed to escape from the surface? It must go somewhere eventually. What sort of mechanism could possibly bypass the 10 to 20000m range?us_atmosphere_temperature_vs_elevation.png (88.83 kB . 1125x1275 - viewed 6378 times)
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 11:45:39
Water having the lowest molecular weight and the greatest infrared absorption spectrum of major atmospheric gas, will disperse at the greatest rate but will be replenished most quickly as it covers the entire planet surface, whereas oxygen is only generated over the green bits.
CO2 having the greatest density will be the last bit to leave, but there is very little anyway, and it won't be rapidly replenished when the animals are dead.
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 00:50:49
Or continue the original discussion in this one.
Post by: mikewonders on 26/11/2021 16:39:35
My name is Mike. I am the original poster of the question in view on this thread. Maybe its time I should answer my own questions... Is it about atmosphere, energy, economics, climate, physics or science? ... It seems it's about all that an probably more.
First, many thanks to the board sponsors and moderators here for the efforts undertaken and the quality of process, especially the consideration to allow the question as it was placed. Second, more thanks to the respondents participating with several thoughtful responses. I'll try to clarify below hoping to stimulate further...
Background... I'm 63 years old having worked in applied sciences and manufacturing my entire life, working from three engineering degrees and numerous observations over time in physics. I don't consider myself an expert, but rather one who seeks to remove assumptions leading toward reliable truth. Pointedly, I head a team of ten others, three more who have equally dedicated study in the sciences who believe there is more to climate today than we know.
The question of the earth losing mass and the atmosphere expanding was considered to pose two distant but relatively opposed aspects to the greater question of global energy first and foremost, relative to warming and climate overall. At some five years into the development of a sustainable energy process, our team began to realize the growing trend in environmental initiatives seemed too conveniently simple (focused on CO2) and generally insufficient if not off course in some serious ways. Carbon matters, like any damaging factor. One critical question is how much does it really matter? Three years later to date, we're fairly certain the focused assumptions today are tending toward political in nature which is even more disconcerting, if we're missing critical causal effect failing to address the need to a real solution.
Human kind has made many anecdotal assumptions over time which lead to devastating results in many key areas impacting humanity on both local and global scales. Science is slowly unfolding many truths, but yet continues to struggle to hold a place of empirical trust. Politics increasingly works to leverage communication to divert science away from fact, while wanting to abscond with the term "fact" in misrepresentation. Even the value of peer review in academic feedback is strained to remain truly transparent, a part of this growing concern.
Where the current issue of climate has gone, it's been more than 30 years global concerns have looked at the questions and still today the debate remains in question, many times because the skill to debate objectively has again lead back to anecdotal assumptions in fields which are truly separate and yet interdependent forming endless exhaustion. It is the complexity which defies absolute solutions and drives simpler (and possibly wrong) assumptions to become persistent among those less willing or able to rationalize from "well established" facts. Sometimes even the facts are wrong, only because we still lack sufficient scope of data to test and confirm assumptions on interrelation and feedback loops coming back from historical data versus current data still being examined and refined as technology increases. These interrelated feedback mechanisms frequently are not examined in terms of long term temporal effect, especially where phase change of materials in question alters the translation of energy from one form to another, emphasis on heat creation and dissipation both.
Summary of concerns: If climate concerns are not real, we're concerned over something that likely is spending an incredible amount of time and expense which is ultimately a waste. On the other hand, if climate concerns ARE real and we don't get it right, we may face a tipping point we're not yet able to measure. If this is the case, by the time we make the right decisions, it could already be too late if we're not accurate in how we understand and then address the concerns and then finally to act to reverse them effectively in time. The later requires a global cooperative which as yet has not found a cohesive approach or truly stable means to fund the solutions proposed. This alone drives the question if we really understand what needs to happen.
Our team's collective and continued findings:
- Pointing the finger at CO2 emissions alone while convenient does not seem to solve the cause / effect in complexity sufficiently to trust that simply reducing CO2 (and all it will take to attempt it), will adequately reverse the far more complex total causal factors.
- The questions regarding water vapor are dismissed almost out of hand in the assumption we understand water to be a closed loop equilibrium that adjusts to the influences upon it while carbon holds the greater attention. This we believe is not correct due to increasing atmospheric total dimension given temperature increase and the sources of additional water formation among further reason below...
- The amount of sea level volume and surface area increase does not correlate well with losses of polar glacial volume sufficiently to account for the amount of entropic heat storage and reflective / absorption dynamics resulting in increased total mass of ocean volume or increased surface area dissipation / sync relationships.
- Given the above, there needs to be further understanding of where the additional water volume comes from if to understand it's total impact or a solution. For this we turn to post-modern increases in population and the use of fossil fuel combustion supporting population, (not only as a pollutant in general but MUCH further to the amount of NEW and increasing water created as a byproduct of combustion.
- Given the last indication above, the amount of thermal IR production attributable to each increase in population is a staggering value of BTU production when the total amount of increased heat and increased water vapor is assigned to population increase.
- The water vapor occurring from combustion over the last century as power plant production and internal combustion as a whole, occurs mostly from combustion of prehistoric stores of carbon extracted from below ground. This begins the problem of temporal relativity as the hydrogen sources of fossil fuel below ground (thermal storage from millions of years), combine in combustion with oxygen from above ground, RAPIDLY forming NEW water above ground, previously stored safely in carbon stores below ground.
- How much new water is this? The formula for water vapor production in combustion dictates this on an empirical level relative to octane. Roughly speaking every gallon of gasoline combusted (or equivalent alternate fossil fuel thereof) generates just over one gallon of NEW water vapor, among which a majority is attributable to the fuel source, versus existing atmospheric water vapor feeding the combustion stability.
- Think about that carefully... How many gallons of refined fossil fuel have been combusted in the last 100 years X one new gallon of water per each over that time and suddenly the increase in ocean volume is exceeded by some factor more than sufficient to account... and it continues to increase per volume per capita still today.
- Increased oceanic surface area with temperature rise increases evaporation (plus cooling) and overall relative humidity with a trend increasing in annual, global precipitation. The atmospheric dimensional problem with temperature increase has resulted in the average altitude of the Troposphere increasing by as much as 11 Kilometers around the globe. This increase may seem insignificant until considered as the total change in Troposphere volume around the entire globe warming as it is, causing this change where gravity and pressure densities affect phase change transitions and changes in water vapor / rainfall and global distribution stability as a result, leading to regional drought versus flooding as we're seeing increase.
- Frozen water vapor reaching above the Troposphere has a unique phase property which translates toward the poles increasing as it does by vortex current flows. This now additionally threatens a stall in the recovery of damage to Ozone layer thinning. The participation of frozen vapor with Ozone is itself destructive to Ozone. Most have not considered this aspect of increased water vapor dynamics, yet atmospheric sampling is seeing signs of this.
- Atmospheric water vapor in the presence of CO2 is a force multiplier on the water cycle equilibrium with respect to greenhouse impact. (A) Water vapor itself is a potent greenhouse gas but further (B) also increases the amount of thermal reflectivity owed to the carbon contribution in the atmosphere. For this reason, simply reducing atmospheric carbon would not sufficiently account for the global thermal increases being demonstrated. Carbon emissions dropped dramatically during the pandemic. However, temperature impact (if it were tied to atmospheric carbon) did not fall dramatically, in part due to the longer dwell time for carbon elimination, yet there should have been SOME distinct change.
- Increased oceanic surface area increases reflective response of heat dissipation while increased oceanic volume increases the amount of dark source heat sync retaining absorbed thermal mass increase.
Conversion to EV transportation has value in reducing transportation carbon and heat emissions, however it tends to shift the process more toward greater fossil fuel energy production to power facilities to power EV charging, further loss of efficiency with a net effect of greater losses to charging stations powered by non-sustainable means. Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen production, storage and transportation may hold a significant benefit as technology advances. To date there is much to be done to make this practical, safe and sustainable, especially the need for continued innovation in sustainable energy storage, batteries or otherwise.
The petrochemical reservoir is diminishing. One might argue the amount of stores available is greater than 50 years, however the cost of seeking to extract ever greater levels below ground is witness to the industry's concerns of wells and coal stores running dry for some years now. This is not a question of "if" but rather "when", defining the need for a sustainable solution above ground. The deeper we go, the more toxic the yield.
At the present time, the current initiatives toward solar arrays and wind turbines is fraught with VERY serious future implications for power stability and long term environmental consequences with many negative attributes out of site out of mind. Current political agendas are working to dismiss these concerns in a desire to foster the furtherance of the initiative absent truly factual support. The ability to provide even 30% of global energy demand by solar / wind is questionable at best and relies on non-sustainable resourcing to produce these solutions, themselves suffering badly for efficiency let alone the overall impact on alloy mining / refinement, rare earth materials, further petrochemical demands to produce and sustain same. We end up trading one source / cause for another without obtaining a sustainable solution.
Nuclear technology may one day reach a sustainable and safe solution that is practical. Unfortunately the current attempts to find and harness these solutions remains behind a veil of false presentation to attract private funding. The technologies to harness the sun in a magnetic containment at temperatures even exceeding the surface of the sun dates back to the 1950's which were originally government funded. These are now more in the private sector fueling investment offers not likely to pay off for public investors, save for the few taking from the top to garner greater wealth. The manner in which they define energy production relative to energy consumption is stated askew preferentially.
Returning to our original premise, the mass of the earth is declining even by it's own design of evolution, gradually, as it should. Extracting massive tons of below ground resources which become vaporized and eventually lost outside the damage to the atmosphere, has consequences including those as yet unseen. We likely cannot fully analyze this long term effect on a geological basis, other than to say the mantel is a living structure of mechanical and thermal balance, which may have long term deleterious affect on geological stability.
The increases in oceanic mass further shift these dynamics on multiple points of impact, especially in the damage being done to ocean sea life both plant and animal, a source of nutritional sustain we depend on. The oceans and sea life have a remarkable ability to recover, but that which is permanently lost can never be regained.
We have eliminated approximately half the global forestry coverage previously participating in atmospheric and eco-stability, increasing lost water retention to run-off, loss of soil vitality and fresh water aquifer stability, while increasing global reflectivity of uncovered land mass reflection by magnitudes. The moisture release and losses of CO2 absorption plus the loss of shade from biomass depletion are staggering, associated to more than three trillion trees lost in the last century alone, converting to non-productive acreage to support growing population combined with non-sustainable farming techniques.
Recycling to date is not successful to curb waste or pollution. Less than 10% of plastics from fossil fuel alone ever get truly recycled. The one's benefiting are those handling the materials to pass most them into landfill or ocean dumping while consumers are told recycling is a key part of solving pollution. Today, it is not. Tomorrow it could be, especially if most of the pollution is converted into viable energy production.
So where does practical and common sense meet with technology to offer a sustainable solution, without indulging fear and speculation to drive a solution?
We would hope nature itself is where we should find the solutions until greater means is discovered. Solutions need to be sustainable to the degree of reversing the overall effects in incremental but viable means and to educate and accelerate results.
- Population WILL increase for some time to come ~ 10 Billion by 2050?
- Change must come by "transition" embracing the energy industry and agriculture in the process by design.
- The term "Sustainable" must be defined carefully and educated globally.
- If nature holds an answer it's likely combustion won't be ruled out soon.
- Combustion provides the on-demand power density required, independent of daily sun or wind stability.
- Our own estimates are that biomass properly cultivated can offset 70% of current fossil fuel demand.
- The ability to produce more biomass / food than we consume is absolutely feasible, formatted for growth.
- Sustainable biomass may not seem "attractive" but practicality and sustainability are keys to success.
- Clean biomass combustion, Carbon, Heat and Water vapor neutral, is attainable and sustainable.
- Done well, heat to energy conversion increases the benefit if efficiency of method improves by technology.
- The net effect becomes Carbon, Heat and Water vapor negative, increasing total resources over time.
There's not a lot of glamor in biomass energy perhaps, when viewed through a technological lens. However, the fact we don't have these capabilities today would involve numerous technology centers to blossom in a focused manner toward a day when nature is far less pressured by human impact. Biomass has failed to date for a lack of glamor combined with a lack of "refinement" leading to a lack of realized profit potential. Refined biomass density and energy forms can and will increase the energy density potential as technology focuses. The result is a refined solid fuel resource capable of distribution / consumption small and large. Our own simplified testing was able to increase biomass combustion energy potential per unit of weight 12 percent while reducing twice that amount of pollutant used in refining the biomass to a higher usable state without a competing pollutant output..
I'm not selling anything except the proposition we should not place all our eggs in the carbon basket in the manner currently evolving at the levels of governance taking hold. In so doing, the questions asked were intended to spark a direction toward re-thinking solutions and to demonstrate just how fractured our current approaches continue to remain. I didn't want to bias responses by feeding greater influence to the questions at their basic level asked.
The venue here at "The Naked Scientist" forum appears to be providing a very important gathering of many well intended and knowledgeable participants, for the most part engaged in good science and tolerant debate. There will always be critics of every proposition which is good if it stimulates productive thinking. I hope the discussion can continue if to have provided anything of value to consider.
Most can confirm the factual assertions made here by numerous resources or cite opposing fact. I'll be glad to share the factual basis of the determinations stated but the volume would be excessive in full. I'm always concerned to underscore real truth in facts to avoid misleading information.
Kind regards and thank you again,
Mike