Electrical usage and the atmosphere

[ozz]

I was looking into this a while ago...I think what I found was that the amount of energy projected to be used in 2012 will be as much as we receive from the sun in one day. So, if you count all of that energy used as entropy, we'll be receiving 366 days(367, since it's a leap year, I guess) worth of sun that year, and obviously more in subsequent years as energy usage increases. If our planet was at an 'equilibrium' temperature before the industrial revolution, how should we expect the overall temperature not to increase as we release so much extra energy? I don't see how it's avoidable except by lowering our consumption... by an impossible amount.

[Tomk]

This is why I'm so confused. I though that trees just stored the carbon and released the O2. I was under the impression that dead trees don't break down the CO2 causing more to be absorbed into the ocean, but it was because they release the CO2 back when dead?

[Aerin]

I might be remembering it wrong, they may just release the Carbon which then mixes with the oxygen that leads to the rest.

[Tristam]

This is why I'm so confused. I though that trees just stored the carbon and released the O2. I was under the impression that dead trees don't break down the CO2 causing more to be absorbed into the ocean, but it was because they release the CO2 back when dead?

It's not that they release it when they die, the trees use the energy from sunlight and carbon from CO2 to create more complicated (and more solid) carbon compounds. If trees get cut down, they can't do this anymore. Plus the energy expended to cut down the trees usually involves releasing CO2.

[Tomk]

I have said several times in this thread just how little the energy in the op actually is, but this is the kind of study that I want to see.

Don't give me this "cows fart so we're gonna die" crap. Show me a study that shows how much MORE methane cows produce in relation to how much is suspected to have been produced had the cows not farted and the plants decayed naturally.

Methane is produced with natural decay. It has been forever, we currently drill for it and pipe it to many households calling it "Natural gas".

[shihei]

leave this stuff up to the science buffs

trees store CO2...really? since when? do you even know what photosynthesis is let alone how it works?

[Rammses]

I was looking into this a while ago...I think what I found was that the amount of energy projected to be used in 2012 will be as much as we receive from the sun in one day. So, if you count all of that energy used as entropy, we'll be receiving 366 days(367, since it's a leap year, I guess) worth of sun that year, and obviously more in subsequent years as energy usage increases. If our planet was at an 'equilibrium' temperature before the industrial revolution, how should we expect the overall temperature not to increase as we release so much extra energy? I don't see how it's avoidable except by lowering our consumption... by an impossible amount.

Errrrrrrrrrrr........

In 2005, total worldwide energy consumption was 500 EJ (= 5 x 1020 J) with 86.5% derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, although there is at least 10% uncertainty in that figure.[1] This is equivalent to an average energy consumption rate of 16 TW

This 174 PW is the total rate of solar energy received by the planet; about half, 89 PW, reaches the earth's surface.

T=10^12
P=10^15

(89*10^15)/(16*10^12)=5562!=366

[Aerin]

leave this stuff up to the science buffs

trees store CO2...really? since when? do you even know what photosynthesis is let alone how it works?

Since global warming was invented. Duh.

[Kaylia]

Trees breathe CO2 at night, and produce O2 during the day. In the end, there is more O2 produced because a lot remain in the organic matter.

When they die, a small part of the carbon is released during the decomposition, but most remain behind.

Thought it was elementary school material..but I guess people forget.

[Tristam]

I have said several times in this thread just how little the energy in the op actually is, but this is the kind of study that I want to see.

Don't give me this "cows fart so we're gonna die" crap. Show me a study that shows how much MORE methane cows produce in relation to how much is suspected to have been produced had the cows not farted and the plants decayed naturally.

Methane is produced with natural decay. It has been forever, we currently drill for it and pipe it to many households calling it "Natural gas".

It's not just the biological origin methane, you're correct that swamp gas is a source of methane (115 million tons), but the amount of methane due to livestock is about 140 million tons per year.

BBC - Weather Centre - Features - Climate Change, Environment and Nature - Earth Gases - Methane

[Rammses]

Don't give me this "cows fart so we're gonna die" crap. Show me a study that shows how much MORE methane cows produce in relation to how much is suspected to have been produced had the cows not farted and the plants decayed naturally.

Methane is produced with natural decay. It has been forever, we currently drill for it and pipe it to many households calling it "Natural gas".

Yeah, it's formed by anaerobic decay and high pressure. The atmosphere does not hold the ideal conditions for that...... Maybe that's why we drill for it. Greenhouse gases are not doing any harm sixhunded feet under.

[TheShadyMan]

Geeeeeeez,

Ok does everyone know that the NSF and NIH cap salary scales for people funded by taxpayer grants? No? Well now you do, scientist's don't get rich by doing global warming work.

Which means they're pretty damn easy to buy out. I'm not saying that is always the case, but all this greenhouse frenzy has caused alot of hype, and made a whole new market open up for the 'green' revolution. You can't tell me the people who are making big bucks on the ordeal wouldn't push to keep their cash cow alive. Believe it or not, big business is not ethical, and I bet the business is bigger than you'd assume. Yeah sure, there is a lot of grassroot, small businesses making good revenue online and small businesses in bigger cities, but businesses that make solar panels and fuel efficient cars and radical new 'green' technologies have a bit more grease in their pocket. Good intentions, but greed has grimed the whole thing up.

[Tristam]

Which means they're pretty damn easy to buy out. I'm not saying that is always the case, but all this greenhouse frenzy has caused alot of hype, and made a whole new market open up for the 'green' revolution. You can't tell me the people who are making big bucks on the ordeal wouldn't push to keep their cash cow alive. Believe it or not, big business is not ethical, and I bet the business is bigger than you'd assume. Yeah sure, there is a lot of grassroot, small businesses making good revenue online and small businesses in bigger cities, but businesses that make solar panels and fuel efficient cars and radical new 'green' technologies have a bit more grease in their pocket. Good intentions, but greed has grimed the whole thing up.

The thing is, it's not big business that's doing the research, and if you follow the scientific literature people go absolutely apeshit over unreported conflicts of interest (because if you're getting more money for doing what amounts to similar work, the people in your field getting less money are gonna go ballistic and believe me, you will not get a paper past review). Big business may not be ethical, but I contend that this field by and large is.

edit: also, further evidence that scientists are not some cabal of bought-out communist researchers, the propagation of "carbon neutral" cycles mimicking plant processes to generate useful hydrocarbons are currently in development. And *gasp* wouldn't require limitations on CO2 production, only investment in new carbon-capture technologies.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo801260f

I hope the article is free, I think it's a cool and rarely discussed option.

[Tomk]

Thanks for the BBC article, maybe just need better sources.

[Tomk]

The BBC article raises another question. Haven't we drained half of the worlds wetlands? So essentially preventing 115 million tons of Methane from being created? Would that make the "Net" effect of industrialization 25 million tons of methane, not 140 million?

[Tristam]

The BBC article raises another question. Haven't we drained half of the worlds wetlands? So essentially preventing 115 million tons of Methane from being created? Would that make the "Net" effect of industrialization 25 million tons of methane, not 140 million?

Not really, the 140 million was from ranching alone, the net effect of industrialization is probably much larger. Also half the wetlands would remove half of 115 million, not the full 115 million. Also it dosen't address the effect of wetland removal on absorption of other greenhouse gases.

[Tomk]

I got confused again. So the 115 million tons was calculated before any wetlands were drained? I thought it was after, at the current wetland situation. So I assumed that it would have been 230 million tons with exactly twice the wetlands that we currently have.

The article definitely said "cattle, water buffalo, sheep and other ruminant livestock that humans use in farming." so I assumed it was all livestock.

So "net effect' was the wrong term.

The 165 million tons from fossil fuels, landfills, and burning is something that I can actually get behind. My wierd stupid brain just couldn't wrap around cow farts as the main culprit.

I had never heard of the methane created by fuel refining. I wonder why?

As you probably can't tell I have actually taken an Environmental Economics course, but as you most definitely CAN tell I failed it miserably.

[Sgtpayne]

Gah I lurk too much. For some reason I had to log in just to say this. Probably because the whole global warming thing pisses me off.

What you're saying is true. Electricity does leak off heat. However, that energy was already present on our planet albeit maybe in different forms. What I'm saying is, according to conservation of energy, that energy was already here. Say the electricity was made by hydroelectric means. You're just taking the energy of moving water and converting it to electricity. Doesn't mean you're "creating" heat. Even water traveling over ground creates heat from friction.

This isn't a cause of global warming by a long shot. The energy in question came from the sun, and stayed here in one form or another until it was converted. Global warming (in a traditional sense I guess) is caused by not being able to radiate excess heat back into space. Doesn't matter if we get insane amounts of energy from the sun, as long as it can be regulated by sending the excess back away. If you want an extreme example, read about Venus, not Earth.

[Tristam]

I got confused again. So the 115 million tons was calculated before any wetlands were drained? I thought it was after, at the current wetland situation. So I assumed that it would have been 230 million tons with exactly twice the wetlands that we currently have.

The article definitely said "cattle, water buffalo, sheep and other ruminant livestock that humans use in farming." so I assumed it was all livestock.

So "net effect' was the wrong term.

The 165 million tons from fossil fuels, landfills, and burning is something that I can actually get behind. My wierd stupid brain just couldn't wrap around cow farts as the main culprit.

I had never heard of the methane created by fuel refining. I wonder why?

As you probably can't tell I have actually taken an Environmental Economics course, but as you most definitely CAN tell I failed it miserably.

good question, I honestly don't know if their figure is before or after drainage, or if it somehow accounts for it.

[lilfoo]

To answer the OP's question: there is nothing you can do personally to cause global warming by you alone by using electricity or the world in general using it. You heating the air around you will cause no change on a large scale due to warm air rises and cold takes its place, your just helping the process. Heat created by air parcels from human generated heat sources only rise a few meters if that much.

Exception: butterfly effect

Butterfly flaps wings in central Africa which causes a dust devil which causes a low depression which causes a tropical cyclone which causes massive destruction in Louisiana cause people don't know to GTFO or hurricane code.

Global Warming for Dummies: (cause i am tired of this...)

Spoiler: show

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6...rgy_Budget.jpg

This is the global energy budget. The sun warms the earth which is a gray body and thus emits heat (all of the heat emitted by the earth is long wave radiation). 'Greenhouse gasses' (the greenhouse effect as people call it, is completely incorrect. This is an argument for another day) cause this long wave radiation to be returned to the surface. This can be seen easily on a cloudy night. It is warmer on a cloudy night then a night with a clear sky because clouds reflect long wave radiation effectively. Note: long wave radiation = IR

Common absorptivity of some 'greenhouse' gasses:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6...ty_example.jpg

The quantity (and altitude) of IR absorbing gasses in the atmosphere influence the atmospheric temperature distribution.

Changes in the concentrations of the gasses (either natural or man-made) cause changes in the energy balance.

How we screw ourselves:
This is the most accepted theory in scientific meteorology group. There is something called a 'Tipping Point'. This is the point at which the earth is sent into an ice age cycle. YOU CAN NOT IN ANY WAY DETERMINE THIS POINT UNTIL MUCH AFTER THE FACT!!! (ice core samples don't tell us shit here). Also, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT HUMANS CAUSED THIS CHANGE TO OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THE FACT! (i believe it is highly likely that we do influence it. but, ice ages are natural cycles thus we cant prove we helped it until we know what causes it.) This point could have been 3 years ago, yesterday, 300 years from now, or even the day after tomorrow. We will know we are screwed when a ocean current changes or stops. The movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' is fairly correct in predicting what could happen but the three days the events occurred over would be well over the span of 50ish years if that short. IF WE WERE TO STOP ALL 'greenhouse' PRODUCTION NOW, we would not see an effect until 3-5 years down the road. This shows people say we have to change now are completely stupid to blow so much money on something that is only half-assed in comparison to current technology. Yes we need to change, but, changing tomorrow or changing slowly over the next few years as new tech is perfected has little difference.

Supplemental argument: When Mt. Penetubo(sp?) erupted the world as a whole cooled ~2 deg for the year due to the ash in the upper atmosphere.

Now please stop spreading Al Gore propaganda, it gets old fast.......