Congratulations Earthlings! Carbon dioxide reaches record high over millions of years.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
If I'm reading the data in the link below correctly, nitrogen has 65.3% more thermal conductivity than CO2. Raws numbers are .026 for N and .017 for CO2. Oxygen is at .027, almost exactly the same as Nitrogen.

https://www.electronics-cooling.com/1998/09/the-thermal-conductivity-of-gases/#

Thermal conductivity isn't what causing the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is caused by the radiative emissivity of the gas. In layman's terms, it is basically how much of the IR and Visible Light spectra the material absorbs. Nitrogen and Oxygen basically have 0 emissivity so they absorb/block no heat, while Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a a non-zero number, which means they block some heat from leaving the earth at night (the Earth radiates to deep space at night).

Water vapor actually has by far the strongest greenhouse effect on Earth. You can observe this yourself by paying attention to clear nights vs cloudy nights. Cloudy nights will stay much warmer than clear nights, it is also why Phoenix doesn't cool off as much at night as it used to. Of course this works in the opposite way during the day, where a cloudy day blocks heat from the sun.

From my understanding, the current theory of global warming is that the additional non-water vapor greenhouse gases help retain enough heat that the atmosphere is in turn able to hold more water vapor (the warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold). This results in more cloud formation at night, which blocks heat from escaping at night. I'm not a climate researcher, but I have a masters in Heat Transfer and the basic premise is solid.

As for hard numbers, it is hard to say because it changes based on the amount in the atmosphere and the temperature.

This is the best link I could find quickly (for some reason Google was finding a bunch of anti-science websites): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
I understand what you are saying. Current grids getting more complicated in response is IMO a disaster waiting to happen and completely wrong for large scale application of small scale generation. Might be a good idea to invest in energy as much as bombs right now. Humans don't plan well and are inflexible to adopt changes as prudent. We need to cut that crap out. I wonder where we would be right now if Carter was adopted a a model more than Ron R. Half a century of R&D would likely change the world. Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, none of them would be dictating future history by energy blackmail.

It was painfully obvious after the Oil Embargo. Nope.

I don't see the grid going anywhere. I do think there will be much more distributed production for small users and likely partial generation for large users. However, many places will not be capable of producing their own power in an economical way. Instead, we will build massive wind projects in the planes, massive solar in the great basin, and distribute that power via the grid (hopefully with more HVDC).

I personally see a future world wide grid, connected with HVDC transmission, and it has already been started on a small scale. This would allow insanely massive solar to be installed in the Sahara, Outback and Great Basin and wind in likewise excellent sites. A true world wide grid, would reduce the required backup and storage capacity because the likelihood of a lack of wind/sun everywhere is much lower than in one location. Further, the sun would also always be shining somewhere on the grid.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
Thermal conductivity isn't what causing the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is caused by the radiative emissivity of the gas. In layman's terms, it is basically how much of the IR and Visible Light spectra the material absorbs. Nitrogen and Oxygen basically have 0 emissivity so they absorb/block no heat, while Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a a non-zero number, which means they block some heat from leaving the earth at night (the Earth radiates to deep space at night).

Water vapor actually has by far the strongest greenhouse effect on Earth. You can observe this yourself by paying attention to clear nights vs cloudy nights. Cloudy nights will stay much warmer than clear nights, it is also why Phoenix doesn't cool off as much at night as it used to. Of course this works in the opposite way during the day, where a cloudy day blocks heat from the sun.

From my understanding, the current theory of global warming is that the additional non-water vapor greenhouse gases help retain enough heat that the atmosphere is in turn able to hold more water vapor (the warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold). This results in more cloud formation at night, which blocks heat from escaping at night. I'm not a climate researcher, but I have a masters in Heat Transfer and the basic premise is solid.

As for hard numbers, it is hard to say because it changes based on the amount in the atmosphere and the temperature.

This is the best link I could find quickly (for some reason Google was finding a bunch of anti-science websites): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

I’ve taken masters level heat and mass transfer myself. When I was interested in figuring out if climate change was really a problem I just thought about how I would have approached the problem in college.

  • A control volume around the earth measure energy in vs out and it should be obvious. Hell energy in is easy to find using a little Stefan Boltzmann law.
  • We have satellites that measure energy in from the sun and measure earths albedo. Those show a small imbalance in the 0-1 W/m^2 range
  • If that’s true then I figured an energy balance of the Earth should show an accumulation of energy in the atmosphere, land and ocean. Which they do (the oceans have increased by 10^23 joules in the last 40 years)
  • Finally assuming all those measurements and modeling are true we should see physical signs. Which we do see, melting glaciers and ice caps, increasing sea level due to melt and thermal expansion, etc
It was enough proof for me.

The American Chemical Society has a pretty good resource that goes through it all with undergrad level science.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas and Zorba

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,938
5,562
136
Thermal conductivity isn't what causing the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is caused by the radiative emissivity of the gas. In layman's terms, it is basically how much of the IR and Visible Light spectra the material absorbs. Nitrogen and Oxygen basically have 0 emissivity so they absorb/block no heat, while Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a a non-zero number, which means they block some heat from leaving the earth at night (the Earth radiates to deep space at night).

Water vapor actually has by far the strongest greenhouse effect on Earth. You can observe this yourself by paying attention to clear nights vs cloudy nights. Cloudy nights will stay much warmer than clear nights, it is also why Phoenix doesn't cool off as much at night as it used to. Of course this works in the opposite way during the day, where a cloudy day blocks heat from the sun.

From my understanding, the current theory of global warming is that the additional non-water vapor greenhouse gases help retain enough heat that the atmosphere is in turn able to hold more water vapor (the warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold). This results in more cloud formation at night, which blocks heat from escaping at night. I'm not a climate researcher, but I have a masters in Heat Transfer and the basic premise is solid.

As for hard numbers, it is hard to say because it changes based on the amount in the atmosphere and the temperature.

This is the best link I could find quickly (for some reason Google was finding a bunch of anti-science websites): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
If I'm understanding you correctly, the added CO2 is to some extant creating an atmospheric heat exchange system that's continuously increasing. Are there mitigating factors at work as well?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
If I'm understanding you correctly, the added CO2 is to some extant creating an atmospheric heat exchange system that's continuously increasing. Are there mitigating factors at work as well?
Yes, the added water in the atmosphere gives for more extreme weather patterns and less direct sunlight.. Oooh you said mitigating. :).
I am not an expert on this subject but I remember understanding black body radiation gave me a revelation as to how hopelessly depended we are on the sun, how the sun is giver of life to everything. Anyway here is a pretty good explanation
http://www.kevkurtz.com/his-blog/2017/5/8/how-does-carbon-dioxide-make-the-world-warmer
Ultraviolet goes in unhindered, hits the planet and gets sent back as infrared.. greenhouse gasses absorbs infrared and reemits infrared or gives of its absorbed kinetic energy to surrounding nitrogen or oxygen as heat. Though the planet as a whole radiates at all times.
To my mind there is no mitigating factors. Control the greenhouse gasses control the temperature.
Maybe you are thinking of
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
?
Thats a short lived benefit that may just be a trojan horse in its own way.
 
Last edited:

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
Have to chime in, related issue.
Nephew's class was assigned to write essay on climate change.
Nephew told teacher, "I do not believe in climate change".
Big stink erupted.
Parents (my sister) called principle to complain. Kid shouldn't have to write about something he (and they) do not believe in.
Classmate and friend of nephew, "Just shut up and write the damn essay."

So what I want to know is, how or what is it that makes some people completely deny climate change?
I have a big clue. When ranting how climate change is all a hoax out for money and regulation, the deniers ALWAYS refer back to..... Al Gore.
It's like, if Al Gore the liberal of all liberal had anything to do with warning about climate change, then it has to be a hoax, scam, trick.

A side note...
They do not believe in climate change or so they say, yet they do believe in...
get this.... CHEMTRAILS.
Airplanes from the government flying over the nation spewing chemicals to make people sick, and thus increase the need for pills, pharmaceuticals, doctors, in short a government conspiracy to enable the drug companies.
After all, CHEMTRAILS must be true. You can see them before any sunset stretching across the sky.

Again, they say no to climate change yet believe 100% in chemtrails.
This wouldn't be so sad if those involved were not college educated and supposedly intelligent people.
If chemtrails do exist, they are not making people sick, they are making people DUMB!
 
Last edited:

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Have to chime in, related issue.
Nephew's class was assigned to write essay on climate change.
Nephew told teacher, "I do not believe in climate change".
Big stink erupted.
Parents (my sister) called principle to complain. Kid shouldn't have to write about something he (and they) do not believe in.
Classmate and friend of nephew, "Just shut up and write the damn essay."

So what I want to know is, how or what is it that makes some people completely deny climate change?
I have a big clue. When ranting how climate change is all a hoax out for money and regulation, the deniers ALWAYS refer back to..... Al Gore.
It's like, if Al Gore the liberal of all liberal had anything to do with warning about climate change, then it has to be a hoax, scam, trick.

A side note...
They do not believe in climate change or so they say, yet they do believe in...
get this.... CHEMTRAILS.
Airplanes from the government flying over the nation spewing chemicals to make people sick, and thus increase the need for pills, pharmaceuticals, doctors, in short a government conspiracy to enable the drug companies.
After all, CHEMTRAILS must be true. You can see them before any sunset stretching across the sky.

Again, they say no to climate change yet believe 100% in chemtrails.
This wouldn't be so sad if those involved were not college educated and supposedly intelligent people.
If chemtrails do exist, they are not making people sick, they are making people DUMB!
that smells like straight up alex jones/infowar ... if that indeed is the culprit then go for the source, expose alex jones for the liar and lunatic he is .. the rest of his narrative should fall like dominos
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
Off shore wind off cape cod is a perfect example of NIMBY.

There is currently a big project in Oklahoma that people are fighting due to ROW for the transmission line. People are claiming they will hurt their cows or the emi will give kids cancer.

I never said NIMBY doesn't occur. I took issue with his labeling that these folks are all environmental extremist, in most cases it's just local residents. And yes sometimes the sierra club gets involved on behalf of the residents. But I would argue over the years we have benefitted from organizations such as the Sierra Club, but then again I would be considered an EXTREMIST.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
I never said NIMBY doesn't occur. I took issue with his labeling that these folks are all environmental extremist, in most cases it's just local residents. And yes sometimes the sierra club gets involved on behalf of the residents. But I would argue over the years we have benefitted from organizations such as the Sierra Club, but then again I would be considered an EXTREMIST.
Oh yeah, I agree with you. I thought you meant any NIMBY. NIMBY knows no ideology.

The one thing I could see people having a real complaint about environmental groups blocking clean energy would be nuclear, especially with regards to a safe disposal location.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
If I'm understanding you correctly, the added CO2 is to some extant creating an atmospheric heat exchange system that's continuously increasing. Are there mitigating factors at work as well?
Well, we have natural processes to remove water and CO2 from the atmosphere. There problem is we are overwhelming the natural system for CO2 removal, which then allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture hurting the natural process of removing water moisture.

You do get some benefit from them blocking some amount of heat during the day, but they are much more effective at trapping heat in than out. Venus is an extreme example of runaway greenhouse effect.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
Oh yeah, I agree with you. I thought you meant any NIMBY. NIMBY knows no ideology.

The one thing I could see people having a real complaint about environmental groups blocking clean energy would be nuclear, especially with regards to a safe disposal location.

New nuclear isn't going to be much of a problem with the economic disasters that Vogtle and VC Summer have turned into.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
Also its there a new type of reactor they are testing that has no radioactive waste? Without looking it up, bromine bormine or something like that?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Also its there a new type of reactor they are testing that has no radioactive waste? Without looking it up, bromine bormine or something like that?

Fusion is the paradise we all want to get to. I do not know why Nuclear power in this country is so expensive it is prohibitive. Other countries are capable of running vast amounts of their power generation on nuclear plants. And building new plants that are not an economic disaster.

For me it comes down to density. A nuclear power plant is highly efficient form of energy production. A small physical footprint compared to wind and solar. It just makes sense to continue to invest and build out an infrastructure with nuclear.

I also think a more decentralized solution backed by a baseline for avg end users(homes) is good long term strategy. I envision solar on the home that is tapped into the grid. Smart systems that will move that decentralized power around where it is needed. Maybe it is a pipe dream. But if it could work, think it is worth investing into.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Oh yeah, I agree with you. I thought you meant any NIMBY. NIMBY knows no ideology.

The one thing I could see people having a real complaint about environmental groups blocking clean energy would be nuclear, especially with regards to a safe disposal location.

I have to say we have let NIMBYism get totally out of control in America and something needs to be done to rein it in. As you guys are discussing it's hard to locate new nuclear plants anywhere because local residents always try to veto them. When you pitch a large number of mildly interested people (the general population that needs electricity) vs. a small group of EXTREMELY motivated people the small group often wins. The same problem exists for homeless shelters, for increased and denser housing, etc, etc.

For some reason people seem to believe that owning a piece of property in an area gives them the right to veto what's done with other property nearby that they don't own. Enough is enough. To solve the carbon problem we need to attack it from every angle. Build more nuclear plants, build a distributed solar grid, trap carbon, etc, etc. We can't afford to let ANY avenue go unused.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,087
37,282
136
When you pitch a large number of mildly interested people (the general population that needs electricity) vs. a small group of EXTREMELY motivated people the small group often wins. The same problem exists for homeless shelters, for increased and denser housing, etc, etc.

The zoning process has effectively been captured by a small minority of owners. Also how community feedback is solicited makes these voices a lot louder than they should be. This system is effectively broken in every US city save a few that are more development friendly (and they have pockets of this too).
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
I have to say we have let NIMBYism get totally out of control in America and something needs to be done to rein it in. As you guys are discussing it's hard to locate new nuclear plants anywhere because local residents always try to veto them. When you pitch a large number of mildly interested people (the general population that needs electricity) vs. a small group of EXTREMELY motivated people the small group often wins. The same problem exists for homeless shelters, for increased and denser housing, etc, etc.

For some reason people seem to believe that owning a piece of property in an area gives them the right to veto what's done with other property nearby that they don't own. Enough is enough. To solve the carbon problem we need to attack it from every angle. Build more nuclear plants, build a distributed solar grid, trap carbon, etc, etc. We can't afford to let ANY avenue go unused.
Some NIMBY is good to promote good well thought out development, but extreme (BANANA?) NIMBY is definitely bad.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
The zoning process has effectively been captured by a small minority of owners. Also how community feedback is solicited makes these voices a lot louder than they should be. This system is effectively broken in every US city save a few that are more development friendly (and they have pockets of this too).
Yet, a lot of the most successful cities are cities with strong zoning requirements. Lack of zoning results in cities like Houston where there is a massive amount of development in floodplains and very little planning, resulting in a massively sprawling city. Same for OKC where no body wants to live in the 300 square miles of the main part of the city (except for a few patches of gentrification), and large chunks are completely undeveloped, while the metro continues to sprawl because no one wants to live in those areas.

There should be a balance, between build nothing and Houston.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,939
7,459
136
The very wealthy and privileged aristocrat class believe that they will be the last and lasting survivors of a world correcting itself in so many violent ways, so as far they're concerned a world that's unlivable for the masses is not their problem. The problem they see for themselves will always be ensuring that they will be the last one standing among themselves and the answer will always be that it's the one(s) with the most prevailing currency on hand.

So as far as they're concerned let the peasants kill themselves off fighting for scraps as they watch the fun from whatever fortresses they've built for themselves. They will still be in control of the gov't and have access to whatever resources their gov't control including of course, the military.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,359
1,555
126

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,359
1,555
126
So much projection and still the most spot on forum name.
You are very good at functioning at the level of a 6 year old obese playground bully, one who has no life now except to troll.

Congratulations, but this isn't South Park. Have any hope of aspiring beyond that? Or even staying on topic?
 
Last edited:

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,650
26,749
136
You are very good at functioning at the level of a 6 year old obese playground bully, one who has no life now except to troll.

Congratulations, but this isn't South Park. Have any hope of aspiring beyond that? Or even staying on topic?

I just hope you will stop being ignorant.