• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hurricane Dorian thread

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BUTCH1 said:
Probably, but there is no practical way to modify the heat energy stored in the ocean, would be nice if was possible though.
Click to expand...

Well for starters, acknowledge it is an issue and start working on mitigation and solution. Get there first.
 
Viper1j said:
Maybe because he's partially responsible for it's severity? Which is a big part of wanting every single one of his businesses and properties to be flattened and utterly destroyed.
Click to expand...
He's only been in office 2 years so I doubt his dumb-fuck anti green actions have had enough time to add substantially to the problem of us burning fossil fuels for the last 174 years. the major factor is countries like India ans China have come a long way (in standard of living sense) in the last 30 years, better living standards means bigger carbon footprint.
 
sdifox said:
Well for starters, acknowledge it is an issue and start working on mitigation and solution. Get there first.
Click to expand...
Everyone but a few morons acknowledge it's a huge problem and most unfortunately for us one of them got elected. He blames China for starting the "green" thought process, even worse than that bit of stupid is the people that voted for him will go along with anything that shit head says.
 
BUTCH1 said:
Everyone but a few morons acknowledge it's a huge problem and most unfortunately for us one of them got elected. He blames China for starting the "green" thought process, even worse than that bit of stupid is the people that voted for him will go along with anything that shit head says.
Click to expand...

Even PRC is shutting down their coal plants and going heavy on solar, wind and nuclear. Profit is not going to do USA any good if the planet gets uninhabitable. Iceland has lost one of its glaciers for crying out loud.
 
BUTCH1 said:
Probably, but there is no practical way to modify the heat energy stored in the ocean, would be nice if was possible though.
Click to expand...

Reduce the greenhouse gasses in the air. This allows more thermal energy to radiate to space eventually cooling the oceans.

Doubling the deep rainforest would take the equivalent of 50PPM of carbon out of the atmosphere. It would however take the rest of the century not to mention the political incentives required to get people and countries to allow that to happen.
 
Paratus said:
Reduce the greenhouse gasses in the air. This allows more thermal energy to radiate to space eventually cooling the oceans.

Doubling the deep rainforest would take the equivalent of 50PPM of carbon out of the atmosphere. It would however take the rest of the century not to mention the political incentives required to get people and countries to allow that to happen.
Click to expand...
Yea, the recent savage burning of Brazilian old-growth rain forest is quite sad, the rest of the industrialized world will have to pony up a sweet sum of $$ to bribe Brazil and other countries into not destroying this vital part of the planet's lungs. South American farmers are looking to plant soybeans there since China has all but stopped buying it from us. We've got another issue here in the US and that's with excessive amounts of carbon emitted from the large vehicles so many drive, when someone drives a huge SUV or truck they really don't need it adds to the problem.
 
BUTCH1 said:
He's only been in office 2 years so I doubt his dumb-fuck anti green actions have had enough time to add substantially to the problem of us burning fossil fuels for the last 174 years. the major factor is countries like India ans China have come a long way (in standard of living sense) in the last 30 years, better living standards means bigger carbon footprint.
Click to expand...

Trump is actively opposing measures to limit our carbon footprint in the future like the Obama era mileage requirements. When California & the auto makers work out a compromise, he won't even consider it. Shee-it. His friends in the oil & gas biz all around the world want to sell more product in 2025, not less.
 
BUTCH1 said:
He has a point, I hate Trump as much as anyone, but for the love of God why must that epic douche be involved with a thread about a massive, raging storm threatening millions of people?. Don't get me wrong, I love science and astronomy but unless it relates to the topic at hand it should be left out, just my $.02.
Click to expand...

Well Trump insinuated himself in the topic when he made diametrically opposed tweets about Dorian hitting Puerto Rico vs Florida and this is P&N.

The Venus stuff was a pretty far tangent from the original post about the water temperature Dorian was moving over.

Just my 2 cents.
 
BUTCH1 said:
Yea, the recent savage burning of Brazilian old-growth rain forest is quite sad, the rest of the industrialized world will have to pony up a sweet sum of $$ to bribe Brazil and other countries into not destroying this vital part of the planet's lungs. South American farmers are looking to plant soybeans there since China has all but stopped buying it from us. We've got another issue here in the US and that's with excessive amounts of carbon emitted from the large vehicles so many drive, when someone drives a huge SUV or truck they really don't need it adds to the problem.
Click to expand...

Well we are guilty of driving a large SUV. In addition to transporting the family we have it for the ground clearance because the streets here are designed to flood in heavy rains which is often. We also have it to be able to evacuate our family of five plus pets when hurricanes come our way which has happened a couple of times.

We mitigate it somewhat by our other cars having reasonably good fuel efficiency, living fairly close to work and purchasing power with a lot of wind. I’ll also point out that thanks to the increases in fuel efficiency standards are new SUV gets 40% better mileage than our old one.
 
Jhhnn said:
Trump is actively opposing measures to limit our carbon footprint in the future like the Obama era mileage requirements. When California & the auto makers work out a compromise, he won't even consider it. Shee-it. His friends in the oil & gas biz all around the world want to sell more product in 2025, not less.
Click to expand...
Yea, I know, it has not been long enough though for his dip-shit policies to have a big impact yet, hopefully he gets booted out in 2020 and we can go back to normal.
 
Paratus said:
It does and it depends heavily on the system. It’s also why if we stopped greenhouse gas emission tomorrow the Earth would continue to heat for awhile. We are still on the ramp up.

As for storms the only two ways I know to reduce the intensity is for shear to pick up or for the storm to encounter cooler water.

If a storm doesn’t move fasten enough it can pull enough energy out of the water and churn up enough cooler water that it will start to lose intensity.

If we reduced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thermal radiation would escape easier and ocean temperatures would start to fall depriving hurricanes of extra heat.

Allowing the rainforests to basically double in size would pull about 50PPM of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That would take the rest of the century however.
Click to expand...

Stormageddon..

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4525270/

They used lasers to punch a temp hole into the ozone layer to allow the troposphere to heat up to dissipate a Cat 8 hurricane...
Yeah it's a movie, but all fiction has a nugget of fact in it somewhere.
 
Paratus said:
Is there a reason you feel that way? The explanation is pretty simple but the physics to calculate the magnitude of the effects are non-intuitive so you shouldn't expect a 1:1 relationship.

Let’s go over an example that might help you accept that fact. Sulfur dioxide is a chemical where a tiny amount can have a huge effect on climate. It will take a little bit of explaining to show why.

People intuitively know that the closer a planet is to the sun the more energy it receives and the warmer it is.

Mars is farther away than the Earth is so it’s colder while Mercury and Venus are closer so they are much warmer.

Now there’s a simple formula called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law that can be used to calculate how much energy the sun produces based on its surface temperature. The sun produces 3.846x10^26 watts. Divide that by the suns surface area and you get 63.15MW/m^2.

Using the fact that physics says energy is neither created nor destroyed we know if there are 3.846x10^26 watts on a sphere around the surface of the sun there are the same number of watts on a sphere with a radius equal to the distance from Mercury to the sun, from Venus to the sun, etc.

Since the spheres are much larger the energy per area must drop. Do some geometry and you can figure out about how much energy reaches each planet.

The following table shows how much solar energy per meter squared on average (S ave) reaches each of the inner planets.
1374177687088.jpg


So Mercury gets 6.7 times as much energy as we do. Venus gets 90% more and Mars only gets 42% as much as Earth.

Now since you are on Anandtech you are likely aware of how computers behave when they are put under load. At idle pulling 15w the CPU is at say 30C. When you run a benchmark and it pulls 100w the temperature ramps up to say 65C and stays there. That’s called steady state. When the benchmark ends and the power drops back to idle the temperature drops back down to a lower steady state.

At steady state, energy in equals energy out. What temperature you reach depends not only on the amount of energy but also the type of system. I’m sure you are familiar with incandescent bulbs. A 100w bulb may pull the same energy as our computer example but the temperature of the filament is over 4000F.

All thermal systems including planets follow this basic behavior.
Since we know how much energy reaches each planet, we known thermal systems will try and reach steady-state where energy in = energy out, and the only way for energy to leave a planet is via radiation. We can again use the Stefan–Boltzmann law to try and predict the average steady-state temperature of each planet.

If we try with Mercury we find that our predicted temperature is too high by about 10%. That leads me to explain another concept called a “black body”. The Stefan–Boltzmann law assumes the object in question is a black body. A black body is an object that absorbs all frequencies of light and radiates in all frequencies of light. A cold black body would look black in visible light, hence the term.

The sun very closely radiates as a black body. Mercury on the other hand does not. While being dark and absorbing most light from sun it does reflect about 10% of the light from the sun. If it didn’t we wouldn’t be able to see it in visible light. The light lost to reflection is called “albedo”. It’s the “alpha” on the chart above”

When we redo the calculation taking into account Mercury’s 10% albedo using only 90% of the energy coming from the sun we get an average planetary temperature of 437K (Tp above) which is very close to the observed temperature of ~440K (Tobs). That’s pretty good!

However when we redo those calculations for the other planets it under predicts the temperature by a little for Mars, a bit more for Earth, and is wildly wrong for Venus.

Venus gets less than a third of the energy of the sun that Mercury gets yet its almost 2 times as hot. Not only that but it’s albedo is an extremely high 75% meaning it actually receives less energy at the surface than Earth does!

If you’ve ever looked at Venus in the night sky it shouldn’t be a surprise that it has such a high albedo. Venus is very bright due to all the reflected sunlight.

78494333.jpg


So why does Venus reflect so much light?

Gibbous-Venus-from-Akatsuki.jpg


It’s from the all the light colored clouds. Which is where sulfur dioxide ( SO2) comes in. Those clouds are made from SO2 which forms droplets of sulfuric acid.

This next table includes the atmospheric pressures and compositions for each of the planets
1374177879538.jpg


Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen and the rest are trace gases. According to the inter webs SO2 makes up 150PPM or 0.015% of the atmosphere.

So SO2 at 0.015% of the atmosphere can block 75% of the incoming solar energy.

Venus also shows what high pressure CO2 atmosphere can do. With significantly less energy reaching the surface than Earth the surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead.
Click to expand...
Easily one of the best posts ever on anandtech, well done. I have to ask though...



Does that mean venus' albedo is alternator-sized?
 
Paratus said:
Well we are guilty of driving a large SUV. In addition to transporting the family we have it for the ground clearance because the streets here are designed to flood in heavy rains which is often. We also have it to be able to evacuate our family of five plus pets when hurricanes come our way which has happened a couple of times.

We mitigate it somewhat by our other cars having reasonably good fuel efficiency, living fairly close to work and purchasing power with a lot of wind. I’ll also point out that thanks to the increases in fuel efficiency standards are new SUV gets 40% better mileage than our old one.
Click to expand...

You’re right that we don’t need to drive large vehicles, but the point that you’re missing is that a volcano erupting, or a large solar flare, or other examples of natural phenomena has much greater impact. Also, it’s not the United States driving the pollution train. It’s the vendors that we use in China, APAC, Africa etc..

For every wanna be socialist here at Anandtech, they magically forget where we get our useless junk from. It’s now criticized to put tariffs on China, yet you want home tariffs (tax’s) on gas. Sorry, it’s difficult to take anyone seriously here that has such stupid policy.

Bring the jobs back to the states, pay more for goods and pay people for manufacturing goods and products on the homeland.

I can clearly tell you’re not familiar with the EPA gas mileage measuring. You’re SUV engine isn’t getting better m/g at 40%. I don’t feel like educating people here about why start/stop is the leading cause for gas usage, and more stop lights and signs, traffic stop/start are the leading cause of emissions.
 
Zstream said:
You’re right that we don’t need to drive large vehicles, but the point that you’re missing is that a volcano erupting, or a large solar flare, or other examples of natural phenomena has much greater impact. Also, it’s not the United States driving the pollution train. It’s the vendors that we use in China, APAC, Africa etc..

For every wanna be socialist here at Anandtech, they magically forget where we get our useless junk from. It’s now criticized to put tariffs on China, yet you want home tariffs (tax’s) on gas. Sorry, it’s difficult to take anyone seriously here that has such stupid policy.

Bring the jobs back to the states, pay more for goods and pay people for manufacturing goods and products on the homeland.

I can clearly tell you’re not familiar with the EPA gas mileage measuring. You’re SUV engine isn’t getting better m/g at 40%. I don’t feel like educating people here about why start/stop is the leading cause for gas usage, and more stop lights and signs, traffic stop/start are the leading cause of emissions.
Click to expand...

... You realise Americans pay for tariffs imposed on Chinese import?
 
sdifox said:
... You realise Americans pay for tariffs imposed on Chinese import?
Click to expand...

Yes, I’m quite aware of that. I don’t mind shifting focus to the US for production. I’m willing to pay more for goods if it’s manufactured here. The point being is that people on this forum and in real life are easily manipulated because of ignorance or just stupidity. Again, debate the facts and I’m fine, but don’t bring up the EPA and how your engine is getting better m/g without knowing the process that they just undergo to measure.

You know how your engine turns off now at “idle”? That adds into your m/g statement. Yet, you put blinders on the fact, that putting the engine in an off state and sharply turning the engine on and increasing the RPM adds more pollution than leaving the damn engine on (strictly speaking about common city traffic and not bumper to bumper).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top