[Kryptid]

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?

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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?

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?

[Kryptid]

Alright 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?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

One way to use the idea of water spray in a car would be after you fire the piston, instead of using air to release the pressure, just spray water into the piston and drain the water. Bam! Hot water instead of straight into the atmosphere.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Alright 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?

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole

[Kryptid]

instead 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?

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole

Here'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

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

instead 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?

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole

Here'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?

[Kryptid]

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.

Only by an incredibly small amount (about 0.01% of the heat that the Sun is contributing).

Although the sun rains down a lot more heat then we are burning, without the sun it would probably be damn cold

Right.

hence the large amounts of heat from the sun is not damaging

Depends. It certainly can be damaging in hot, dry areas of the world.

heat from burning fuels is?

The math I just did suggests otherwise.

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

What about dump the water into the drain or a stream? Anyways one trick to eliminate excess energy in the ground is increase the surface area over which you spread water. there's certainly enough of that.

[Bored chemist]

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.

It's causing "a" warm up; but not "the" warm up which, as has been pointed out is 30 times bigger.

Why do you persist in ignoring this simple fact?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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?

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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?

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?

[Kryptid]

I would say the north arctic is like a chimney for heat to escape into space.

It sounds like you are mistaking "north" for "up". Heat rises, but it rises against gravity, not towards the north pole.

So what's your answer as to where all the heat from burning goes?

It goes into the environment causing it to warm (very, very slightly).

or you think its irrelevant?

Compared to the heating caused by greenhouse gases? Yes.

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?

I showed why with the math.

[Bored chemist]

I would say the north arctic is like a chimney for heat to escape into space.

And you would be wrong, as is often the case.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Well good luck to you guys! pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.

[Bored chemist]

Well good luck to you guys! pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.

It's obvious that you are wrong.
I didn't find it stressful pointing it  out.

[Kryptid]

pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.

What's this obvious thing that you are talking about?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.

What's this obvious thing that you are talking about?

Cite a single article or anything that has to do with the heat that rises up from burning fuels. I couldn't find one and we can't just rely on your maths without some experimentation done by a reputablle source. So its frustrating to be first.

[Kryptid]

we can't just rely on your maths

Can you point out what I got wrong with it?