SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
Originally posted by: Eli
Hmm.. well, it would have to have some effect? If some of the energy is being converted into electricity.... ? How could it produce electricity and the same amount of heat?
My point still stands.lol
Come on Eli, you know better than this.
Think... 2nd law of thermodynamics...
Its not the conversion of solar energy into electricity that produces heat, its the use of the stored electricity later that ends up as heat. The only way around this is to bury all those batteries, to replace all the stored heat we let go in the form of coal and oil.
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,795
- 1,979
- 126
This may sound stupid, but why does global warming have to be such a bad thing? Weren't they growing wine grapes in England back in the 1500s? It might shift things, but wouldn't we be able to grow crops at higher latitudes? I just don't see how moderate warming is going to destroy humanity.
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
there are far more realistic answer than this. among them, using massive amounts of iodide to dehydrate the sky, because water vapor is basically the primary chemical responsible for the greenhouse effect. also, using bioengineered plants that absorb massive amounts of CO2 and converting it to Oxygen. At our current rate, pollution is only decreasing, and will only get better as we start relying more and more on electricity rather than fossil fuel. The trend started in the 50s, and I'm sure the world will become a much nicer place in 50 years.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
This is the only important part. We do NOT need to be altering the amount of sunlight striking this Earth. This is ridiculous as there would be profound effects. We are here because of very specific environmental variables, as are, more importantly, the varied lifeforms on this planet. We may survive, but if some percentage of current species is killed off, the food chain would be severely effected and, well... that doesn't help us live, that's for sure. Too many other variables to say if we would be harmed in the end as a population, but you get the general idea.
Reduce the current levels, and work on maintaining a desired 'safe' value, and we're all set... this whole thing would then blow over. We'd eventually return to pre-industrial climates and weather patterns. Sure, might not be as comfortable as it is in some regions, and water temps be slightly lower, but a small sacrifice for knowledge future generations are safe from mass climate change.
Except... well see below, immediately following the rant.
it's not as simple as that. First, it's global climate change - meaning climates are going to change everywhere, but not necessarily in the same way. A desert may - after the Earth settles into a stable climate pattern - turn into a wet grasslands... just as an example.
But one things for sure... the current trend IS warming the poles. That = very bad. Warming poles means loss of ice, which means rising sea levels. Oh, and loss of ice means more land exposed -- White ice: reflects some solar input on Earth; Green ground/blue seas: no reflection. As more ice melts, more land and ocean surface are exposed. Meaning increased warming of the water around the ice and increased solar energy input in the region. This equates to exponentially increasing rates of ice melting. Models predicting the rise in ocean levels are all over the place, so it's hard to quote a specific time frame (apparently, the exponential melting is a newish discovery, as scientists had never talked about loss of white means more solar input, which would increase blahblahblah, said it already).
Oh, and... global climate change isn't really predictable, as it's something science has never experienced, so predictions are all over the place based on available data different teams discover. Seems no research team has ALL of the data, so we can't even begin suggesting there is a window of right and wrong predictions. That's all weather predictions tend to be, a few different forecast models compiled together with an average being the prediction to be presented.
So with that in mind, we can't say, oh... well we'll be back to these times, and look how bountiful worldwide crops were at that time! We're all set for success!
Hell, like we need any success. We have too many humans on a single planet as it is. Famine still exists, and damages to crops result in horrible problems. We're really living on the edge. We've set ourselves up for mass problems if any variable is changed. So we've got to accept that millions to billions will likely be effected, and need to die, for humanity to have a chance. Sorry. Morals say otherwise, but morals don't always point in the most logical choices, especially when the survival of a species may be on question.
Yes, I'm exaggerating the problem here, just ranting. Humanity is both gifted and retarded. We actually need something like this to happen so we can wake up and move on with our lives, and expand our presence in the universe. Nothing wrong with that, as if we were created, obviously that's what the creator wants. Why make all this universe for nothing? So we can look at it through a telescope? oooo, pretty... but shit, it's forbidden to ever go there! hushhush
/rant
But moving on, there are chances, that while the climate change induced right now is almost positively something influenced by man, ultimately the Earth is going to control it once it reaches a stable point. Flooded world due to loss of polar ice caps would mean less land, more water, which alone can have an impact. Weather patterns, jet streams, ocean currents... all going to be vastly impacted, and hell, certain currents might just stop dead one day due to introduction of large volumes of fresh water into a salt water system (ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream may require the current ratio of salt to water in the oceans). The plains the central US may just disappear, meaning most of the land that isn't mountainous or a higher-level plateau. So, a bunch of islands and a decent amount of flat-ish land by the Appalachians and Northeast US.
Here are a few examples of land and water over time:
Cambrian period - roughly 500 million years ago
Cretaceous period - roughly 65-145mya
Paleogene period - roughly 23-65mya
See the evolution of land mass, one, due to at different times (many examples skipped in-between these, due to laziness) the plates were slamming into each other to form various super continents, which pushes some land up, and forces some land underneath.
In addition, note the various amounts, or lack of, ice coverage at the poles. And then for comparison, specifically for possible problems we might face in as little time as a few hundred years (I'd say that's the latest we'd see these changes if we don't do anything), look at the Paleogene period and recall the Earth looks like today. Quite a shock, eh? India will be ravaged (a country that could possibly, if left unchanged, could reach up and keep even with China's population growth). Possible close to a billion displaced right there. But to where? Look inland... most of Middle and Eastern Asia is under water. Europe, water logged. Egypt, quite messy. In the US? Loss of multiple massive communities. Think economic times are tough now? We'd probably kill to have only these problems if the Earth looks anything like that in our lifetime, if current population levels and growth are kept in mind.
So, obviously land is constantly changing in regards to Earth's vast history, of which humans are nothing in comparison, and I guess even thinking we'll be able to see our species around in a million years is quite extraordinary.
Just some food for thought. I personally don't care what happens. We are a pretty piss poor species to even let these problems surface on our own soil. Then again, that's intelligence for ya. Only spikes like crazy when the species is on the brink of extinction.
So, honestly, I root for nature to win over mankind. I seriously doubt any of these kinds of problems could wipe out mankind. But it sure as hell would prove to be a massive wake-up call, a very loud alarm that reminds everyone that obviously they are doing something wrong to have a massive population loss. Would be better for our species, instead of simply living as is, cancer, disease, still economically troubled regions that aren't up to the same standard as others... oh, and the fact that we aren't even the dominant species in terms of lifespan. What the hell is up with that?! Creatures living longer than the most intelligent creature on the planet... creatures that don't even have schools! Bullshit!
edit: damn Paleogene period image wouldn't load in the same wiki page, must have been the damn hyphen in the .jpg name
was getting some crazy "<img src>" code in the link... (image
aleogene-eoceneglobal.jpg - versus the other links. something about "image:" bah, whatever, works with the straight image.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Problem 1: Watching Project Earth in the first place
Problem 2: Cost
Problem 3: Logistics of manufacturing these lenses
Problem 4: Getting them into space
Problem 5: Deploying them properly
Problem 6: Getting them to stay there
1 micron thick, yet fired from a coil gun that subjects them to 1000Gs?
Where's this coil gun getting fired from, low-Earth orbit, or the surface?
So this gun is firing away, and it's forming a cloud of these lens things. Then one misfires, and pings into the others, shattering them, and sending debris all over the place, hitting other lenses. What then, start over?
Problem 2: Cost
Problem 3: Logistics of manufacturing these lenses
Problem 4: Getting them into space
Problem 5: Deploying them properly
Problem 6: Getting them to stay there
1 micron thick, yet fired from a coil gun that subjects them to 1000Gs?
Where's this coil gun getting fired from, low-Earth orbit, or the surface?
So this gun is firing away, and it's forming a cloud of these lens things. Then one misfires, and pings into the others, shattering them, and sending debris all over the place, hitting other lenses. What then, start over?
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Eli
Hmm.. well, it would have to have some effect? If some of the energy is being converted into electricity.... ? How could it produce electricity and the same amount of heat?
My point still stands.
Come on Eli, you know better than this.
Think... 2nd law of thermodynamics...
Its not the conversion of solar energy into electricity that produces heat, its the use of the stored electricity later that ends up as heat. The only way around this is to bury all those batteries, to replace all the stored heat we let go in the form of coal and oil.
Wait, what?
I don't understand.
If 1000W/m2 is hitting the Earth, and I install a PV array... Now some of that 1000W/m2 is being used to produce electricity, right? It's not free, right? So how could the net heat gain be the same with or without the PV array there?
Unless I'm not understanding something about heat and light energy?
I understand the latter part of what you're saying, but the energy being stored as electricity doesn't have to be released as heat when it's used, that is going to depend on the efficiency and nature of the device being powered.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
All energy ends up as heat in the last transition.
Read through the 2nd law:
http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/2nd_Law-P2.html
Huh?!?!?!
How can it all be turned into heat? Some of it is being used to produce work other than heat, again, depending on the application. Right?
Going to read it now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter