Causes of climate change

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 05/05/09, 12:44

Christophe wrote:
b) on the other hand, all the fossil energies reject, in addition to the nasty bad CO2 (that one tends to demonize or rather to marketise a little too much for my taste now ...) important quantities of water! Example: 1 L fuel will release about 1 L of water. To burn oil or gas is to transform the oxygen of the atmosphere into CO2 AND H2O! In our usual media blindness, we tend to ignore this water. I think it's a mistake!

Indeed: vapor or water in suspension is a greenhouse gas and a much more important and influential "climate gas" than CO2. The only difference is that water condenses much more easily ... but its impact, at least local, should not be neglected!


Christophe, I think that sometimes you reason a little like a drum! It's not enough to make noise around an idea ...

Sorry, it escaped me! (I have decided elsewhere against shouting, insults, etc. on forums - there, this is humor)

Water (visible - liquid) or gas (invisible) and solid (ice), has always been (well for a very long time) everywhere (except deserts - even there, there is). So, roughly, there is a balance, which also leads to rain, fog and other things you know well in Belgium (saturation at a certain temperature) ...

In short, I think that the “waste” water from the combustion of fossil fuels does not weigh very heavily in terms of the global balance sheet! Of course, I put forests, evapotranspiration of plants, etc ... in the "natural stock" of the globe ... And of course the oceans, ice caps ...

Around a cooling tower (not only nuclear power plants), it will probably fall a few more flakes. And there is probably a little more fog ...

I am convinced that it is peanuts, and not even! Plant a nuclear power plant in the desert, it will remain a desert ...

And if you are looking for a "source of heating other than CO²", I will give you one: all the condensations above the towers, have you already calculated what this gives in terms of latent heat of condensation? It is HENORME (at the scale of the plant - roughly the heat used to evaporate the water so twice the useful power of the plant) and peanuts at the scale of the region (otherwise, we would no longer have winter).

So of course, the greenhouse effect has always existed, otherwise we would be in a sacred freezer on earth! Notably thanks to the water vapor (and clouds, so micro-goutelletes liquid water).

What is worrying is not the greenhouse effect (if not, help!) But the'increase the greenhouse effect!

And here, CO² plays. The stock at the beginning was peanuts and it increases, without condensing anywhere, without possible equilibrium (even if the oceans absorb enormous quantities, the biomass where it is growing too - unfortunately, it tends to diminish: deforestation depletion of soils in humus).

On the other hand, the warming of the earth (initiated by CO² among others), can, in certain areas, result in an increase in evaporations by rising temperatures, and therefore increase the quantity of water vapor in the air. There is therefore a "snowball effect" (except that it is hot). But this also results in more significant condensation elsewhere (therefore flooding). This is the "El Nino" system ...

So, in short, your crusade to "rehabilitate CO²" by "wetting" the water vapor seems difficult to me to support ... We must not take the scientists who study THAT for idiots ... Of course, they are subject fashion effects (to obtain funds), etc ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 05/05/09, 13:35

Did67 wrote:Around a cooling tower (not only nuclear power plants), it will probably fall a few more flakes. And there is probably a little more fog ...


Well, I did not say it was more than that ... but no one really talks about water discharges that have an influence, as you just said, on local climates ... See the example of schilickoises breweries!

Did67 wrote:I am convinced that it is peanuts, and not even! Plant a nuclear power plant in the desert, it will remain a desert ...


It's coming back to me now: I asked Jancovici years ago, I think he said it was about 0.05% of the evaporation capacity of the oceans. We could very well redo the calculation ...

Did67 wrote:And here, CO² plays. The stock at the beginning was peanuts and it increases, without condensing anywhere, without possible equilibrium (even if the oceans absorb enormous quantities, the biomass where it is growing too - unfortunately, it tends to diminish: deforestation depletion of soils in humus).


If the CO2 ends up "condensing": its average lifespan is 120 years (2 weeks for water). What worries me is the runaway warming ...

Did67 wrote:On the other hand, the warming of the earth (initiated by CO² among others), can, in certain areas, result in an increase in evaporations by rising temperatures, and therefore increase the quantity of water vapor in the air. There is therefore a "snowball effect" (except that it is hot). But this also results in more significant condensation elsewhere (therefore flooding). This is the "El Nino" system ...


Ben here we agree.

Did67 wrote:So, in short, your crusade to "rehabilitate CO²" by "wetting" the water vapor seems difficult to me to support ... We must not take the scientists who study THAT for idiots ... Of course, they are subject fashion effects (to obtain funds), etc ...


Hey you're confusing, I never said he was innocent CO2 !!

I simply said that it is a little too present and too "merchandised" and that it can hide other problems... Example par excellence: nuclear power in France does not emit (or very little) CO2, it is therefore becoming "clean" for many people. Is it really clean?

Ditto with the boxes: a car that emits less than 105 gr of CO2, hoplà it is "clean" ... whatever!

We will see what gives this little experience: https://www.econologie.com/forums/simulation ... t7552.html

If not ventures, I invite you to follow this reasoning to show the aberration of your method which consists in neglecting the solar contributions!

a) Takes a detached house in Alsace which has 2000 m² of garden.

b) The 5 inhabitants of this house consume 4000L of oil (fuel + fuel) per year, ie 40 000 kWh

c) This house will receive sunshine 2000 * 1200 solar kWh (this is the Alsatian radiation per m² at ground level) is the equivalent of 2 400 000 kWh and the equivalent of 240 000 L oil (10 kWh per L)

d) Comparisons 4000 and 240 000!

e) Think that private gardens are only a very very small% of the Earth's surface and you will get an idea of ​​the relationship between solar energy and fossil origin ...

I hope that this will be enough for you to convince you that thermally the rejections of the fossil energies are PEANUTS compared to the contributions on Earth of the SUN !!!
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 05/05/09, 14:40

Christophe wrote:
Hey you're confusing, I never said he was innocent CO2 !!

I simply said that it is a little too present and too "merchandised" and that it can hide other problems... Example par excellence: nuclear power in France does not emit (or very little) CO2, it is therefore becoming "clean" for many people. Is it really clean?

Ditto with the boxes: a car that emits less than 105 gr of CO2, hoplà it is "clean" ... whatever!


OKAY.

- on nuclear, I follow you (from the verb "follow") 100%

- on CO², only at 50% (because if water vapor plays a role, CO² reduction goes hand in hand with that of CO²); OK, the clean car remains a utopia; however, we are progressing ...

- nuclear energy, its dangers, its waste: yes; that it is not enough to emit a little less CO² to be "green": yes also. But I come back to the beginning: you were gone on the water vapour to "counter" the fact that CO² is being "too much" today; with H²O, I think you were on the wrong track.

And then all the same, I would say "so much the better" (because of all that that implies: less fossil energy, less deforestation, more insulation, less agitation in the sense of meaningless transport ...
Last edited by Did67 the 05 / 05 / 09, 15: 09, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 05/05/09, 14:45

It was not a question of countering but not to neglect the water and not to overdo it on the CO2 ... sorry I am surely poorly expressed.

Have you read the little experience I would like to do (you can also do it elsewhere): https://www.econologie.com/forums/simulation ... t7552.html

By the way this topic should also interest you very much (solar energy storage in hydrogenated fats): https://www.econologie.com/forums/stocker-de ... t7421.html
0 x
venturs
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 6
Registration: 05/05/09, 06:24




by venturs » 05/05/09, 18:13

To return to our energy consumption:

Let's make the assumption that the average temperature of the atmosphere would have hardly changed these 100 last years if the man had not existed.

That is to say that over a very short time at the scale of the Earth, a century, natural phenomena have not changed the average temperature of the atmosphere and that the global warming of these last 100 is due to the man.

This means that the thermal balance of the atmosphere would have been almost zero over this period of 100 years. (still without human influence)

If now, we add the heat dissipation due to our energy consumption. The thermal balance becomes positive.

It follows a warming. This warming may be negligible in the face of the increase in the greenhouse effect.


To verify this, the calculation is very simple, it is a question of calculating the increase of the temperature of the atmosphere starting from the heat dissipation of the energy which we consume:

ΔT = Q / (MC)

Q = energy consumed
M = mass of the atmosphere = 5,13.10 ^ 18 kg
C = heat capacity of the air = 1000 J.kg ^ (- 1) .K ^ (- 1)

In the year 2000, 4,22.10 ^ 20 J of primary energy was consumed.
If only 20% of this energy goes directly into the atmosphere, we find that ΔT = 0,0165 ° c

Now, between 1995 and 2005, the average temperature of the atmosphere has increased by about 0,2 ° c.
About 0,02 ° C per year during this period.

The difference is less than 18%.

Detailed results are here, year by year:

climate change

What do you think ?
Last edited by venturs the 11 / 05 / 09, 21: 28, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 05/05/09, 18:22

Image

I always think about it ... you refuse to take into account the NIGHT LOSSES and SOLAR CONTRIBUTIONS of the Earth in your calculations ... and that your calculation comes "by a happy coincidence" (thanks to the 20% that you take out of the hat for example) to the weather readings ...

Read my example on the Alsatian garden a little higher ...
I repeat the conclusion:

I hope that this will be enough for you to convince you that thermally the rejections of the fossil energies are PEANUTS compared to the contributions on Earth of the SUN !!!


And stp do not tell me: ah, but the solar gains are evacuated in space at night so the record on 24h is zero ... otherwise I fuck you !! : Mrgreen:

Hey Maloche and Remundo and the others ... help me please, I'm starting to have trouble here ... :D

Ah the ingested all the same !!

: Cheesy:
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 10/04/12, 02:47

highflyaddict wrote:Hold ! http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/climatologie-1/d/le-co2-aurait-bien-mis-fin-au-dernier-acentge-de-glace_37995/.

A big stick in the wheels of the deniers of global warming of anthropic origin!


The Nature article is very important because huge US, Chinese and French work, all over the globe in 80 locations, measurements in ice and sediment on past 22000 temperatures and past CO2 values, which does not is not a simulation, but shows the past reality, that the average temperature of the globe followed the CO2 and especially that the T of the northern hemisphere was very late on the CO2 and the global T, warmed well before melt the ice cap north.
So it is proved by this past experience that the CO2 released by a first local warming, triggered a global warming of the whole earth, which released even more CO2, which then melted with thousands of years of delay, the ice cap in the north. With these ice caps, the climate of the earth is very unstable.

This scientific article is so important that I put on econology with figures.
It is to read with great care, because he has measured the climatic reality of the deglaciation on the 22000 years spent on all the earth, and conditions all our future, with the current CO2 that will melt still a lot of ice caps, about 20 m of rising sea, with the current CO2 and much more if we continue to make it mount this CO2 !!

https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... XYam3n.pdf

Image
Image
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 116 guests