Global warming

[Twilight Hue]

Actually, most of the world, and in particular, the scientific community, the investors, multinational companies, national governments, and everybody who is trying to save money, rather than throw it into a dumpster fire, all disagree with you.

Renewable energy is now a cost-effective and not just ‘viable‘, but “better than“ option, above and beyond fossil fuels.

Renewable energy – powering a safer future | United Nations.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X

Well I'll happily agree if and when leaders actually follow by personal example.

Until then, Ta Ta!

 

[Laniakea]

Actually, most of the world, and in particular, the scientific community, the investors, multinational companies, national governments, and everybody who is trying to save money, rather than throw it into a dumpster fire, all disagree with you.

Renewable energy is now a cost-effective and not just ‘viable‘, but “better than“ option, above and beyond fossil fuels.

Renewable energy – powering a safer future | United Nations.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X

Any entity that claims to own "The Science" isn't to be trusted.

 

[metis]

Well I'll happily agree if and when leaders actually follow by personal example.

Until then, Ta Ta!

Doing that which is smart and/or right shouldn't rely on what others may do, imo.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Doing that which is smart and/or right shouldn't rely on what others may do, imo.

If a leader doesn't lead by personal example, then it's just not that important to consider or take seriously by anybody else either.

 

[ratiocinator]

Super! It's pretty simple, the fact that the sun provides 173K TW energy (from energy.gov here) which is the same as 4 x 10^13 kcal/year (let me know if that's not clear). The oceans have 1.4 x 10^17 liters of water and from there it's a simple 14,000 ÷ 4 and get 3,500 years.

Where did you get that conversion from, for a start? 173K TW = 173,000 TW = 1.73 x 10¹⁷ W, which is about 1.49 x 10¹⁷ kcal/h. That's per hour, so about 1.3 x 10²¹ kcal/year.

This is embarrassing. Got so distracted with the other things you got wrong, I didn't check the basic maths. As far as I can make out, your calculation, even if it wasn't simplistic and rather irrelevant, is out by multiple orders of magnitude.

Looks like you've converted 1.73×10¹⁷ Joules (energy) to kcal, which gives your figure of about 4×10¹³ kcal (energy), but the value is 1.73×10¹⁷ Watts (power), which is Joules per second. Don't know where you got the year from. The link you had for your 173,000 TW wording was misleading because it referred to it as energy, but it did say "strikes the Earth continuously" (not per year), which was a clue. I guess it was due to the fact it was about solar power, and in the generation business, they tend to talk about 'energy' in Megawatts, rather than 'power', which is what they mean.

Specific heat capacity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"For example, the heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 K is 4184 joules, so the specific heat capacity of water is 4184 J⋅kg⁻¹⋅K⁻¹."

Sticking with sensible units and taking the figure you gave for the power delivered by the sun, of 1.73×10¹⁷ W or J⋅s⁻¹, and the volume of the oceans you also gave of 1.4×10¹⁷ L. Take a nominal density of water to be 1 kg⋅L⁻¹, we need 4184 J for each litre of water, which will be 4184 × 1.4×10¹⁷ = 5.86×10²⁰ Joules to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1 K. We are getting 1.73×10¹⁷ J each second, so it will take 5.86×10²⁰ ÷ 1.73×10¹⁷ = 3387 s. That's about 56.4 minutes. So for 1.5 K (°C), we have about 85 minutes or 1 hour 25 minutes.

This agrees with this online water heating calculator:

Water Heating Calculator

Use the water heating calculator to determine how much time and energy you'll need to increase the temperature of the water.

www.omnicalculator.com

Of course, sending all the sun's radiation to heat to oceans is absurd, but it shows that the temperature increase over years is trivial considering the amount of heat arriving (and leaving) the earth each second.

 

[Yerda]

If a leader doesn't lead by personal example, then it's just not that important to consider or take seriously by anybody else either.

The way to prevent climate change from causing extreme damage to the our life support systems is for international cooperation to reduce global carbon emissions. Every politician, activist, and business leader engaged in this project is taking the risk seriously and leading by example.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The way to prevent climate change from causing extreme damage to the our life support systems is for international cooperation to reduce global carbon emissions. Every politician, activist, and business leader engaged in this project is taking the risk seriously and leading by example.

I'd like to know who, and I really mean leading by personal example. Not those running from their mouths but really by their own individual actions, including their personal lives.

 

[Yerda]

I'd like to know who, and I really mean leading by personal example.

What do you mean by that?

Is signing your country up to legal committments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions leading by personal example?

Or do you mean like cycling to work rather than driving and eating less beef?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Where did you get that conversion from, for a start? 173K TW = 173,000 TW = 1.73 x 10¹⁷ W, which is about 1.49 x 10¹⁷ kcal/h. That's per hour, so about 1.3 x 10²¹ kcal/year.

Convert Watts to Kilocalories per hour (W → kcal/h)

Watts to Kilocalories per hour. Convert between the units (W → kcal/h) or see the conversion table

convertlive.com

Since I got your post I've been in a big overhaul of my calculations & it looks Iike it might be be another day or two w/ some RL adventures that are on my plate --but thanks mucho for the heads up & I'll get back to u on this soon.

 

[metis]

If a leader doesn't lead by personal example, then it's just not that important to consider or take seriously by anybody else either.

Like a lemming.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If a leader doesn't lead by personal example, then it's just not that important to consider or take seriously by anybody else either.

Well, my father used to say "Don't do as I do, do as I say" ..

It wasn't very effective .. but I learnt eventually, that following weak people or idiots
will not save me from my own foolhardiness. We have to take responsibility for
our own actions.
Blaming our behaviour on others, be they world leaders or anybody else, will not help us.

Are you sure it's not a way to justify to yourself, that what you might be doing is OK..
..because that is what you desire?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, my father used to say "Don't do as I do, do as I say" ..

It wasn't very effective .. but I learnt eventually, that following weak people or idiots
will not save me from my own foolhardiness. We have to take responsibility for
our own actions.
Blaming our behaviour on others, be they world leaders or anybody else, will not help us.

Are you sure it's not a way to justify to yourself, that what you might be doing is OK..
..because that is what you desire?

If a leader can't lead by example, then that leader isn't worth following.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If a leader can't lead by example, then that leader isn't worth following.

Too simplistic. We are not angels.

..and are you suggesting that if a leader sets an example of womanizing, for instance,
we should follow that example?

We all have minds of our own. We follow what seems good to us.
That's the thing with evil, if "everybody's doing it", people use that as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.

..but all it does, is ensure that we are all losers.

 

[Balthazzar]

Doing that which is smart and/or right shouldn't rely on what others may do, imo.

I must agree with this. People, including myself, have a tendency to justify certain behaviors. I'm a smoker, I know I'd feel better if I quit, but there's still a lot of pride in me telling me when they quit trying to make me quit, I'll quit. So, yeah, mines about pride and self merited decisions. This way and whether I quit or don't, I own my actions. It's about the principle.

I have my reasons, and maybe Twilight has their own.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Too simplistic. We are not angels.

..and are you suggesting that if a leader sets an example of womanizing, for instance,
we should follow that example?

We all have minds of our own. We follow what seems good to us.
That's the thing with evil, if "everybody's doing it", people use that as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.

..but all it does, is ensure that we are all losers.

Well if a leader publicly promotes womanizing and is leading by example, it can't be all that bad. ;O)

 

[Pete in Panama]

The whole ocean doesn't have to warm, Pete.

You do know that there are people working on the climate models who have phds in mathematics, yes? Doesn't it seem a bit of a stretch that tens of thousands of people have overlook this bit of arithmetic?

lol!! My post and a huge pile of numbers and yours had none at all --and you're telling me about arithmetic? OK, if we got a report that the math phds said that 2 + 2 = 5, we'd count w/ our fingers and conclude that either the math phds are wrong or they're being misquoted.

btw, I did in fact have an error in my analysis and I found that while it would take thousands of years for the earth to warm (there is no global warming) it would still take many centuries for the oceans to warm our 1.5C. OK, so you can say the earth doesn't warm and just part of the ocean gets hotter. Fine. Let's at least put the global-warming/icecap&ocean stories to rest.

 

[Pete in Panama]

This is embarrassing. Got so distracted with the other things you got wrong, I didn't check the basic maths. As far as I can make out, your calculation, even if it wasn't simplistic and rather irrelevant, is out by multiple orders of magnitude.

Looks like you've converted 1.73×10¹⁷ Joules (energy) to kcal, which gives your figure of about 4×10¹³ kcal (energy), but the value is 1.73×10¹⁷ Watts (power), which is Joules per second. Don't know where you got the year from. The link you had for your 173,000 TW wording was misleading because it referred to it as energy, but it did say "strikes the Earth continuously" (not per year), which was a clue. I guess it was due to the fact it was about solar power, and in the generation business, they tend to talk about 'energy' in Megawatts, rather than 'power', which is what they mean.

Specific heat capacity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"For example, the heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 K is 4184 joules, so the specific heat capacity of water is 4184 J⋅kg⁻¹⋅K⁻¹."

Sticking with sensible units and taking the figure you gave for the power delivered by the sun, of 1.73×10¹⁷ W or J⋅s⁻¹, and the volume of the oceans you also gave of 1.4×10¹⁷ L. Take a nominal density of water to be 1 kg⋅L⁻¹, we need 4184 J for each litre of water, which will be 4184 × 1.4×10¹⁷ = 5.86×10²⁰ Joules to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1 K. We are getting 1.73×10¹⁷ J each second, so it will take 5.86×10²⁰ ÷ 1.73×10¹⁷ = 3387 s. That's about 56.4 minutes. So for 1.5 K (°C), we have about 85 minutes or 1 hour 25 minutes.

This agrees with this online water heating calculator:

Water Heating Calculator

Use the water heating calculator to determine how much time and energy you'll need to increase the temperature of the water.

www.omnicalculator.com

Of course, sending all the sun's radiation to heat to oceans is absurd, but it shows that the temperature increase over years is trivial considering the amount of heat arriving (and leaving) the earth each second.

OK, here's the new analysis:

173,000 terawatts solar energy strikes the Earth​

1 watt year = 7,536 kcal/ one watt year​

1.30372E+21 kcal/yr = 1 year sun per earth​

5.97E+24 kg Earth - Mass​

3,665 years earth sunlight for one degree C​

4.6E+15 greenhouse power watt year​

3.46654E+19 greenhouse power kcal/year​

1.37E+21 kg water on planet​

399 years antropgenic Ocean warming for 1.5C​

Same conclusion, different path.

Usually when an expert publishes his paper he first hires a proofreader to check what he said. I'm too cheap, I just post what I find here & get my mistakes all found for free. Thanks!

 

[Yerda]

lol!! My post and a huge pile of numbers and yours had none at all --and you're telling me about arithmetic?

I was asking. It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that the experts might have noticed a glaring error in their theories simple enough to be exposed by a couple of steps of arithmetic.

If it really was the case that heat from the sun was physically incapable of heating the Earth's atmosphere don't you think the physicists might have noticed this?

OK, if we got a report that the math phds said that 2 + 2 = 5, we'd count w/ our fingers and conclude that either the math phds are wrong or they're being misquoted.

Sure.

But if what we have is reports from teams of mathematicians, atmospheric physicists, etc saying the effect of co2 is to trap heat and the models they have show how this is done and the model predictions are borne out by the temperature record why would we go counting our fingers?

btw, I did in fact have an error in my analysis and I found that while it would take thousands of years for the earth to warm (there is no global warming) it would still take many centuries for the oceans to warm our 1.5C. OK, so you can say the earth doesn't warm and just part of the ocean gets hotter. Fine. Let's at least put the global-warming/icecap&ocean stories to rest.

Call it whatever you like. I don't mind which words you choose.

 

[Pete in Panama]

We can work together on this, please understand that I got no desire to antagonize you --even if my naturally abrasive nature sometimes comes through. There's much we can agree on.

...But if what we have is reports from teams of mathematicians, atmospheric physicists, etc saying the effect of co2 is to trap heat and the models they have show how this is done and the model predictions are borne out by the temperature record ...

Fine, we agree on how CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect. Wikipedia got into it (link here) and down around the eighth paragraph they say that the "...main origin of changes in the Earth's energy is from human-induced changes in the composition of the atmosphere, amounting to about 460 TW...". My guess is that they very well may be right. What I know for sure is this is the only number on the table. Can you and I both accept this for now?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I know for sure is this is the only number on the table..

Apart from the numbers for your desired sales of oil, maybe..