New Cold War US-Russia?
Pages
| Author | Topic: New Cold War US-Russia? |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 19:47
Profile
quote:Your intimate knowledge of the growing global crisis is daunting, and prior to committing to a prolonged discussion I need to know what level of mastery you have achieved. I mean really, isn't that fair? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 20:18
Profile
Calculations on global warming/cooling are complex depending upon how you model the earth. Your energy source (coal, oil, nuclear, or solar) don't themselves produce much of a heating effect. It's the indirect effect of the pollution they produce. Back during the Industrial Revolution, coal and oil produced lots of smoke in the cities that increased absorbtion of light and produced more heat. With cleaner burning fuels and nuclear power plants, this pollution has decreased. Reducing the ozone layer changes both absorption of UV radiation that increases skin cancer because it is more energetic that visible light. It also reduces absorption of infrared light (heat) that radiates from the earth. Water molecules that form from the temporary breakdown of ozone are strong infrared absorbers. However the dispute occurs in how to calculate these effects. It's not only the affects of power production, but how it is used. For instance China is undergoing an industrial revolution now that it is capitalistic. More factories are created and more polluting transportation has been introduced. This is creating more pollution that is affecting the climate over the Pacific Ocean creating more intense storms. So a strong local effect is changing a larger area of the world. Urbanization is producing heat islands. So some areas are hotter from heat that is stored in roads and buildings during the day and reradiated during the night. These places are shifting the weather. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 23:06
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ah, this is what you mean. I see. The amount of flux from the Sun is a constant, but its effects certainly are not. For the record, however, without an atmosphere, the surface temperature of the Earth would be around -15°C (if you just consider the flux it receives from the Sun and the flux it re-radiates through blackbody radiation). This makes me suspect that we could absorb all of the energy from the Sun without a significant change. Then again, I haven't done enough planetary science to know for sure how much the ozone blocks out. As others have pointed out, I was under the impression (and the Wikipedia article bears this out) that the main problem with ozone depletion is the increased amount of UV bombardment that reaches the surface, which has harmful effects on life (not on temperature). quote:I was thinking of an easy way to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation on this. One of the relevant equations is Q = m c T, where Q is the thermal energy (heat) required to increase the temperature of a mass m and specific heat c by a temperature amount T. If we consider density also constant (both flawed assumptions at large changes of T but not bad for the kind of values we're talking about), then we can express the mass as the density of air at room temperature times the volume of the air in the atmosphere. The volume can be the area of whatever part of the Earth we're talking about times the scale height of the atmosphere, which is (loosely) the height at which the atmosphere gets pretty thin. (Detailed calculations would pick up a factor of two or three from the scale height, and even more detailed calculations would pick up a more complicated factor, but we'll neglect that. The order of magnitude is what matters.) If we take the specific heat of air as constant for small changes of T, that yields: Q = A h p c T, where A is an area, h is the scale height, and p is a density (for lack of a rho). A can be the land area of Europe for fun (which is about 10,000,000 square kilometers). The scale height of the atmosphere is around 8,000 or 9,000 meters. The density of air at room temperature is about 1.2 kg/m^3. The specific heat of air at room temperature is about 1.012 J/(g K). Plugging in numbers, the amount of energy required to heat up the atmosphere above Europe by a single degree is around 10^23 J. For reference, a Wikipedia article puts yearly world energy use at 10^21. In other words, if the entire world were to generate a hundred times as much waste thermal energy as useful energy and ship that energy all into the air above Europe, the continent's average daily temperature would increase by one degree. To accomplish this for the atmosphere of the entire world, we'd need around five thousand, not one hundred. For comparison, as I said, without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on the Earth's surface would be around -15°C (a little less, if I remember correctly). It's actually around +15°C. That's a thirty-degree swing, across the entire Earth. (Of course, only a small fraction of that effect is man-made, but it's growing all the time.) [ Wednesday, March 07, 2007 23:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Thursday, March 8 2007 05:51
Profile
quote:Almost. When you in all fairness need to know something like this, you usually do so as politely as your manners allow, probably introducing your own level of mastery if mentioning “even ground”. Rather, when someone starts his contribution to the discussion on Internet boards with a rather bold flaming of opponent’s point of view and then keep trying to legitimize it by the virtue of doubting his opponent’s general qualifications and intelligence rather then the exact and present arguments, that person might instead put his own very specific qualification of carrying out a webboard argument with minimal trolling at doubt, possible leading to him or her being ignored in further discussion. Aside from unfinished degree work on global warming (decided to take mathematical economics instead) I really haven’t much PhD’s papers to back me up. However, I am confident that some pretty easily available knowledge coupled with adequate educational level and a good measure of common sense allows pretty much everyone to understand and discuss matters in question. I would also like to thank Kelandon and others for a very enjoyable discussion so far. quote:This is very true. What I was trying to do initially is to underline those factors we may be taking into an account. For the purpose of both global warming issue and local climate changes. Now let me get back to those for a moment to see if we achieved a good mutual understanding. Factor one: Amount of sun radiation received by planet (As opposed to one reflected by infamous Ozone atmosphere layer) Of course I was not entirely accurate myself, because I should have been saying “reflected by atmosphere in general AND any other pre-planet-surface reflective means”. For your reference, one of the sidebars of Wiki article brought to us by Kelandon shows a nice picture of a portion of solar energy, in form of radiation, reflected and absorbed and further radiated back by an atmosphere. What was my point there is that this variable is, unlike some others we’re calling for, a subject to change, be it by natural or technological (yes, yes) or other human-inspired means. Randomizer gave a fine mention to the problems of modeling and calculating those effects; however, speaking of global climate we need to keep track of this. For example, I have heard an interesting argument (that some may call nonsense way more then our current discussion) that as a means of fighting global warming without doing anything to the atmosphere we can set some sort of protective, i.e. reflective, screen on the orbit. Despite the obvious problems with this “solution”, I see no way to discount the fact that Factor One is a variable and not something we just “begin with”. As a side note, I was not touching skin cancer and other UV issues of ozone layer because while certainly being dangerous, those are somewhat out of the scope of our “global and local energies” discussion. Factor two: Amount of IR radiation out of the planet (as opposed to IR radiation “caught” by atmosphere CO2), aka greenhouse effect, aka pollution, aka etc. Why had not I digged deep into this is twofold. First, it is easily the most discussed and quite most worked-out part of the problem. It is rightfully mentioned that for global warming this factor is still the dominating and deciding one. My point was that it is not the only one still. Plus, many obviously “non-green” power sources, such as nuclear power, mostly bypass CO2 and other atmosphere pollution effects, therefore NOT contributing to factor two. Very often this fact is used in conjunction with the statement of “other facts being neglible” to advocate those power sources as “effectively green”, which is quite a dangerous delusion, at best, even while still speaking only of energy balance. And to illustrate this we are coming to Factor three: Amount of heat produced on planet. By us. Kelandon’s calculations, as he himself admits, might not be accurate, but I would really like to thank him for the fact that those are illustrative enough. quote:I think we can pretty safely start from there, thank you. I would pretend that actual square might be smaller, because both industry and sophisticated-lifestyle (and therefore energy-consuming) end users mostly focus in GB/France/Germany/and abit to the north zone, my point is quite different. How neglible is this? For this matter, I would like to introduce You a new player: Energy consumption growth rates. Exponential, so far. We can quite safely assume that in like 1700 those were about zero. Starting from the use of coal energy… Again I can reference a sidebar in abovementioned Wiki article that conveniently shows us that global energy consumption roughly tripled since 65’. But it’s easy to see that timegraph of energy consumption (zero at 1700, still near zero at 1800 and the up and up) is not optimistic. Assuming the ongoing trend of tripling energy consumption in 40 years we will arrive at “hundred times as much” in about 170 years. What we want to be looking for is at least linear trend. (That will give us some real long way to go). It would be very tempting to back it up by arguments such as “we had many natural resources to put to use in those 300 years of exponential trend, but now when those seem to be depleting why wouldn’t we expect to slow down”… However, we do not seem to slow down so far, and I such an arguments are in place since back coal time, when oil wasn’t yet put in use, and further since. Humanity’s ingenuity coupled with humanity’s greed is a strong proposition indeed. My point here being: “it might look neglible at the moment, but the growth rates are putting this factor as a runner-up for “I matter” position”. It is worth noting that for the factor 3, no energy source is entirely “kosher”, be that even an unfueled perpetuum mobile, there will invariably be some heating. Worse still, extra-efficient, extra-green power sources will only support the dangerous trend of rising consumption, getting it to the mattering levels. And the last but most important part, The Equilibrium. All described factors, and I am sure some that eluded us entirely, actually used to play together. This has an awful habit of complicating matters. quote:Unlikely, unless we equal it with factor B somehow. Because we, probably unfortunately, still got the atmosphere and +15, and absorbed energy, unlike on a un-atmosphered body You described, will be greenhoused there. This is the worst catch of various “safe” and “renewable” energy sources. Factors 1 and 3 warms us, factor 2 is supposed to cool us, and for the planet to stay roughly as we know it the major values of this equilibrium has to stand roughly as those are. Instead, each and every one changes by the effect of human activity, powered by energy, and “green” on itself energy is no exception to this, like the very necessary kitchen knife that is also the primary instrument of murder. The problem is not only in how we get the energy but how we use it, because we displayed no ability to keep it reasonable: quote:I never meant to say there isn’t new equilibrium to be reached. As in example above, being given that factor 3 grows and is about to matter, and being given that the cooling effect of factor 2 shrinks, there is a great assortment of solutions to be found. Aside from “factor one shield” I described above we can invent some planet-sized refrigerator, we can genetically alter flora and fauna to be way more CO2-consuming therefore fighting the natural greenhouse effect of CO2…. The list goes and goes on. The problem I got with it is that it won’t be the Earth we were born on anymore. The one planet where there was only so much natural resources to support life, and where, frankly, everything was fine until 1700’s and the introduction of artificial energy. [ Thursday, March 08, 2007 06:24: Message edited by: Acidic Helixbolt ] -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, March 8 2007 06:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, fine if you don't mind living among your own waste and having an infant mortality rate above 50%, anyway. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Thursday, March 8 2007 06:16
Profile
Fine point of morality and lesser evil. Not living among your waste is a matter of hygiene, I believe, since almost every wild animal on the planet managed to handle it for far more then humanity is said to exist at all. Children mortality rates, on the other hand, is the argument that makes me angry and at loss on human’s ego at same time… You go to WWF site, altrough highly biased, they still provide some info on what other lifeforms’s mortality rates are a price for this one now. Children mortality rate is an intra-species problem. But human species is now a planet-large problem. Och of course, we have enough ego for that. And we have the greatest ever assortment of “moral” arguments to back us up in destroying the world that gave us birth and home. Only I feel like we underestimate the world’s ability to fight back. We do not “save” those children now, we loan their life from the future. It is said that one can not be a truly genius general without the ability to “amorally” steer the “lesser losses” pathway while some losses are unevitable. Humanity is not it’s own genius general. [ Thursday, March 08, 2007 06:18: Message edited by: Acidic Helixbolt ] -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, March 8 2007 06:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:Um, you might pretend this, but you wouldn't really be right. Energy consumption is spread out all over the globe. High levels of energy consumption are found in the U.S., all of Western Europe, China, India, and so forth. I should have added that, even if you concentrate this energy all above Europe and raise the temperature by (as of right now) a hundredth of a degree, within a fairly short time it will have dispersed into the rest of the atmosphere of the Earth via diffusion and have even less of an effect. In other words, the effect is pretty darn negligible at the moment. quote:My point in the calculation above was that, although I don't know how much energy that we produce is simply radiated off as heat, I'd guess that it's no more than a sizable fraction (1%? 10%?), which means that we'd have to be producing ten thousand times as much energy for that sizable fraction to matter really at all. I do understand your exponential growth argument, but as you pointed out, even at our current growth rates, this effect will be pretty much negligible for almost two hundred years. I think we'll have much more serious environmental problems before then regarding other issues, and we can re-examine this issue in a century (when energy usage should be a hundred times what it is now, just when this contribution may be starting to become significant), and start to account for it then. And, interestingly, this argument only applies to energy generated here. It doesn't apply to energy already in existence that we're capturing, which excludes solar power, wind power, water power, etc. — in other words, really only the energy gained from burning something (oil, coal, gas) or blowing something up (nuclear) matters here — since solar, etc., all just catch energy that already exists, instead of converting potential energy into electricity (and waste heat). In other words, there's no real way to argue that waterwheels or windmills heat up the Earth to any significant degree. quote:Come to think of it, I bet we do absorb just about all the energy from the sun that we get. A quick look at a relevant EPA document reveals that the way that ozone works, basically, is through absorption and re-emission, as well as some scattering, not through reflection. Only reflection would cause the energy to go away without raising our temperature much; that is, we already do absorb it. I'm not aware of significant reflection from any level of the atmosphere that is currently being depleted, but I'm willing to be enlightened on that subject. quote:Um, what? Wasn't factor 2 the greenhouse effect? That's not supposed to cool us. As far as I know, the major cooling factor in the Earth's atmosphere is the energy emitted from the top layer by blackbody radiation. There's also some effect from losing particles at the top layer, but I don't know how significant it is, and there are some other effects, too, but I'm not sure of their relative magnitudes. [ Thursday, March 08, 2007 07:11: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, March 8 2007 14:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:That ain't necessarily so. Wind and hydro power convert kinetic energy directly to electrical energy, true enough, but when it gets to the end user, that electricity is going to be converted to heat, or to other forms of energy that eventually end up as heat. Of course, you could argue that in the long run the energy of the wind and falling water would have naturally been converted to heat anyway, and you might be right. [ Thursday, March 08, 2007 14:02: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, March 8 2007 16:16
Profile
Homepage
"Any significant degree" is the key phrase. :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Friday, March 9 2007 03:31
Profile
quote:You appear to be dramatically wrong here. Fossil fuel engines have an efficency below 40% => 60% is a "sizeable fraction";-) Electric engined do have efficency of about 90%, but quote:Not enough;-) Wind and hydro plants got quite many moving parts, friction = > losses to heat. Then, we use energy not just for engines. We largely use it also for producing heat on purpose! -our homes. Not only climatic suystems but your microwave oven too;-) -metallurgy. (You could guess, it’s all about heating). E t.c. I guess, taking industry-wise spreadsheets of energy consumption it’s possible to give some on-the-go analysis of the “sizeable fraction”, but trust me, if we wind up with less then 60% of our energy going to “heat the world”, we’d be either lucky or wrong somewhere;-) (If someone can google out termal efficency of wind or hydro plant I'd be very thankful. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency (gotta like wiki, saves some googling;-))) [ Friday, March 09, 2007 04:00: Message edited by: Acidic Helixbolt ] -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 9 2007 06:49
Profile
Homepage
Again, the point is that, even if it were 100%, at current energy growth rates, this won't be a significant factor until at least 150 years from now. We're talking about orders of magnitude, not factors of two or three (or even six). The percentage is irrelevant as long as it is less than 100%. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Friday, March 9 2007 11:39
Profile
As far as the global warming goes, I believe its fairly easy, and reasonable to agree that we aren't directly warming the earth with our energy production. The problem isn't with the heat produced, but with the chemical by products of industry, that is the 'green house gasses'. As was stated before, without the atmosphere the earth would be extremely cold, because it wouldn't retain much heat from the sun. Hence if we alter the composition of the atmosphere, we alter the heat/radiation trapping properties, and can retain more or less of the incoming heat from the sun. Another interesting factor in all this, is 'global shading'. According to some scientists the polutants that block some of the radiatory heat from entering are muting the effects of global warming. If/when those polutants stop being a factor, the effect of global warming would be intensified. -------------------- "Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are false'." Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Saturday, March 10 2007 09:23
Profile
Some nasty numbers I took from the newest Tiede 2000 magazine: "If the energy consumption rates of China, India and the countries of South-America continue increasing at the current rate, mankind's need for energy will grow from current 14 Terawats to 45 TW during the next 30 years. If the use of bio-fuels, wind and geothermal energy increase notably, this might stop at 40 TW." This was followed by a few calculations, but I think everyone will realize what this means better if you do them yourselves: First, count how many new 1000 MW nuclear plants we would need to build during that 30 year period. How many plants does that make per day? Then, see how many 1,5 MW windmills you'd need to build to get the same effect. Doesn't seem very easy, does it? Luckily, the sun radiates 175 000 TW worth of energy down to earth; that 26 - 31 TW we need doesn't seem so bad anymore. However, we still have to build a hellish amount of solar collectors to cut it, so maybe it would just be easier to cut our consumption instead. NOTE OF THE SOURCE: This is my own translation of a certain part of the main article, "Solar energy is necessary". As the article is from the newest issue, it is not accessible from the magazine's homepage . Besides, I didn't find "in eglish" option anyway, so it's useful to only those capable of reading finnish. Don't know if this reply contributes anything to this discussion anymore, but there you go. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |