Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Your entitled to your opinion. I disagree with most of it though.


It wouldn't be easy mostly because of the roadblocks from fossil fuel. Primarily the bought and paid for politicians.

It wouldn't be instant but it would be a solution.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Your entitled to your opinion. I disagree with most of it though.


It wouldn't be easy mostly because of the roadblocks from fossil fuel. Primarily the bought and paid for politicians.

It wouldn't be instant but it would be a solution.

Disagree all you want , the points. I raised are reality. If they can't be addressed there is no solution. In that case it's a bunch of complaining. If you don't know you don't know. I'm looking for someone who does.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It seems you misunderstood me. I said we have barely scratched the surface. That means we have barely tapped that abundant resource.

I have not closely studied the proposed sites for geothermal plants but I could not imagine the Eastern and Midwest portions of the country having many due to the lack of seismic activity.

I know we are not a top megawatt producer but that is because we do not have adequate plants.

We ARE the top megawatt producer, we produce nearly 20 times what Costa Rica does and double the next closest producer. We are also on pace to have 15,000+ megawatts by 2025, far outstripping everyone else.

I already said geo plants cost more to build but in the long run they pay off better.

Understood, that is why we need to retain fossil fuel generation until other means become more available. There is no reason to squeeze the public with higher energy costs, particularly the middle class, who would foot the bill during a ramp up period.

I wish everyone had that attitude towards the keystone pipeline.

There was and is quite a bit of that happening there too.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Last I read the US has enough Geothermal potential power generation to run the country 10 times over.

a reply to: network dude

While I understand some who are really wrapped up in this will not be able to answer this, how is it even remotely possible that we could make enough changes to even stall that chart, let alone reverse it?

Not remotely possible huh?

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.
It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014

We see this all the time from the clean energy naysayers too – pontificating to everyone how unrealistic and impossible the switch is, even as the world proves them wrong in real time:

Renewable energy growth outpaces fossil fuels

Renewable energy boom will mean vastly cheaper electricity

Renewables to Beat Fossil Fuels With $3.7 Trillion Solar Boom

Strong Future Forecast for Renewable Energy

If you want to label those of us trying to actually fix this mess a bunch smarmy idealists go ahead, that’s your prerogative – but while we’re on the subject: how does being a Debbie downer help the situation exactly?

You’re free to wallow away in apathy and defeatism all you want, but at least go do it in the corner and get out of the way of those people not afraid to be the difference they want to see in the world.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Last I read the US has enough Geothermal potential power generation to run the country 10 times over.

As I mentioned it appears the western states are the most suitable. I have no issue with a continued move to this energy source as long as taxpayers are not getting gouged in the build up process.

Who knows, maybe Lockheed will beat everyone to the punch with their compact fusion and render this a moot source as well.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

You have mistaken me not addressing all of your points for not knowing the truth is I am not interested.

I have writen threads on this topic before and covered most of your points.


The info you are looking for can be easily found with search engines my time is limited so I am sure you can find the answers you are looking for if you try.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am not betting on Lockheed.

I am pretty sure tax payers get screwed no matter what type of energy plant get built. We certainly get screwed when we subsidize oil companies as it is.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am not betting on Lockheed.

I would like to see them do it, fusion would be the best solution to the various energy problems we have.

I am pretty sure tax payers get screwed no matter what type of energy plant get built. We certainly get screwed when we subsidize oil companies as it is.

Yup, and solar, and wind and on and on. I am not for subsidizing for profit businesses, it either works or it does not.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

What causes air temperatures to rise? Nitrogen does not absorb infrared energy, and yet it gets heated. And it takes time to do so.

Nitrogen in the atmosphere would be heated via intermolecular collisions from the excited molecules that do absorb IR-radiation and as soon as one of these excited molecules collides with a nitrogen molecule the kinetic energy of the nitrogen molecule will increase accordingly and the increase in kinetic energy should occur immediately upon collision. Now, if CO2 is increased in the atmosphere and starts radiating more energy down towards a body, say a pavement, the radiation would be absorbed (almost instantaneously) and there should be a corresponding and instant increase of kinetic energy of the atoms in the pavement, and according to physics a body's kinetic energy is equivalent to its temperature. So my saying that we should see an increase in temperature on land from an increase in downward radiation is in accordance with basic physics and I do not understand why you are arguing against it.

No. I mean water absorbing and retaining heat gained by both radiation and conduction. Cool ocean currents absorb heat from the atmosphere, cooling it. That heat is retained in the ocean.

But the rate at which atmospheric CO2 is absorbing and emitting radiation is a function only of the rate at which energy is being supplied (effectively the temperature of the surface and the atmosphere) and the concentration of CO2, which are unaffected by the amount of time for which a radiative imbalance has existed. In other words that rate of absorption and emission is a permanant, fixed feature of 400ppmv from CO2 on today's isolation. It does not diminish or get used up over time by the oceans absorbing the radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere anymore than water in a stream gets used up. But you appear to be thinking that it does. And that way of thinking is at odds with basic physics.

Then your eyes are closed

If you say so Phage. Whatever.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You have mistaken me not addressing all of your points for not knowing the truth is I am not interested.

I have writen threads on this topic before and covered most of your points.


The info you are looking for can be easily found with search engines my time is limited so I am sure you can find the answers you are looking for if you try.

I've looked not seen a single plan that addresses the short time frame, addresses all logistical, resource issues, then after we quit works on clean up. Not to mention a global problem with no workable global plan. Big problem seems to be accomplishing all this is a short time or some say we already reached point of no return in which phase two , the cleanup, is even more important.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Nitrogen in the atmosphere would be heated via intermolecular collisions from the excited molecules that do absorb IR-radiation and as soon as one of these excited molecules collides with a nitrogen molecule the kinetic energy of the nitrogen molecule will increase accordingly and the increase in kinetic energy should occur immediately upon collision.

Also known as conduction. Temperature is an average of molecular kinetic energy. Do all of the nitrogen molecules get hit at once? How can that happen when there are far fewer CO2 molecules than Nitrogen molecules?

So my saying that we should see an increase in temperature on land from an increase in downward radiation is in accordance with basic physics and I do not understand why you are arguing against it.

I'm not. I'm arguing that your claim that atmospheric temperatures should immediately rise is specious. You suggest an interesting experiment though, regard the heating of the surface.

It does not diminish or get used up over time by the oceans absorbing the radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere anymore than water in a stream gets used up. But you appear to be thinking that it does.

No. I'm not thinking that. I'm thinking that oceans act as a heat sink, slowing the rate of increase of atmospheric temperatures due to increased forcing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

What causes air temperatures to rise? Nitrogen does not absorb infrared energy, and yet it gets heated. And it takes time to do so.

I am not sure why you would think a nitrogen molecule would take a long time to heat up (keep in mind that the original argument made against me was that it would take many years to see a temperature increase). Though the atmosphere would heat up slowly because the earth spins and the amount of radiation the atmosphere gets in the day-time is significantly greater than the radiation it gets in the morning when the sun is not directly facing you.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I am not sure why you would think a nitrogen molecule would take a long time to heat up (keep in mind that the original argument made against me was that it would take many years to see a temperature increase)

I don't. I said it takes time for temperatures to rise. Temperatures are not determined by the activity of a single molecule. A single nitrogen molecule does not raise the temperature of the air an appreciable amount, no matter how active it is.

And, because of the heat sink effects of the ocean, retained heat does not immediately affect air temperatures. The ocean is big. It can hold a lot of heat.

Though the atmosphere would heat up slowly because the earth spins and the amount of radiation the atmosphere gets in the day-time is significantly greater than the radiation it gets in the morning when the sun is not directly facing you.

Yes. I don't understand your point though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

Temperature is an average of molecular kinetic energy.

It does not have to be average by necessity. Molecules can have tempertaures.

Do all of the nitrogen molecules get hit at once? How can that happen when there are far fewer CO2 molecules than Nitrogen molecules?

I never suggested that all the nitrogen molecules would get hit all at once. I was merely replying to your claim that nitrogen molecules would take time to heat up. But please remember, the orginal argument against me was that we should not expect to see a temperature increase at the surface from increased atmospheric CO2, because apparently such an increase would take many decades to materialise and I see no justification for that.

No. I'm not thinking that. I'm thinking that oceans act as a heat sink, slowing the rate of increase of atmospheric temperatures due to increased forcing.

The oceans slow the rate of the increase of atmospheric temperature due to an increase in their forcing? How so? Seems strange to me.

a reply to: Nathan-D

The temperature of individual atoms in the thermosphere for instance can reach 2500C since there is no way for them to get rid of their energy.

And since there are so few of them, if you were in the thermosphere you would not feel hot. In any case, your argument is specious. We are talking about atmospheric temperatures which are not based on single molecules.

I never suggested that all the nitrogen molecules would get hit all at once. I was merely replying to your claim that nitrogen molecules would take time to heat up which is not the case.

Again, no. I said that it takes time for temperatures to rise. I said nothing about molecules.

What causes air temperatures to rise? Nitrogen does not absorb infrared energy, and yet it gets heated. And it takes time to do so.

The oceans slow the rate of the increase of atmospheric temperature due to an increase in their forcing?

The oceans slow the rate of atmospheric warming because they absorb and retain most of the heat produced by increased forcing. I don't think I can be more clear than I was.
mashable.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

I said it takes time for temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are not determined by the activity of a single molecule. A single nitrogen molecule does not raise the temperature of the air an appreciable amount, no matter how active it is.

I never said that the temperature of an entire body such as the atmosphere was determined by a single molecule. Anyway, you say "Temperatures are not determined by the activity of a single molecule" and then immediately after you say "a single nitrogen molecule does not raise the temperature of the air an appreciable amount". No, but if you heated a single molecule it would nevertheless raise the air temperature by some amount, even if that amount is immeasurably, imperceptibly small. And the downward radiation from CO2 would not just be affecting one molecule on the pavement in my example above, but pretty much all of them. I feel that this whole discussion has been side-tracked from my initial point pages back showing that the rate of warming from 1860-1880 was the same as it was from 1975-1998 despite human CO2 emissions increasing by 3500% thereby suggesting that the warming we have experienced is nothing unusual, and somewhow it got side-tracked into how long it would take for nitrogen molecules to heat up.

And, because of the heat sink effects of the ocean, retained heat does not immediately affect air temperatures. The ocean is big. It can hold a lot of heat.

Agreed. But I do not see why you would think the ocean absorbing downward radiation from CO2 would decrease atmospheric temperatures. Makes no sense to me. The oceans aren't even heating that much anyway, are they?

Yes. I don't understand your point though.

I was responding to your statement when you said nitrogen in the atmosphere takes time to heat up. It may heat up slowly because the atmosphere is only getting small amounts of radiation in the morning compared to the radiation it gets at mid-day when the sun is overhead. If you do respond, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to reply, since typing through my Xbox is a pain. Wow, Phage is really rocking those stars. I have always found it odd on ATS how more stars are usually given to 9/11 OS-advocates and AGW-advocates.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

And since there are so few of them, if you were in the thermosphere you would not feel hot. In any case, your argument is specious. We are talking about atmospheric temperatures which are not based on single molecules.

Again Phage, I am not suggesting that atmospheric temperature is determined by a single molecule. When I replied to your point about nitrogen taking a long time to heat up I thought you meant a single nitrogen molecule. But you mean the nitrogen of the entire atmosphere. The next question becomes how long does it take to heat up and why. It could have something to do with the fact that the amount of radiation that a particular section of atmosphere is exposed to increases throughout the day. Anway, getting back to my initial point, from which this discussion has been side-tracked into a digressive non-issue. If there was an increase in the radiative forcing from CO2 then we should expect a more or less instant increase in the surface temperature if many atoms in the pavement are excited simulateously (which they would be), and not just one atom. I am not suggesting above that only one atom in the pavement would be excited from the back-radiation, billions would, and that would measurably increase the temperature of the pavement. That is all.

a reply to: Nathan-D

If there was an increase in the radiative forcing from CO2 then we should expect a more or less instant increase in the surface temperature if multiple atoms in the pavement are excited simulateously, not just one atom.

Yes. Except that the increase in CO2 levels is not instantaneous. How much hotter do you think that pavement should be due to increased forcing?

But the problem with global warming is the warming of the atmosphere and oceans. Neither of those warm instantaneously.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

Yes. Except that the increase in CO2 levels is not instantaneous.

Eh?

But the problem with global warming is the warming of the atmosphere and oceans. Neither of those warm instantaneously.

NASA's GISS data shows a similar trend and that excludes tropospheric and ocean temperatures. The atmosphere may not warm instantly, but I don't see why it would take years to react to an increase in atmospheric CO2, which is basically what the other guy implied when counterpointing my observation that the rate of warming from 1860-1880 was the same as the rate of warming from 1975-1998 despite an increase in CO2 of 3500%. Anyway, I'll have to continue this tomorrow when I can get to an actual computer.