[Halc]

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:

And there's only one place that energy came from.

[chiralSPO]

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 space

Not quite, some goes into warming the place up.
That's the important bit.

[Petrochemicals]

Anyway, back to atmospheric thickness, a fairly established and accepted fact is the temperature is rising.  The gas laws mean  either increaced pressure or decreased volume or a bit of both, pressure in this case would be the gravitational attraction, so the atmosphere must be shrinking . An increace in 2 degrees k would mean a significant variance in pressure and volume.

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.

[chiralSPO]

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.

us_atmosphere_temperature_vs_elevation.png (88.83 kB . 1125x1275 - viewed 6732 times)

[Petrochemicals]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

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.

us_atmosphere_temperature_vs_elevation.png (88.83 kB . 1125x1275 - viewed 6732 times)

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?

[alancalverd]

The answer to the OP is that eventually this planet will pass thorough a state like Mars, with a very thin layer of the densest gases.

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.

[chiralSPO]

The topic of discussion changed after this point, so I have taken the liberty of splitting the thread. Please find the other thread here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.0

Or continue the original discussion in this one.

[mikewonders]

Greetings,

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.

The list goes on into further concerns of Natural Gas (Methane) being falsely touted as a clean alternative.  Methane as a greenhouse gas is far more reflective than CO2, whereby increases in Natural Gas are one of the greatest contributions to the problem to date.  None of the combustion forms currently using Methane burn to completion or equilibrium, hence all forms of Methane escape continue to increase, let alone the long term impact on geology and environmental being overlooked where fracking and fresh water impact is concerned.

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.

Agricultural initiative to restore lost vitality stands to provide economic opportunity to millions of those who will need reliable income and better food and energy provisions.  Power production in a distributed manner is capable of fostering global success while further reducing dependence on central power, while back feeding excess production into grid / distributed power stability.

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