FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
What is really warming the Earth?

What is really warming the Earth?

(6:03) It's hard to argue that Earth isn't heating up, but what is really causing the temperature rise? youtube.com/user/ItsOkayToBeSmart

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (687 days ago)

He goes back a hundred or so years for temperature but 130,000 thousands for CO2 and 1000 for solar, and 12 and 41 thousand for orbits and wobbles..

Truth is volcanoes had the atmosphere with 20% CO2 or so and no oxygen millions of years ago, oxygen was produced as a waste product (photosynthesis) by plant life and CO2 was reduced to the miniscule 0.04% it currently is. The oxygen waste products of the plants has allowed animal life to thrive, (except for the occasional meteor impact).

We know we are in an Ice Age and that at some time we will revert to Earth's more normal hotted temperatures.

Let us hope that charging up all those smart phones every night does not tip us over the edge.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

He goes back a hundred or so years for temperature but 130,000 thousands for CO2 and 1000 for solar, and 12 and 41 thousand for orbits and wobbles..

Truth is volcanoes had the atmosphere with 20% CO2 or so and no oxygen millions of years ago, oxygen was produced as a waste product (photosynthesis) by plant life and CO2 was reduced to the miniscule 0.04% it currently is. The oxygen waste products of the plants has allowed animal life to thrive, (except for the occasional meteor impact).

We know we are in an Ice Age and that at some time we will revert to Earth's more normal hotted temperatures.

Let us hope that charging up all those smart phones every night does not tip us over the edge.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Montio Montio (687 days ago)

Earth is warming and we blame the greenhouse gases (a.o.) that are produced by burning fossil fuels but never did I see or hear anything about the heat that is thus produced.

A burning candle put underneath a pot of water, however insignificant the small flame may seem compared to the mass of water, will eventually make the temperature of the water rise.

All the heat we produce by burning coal for electricity, oil for transportation and oil and gas for heating, to name a few of the fossil fuel burning processes, must surely play a role in this process of warming . Big electricity plants need cooling towers, (car)engines get hot and need to be cooled by surrounding air and the heat produced to warm your house leaks outside so you need to heat some more. The quantities of fuel burned are huge, and therefor the heat that is produced must be considerable as well.

It is not quite my field so I don’t think I’m the person to try to quantify this,but maybe someone else could ?

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Earth is warming and we blame the greenhouse gases (a.o.) that are produced by burning fossil fuels but never did I see or hear anything about the heat that is thus produced.

A burning candle put underneath a pot of water, however insignificant the small flame may seem compared to the mass of water, will eventually make the temperature of the water rise.

All the heat we produce by burning coal for electricity, oil for transportation and oil and gas for heating, to name a few of the fossil fuel burning processes, must surely play a role in this process of warming . Big electricity plants need cooling towers, (car)engines get hot and need to be cooled by surrounding air and the heat produced to warm your house leaks outside so you need to heat some more. The quantities of fuel burned are huge, and therefor the heat that is produced must be considerable as well.

It is not quite my field so I don’t think I’m the person to try to quantify this,but maybe someone else could ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (687 days ago)

"A burning candle put underneath a pot of water, however insignificant the small flame may seem compared to the mass of water, will eventually make the temperature of the water rise." Not necessarily. It depends on the quantity of water and the material of what the pot is made of. We know the flame cannot exist without oxygen so there must be air in the general area and the air can cool the pot. The more water, the less likely you will see any warming from the candle. A 20 square inch 1/8" aluminum heat sink can dissapate 4 degrees C of heat. A candle may not get a large pot of water 4 degrees hotter. People use water to cool their car engines and computers. It's a good conductor of heat.

"Big electricity plants need cooling towers, (car)engines get hot and need to be cooled by surrounding air and the heat produced to warm your house leaks outside so you need to heat some more." Are you somehow trying to say that once the heat is created, it never goes anywhere and compounds? So infrared radiation cannot escape the planet, ever?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

"A burning candle put underneath a pot of water, however insignificant the small flame may seem compared to the mass of water, will eventually make the temperature of the water rise." Not necessarily. It depends on the quantity of water and the material of what the pot is made of. We know the flame cannot exist without oxygen so there must be air in the general area and the air can cool the pot. The more water, the less likely you will see any warming from the candle. A 20 square inch 1/8" aluminum heat sink can dissapate 4 degrees C of heat. A candle may not get a large pot of water 4 degrees hotter. People use water to cool their car engines and computers. It's a good conductor of heat.

"Big electricity plants need cooling towers, (car)engines get hot and need to be cooled by surrounding air and the heat produced to warm your house leaks outside so you need to heat some more." Are you somehow trying to say that once the heat is created, it never goes anywhere and compounds? So infrared radiation cannot escape the planet, ever?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Montio Montio (686 days ago)

What I meant to say with the pot of water and the candle is that the heat of the flame has to go somewhere. If as you say the surrounding air cools the pot before the water heats up then the warmth has gone into the surrounding air and has created a rise of temperature there.

Same goes for your heatsink. I know they work great, but all they do is transport the heat from where you don't want it (cpu ?) to somewhere else. the heatsink gives off the heat taken from the source (cpu ?) and dissipates it to , again, the surrounding air, which in the end will make the room warmer.

You say people use water to cool car engines (and computers) . Have you ever noticed the radiator on a car ? It is a device through which hot/warm water runs in order to be cooled by passing air. So again you warm up the air surrounding the machine/engine in which you burn your fossil fuel.

You ask me if I'm trying to say that once heat is created is never goes anywhere. Part may escape in the form of radiation, provided it is not trapped by greenhouse gases.

I said I would like to know what could be the influence of the burniong of fossil fuels on the rise of global temperature.

Try to imagine how much gasoline/diesel is burned every day in internal combustion engines. Set it off in one go and it would even scare Red Adair.

A 747 (or similar plane) needs well over 100 tonnes of fuel for an 8 hour flight. On major airports one takes off every 3 minutes or so.

Think of sea transport and the vast quantities of fuel that is burned there.

These last two you rarely see in the charts and graphs. probably because we depend too much on them and it is easier to blame and tax carowners, but add that to sea of fuel used by cars and you must surely agree with me that a lot of heat is created that was not created roughly 150 years ago, when it was only the sun and the odd vulcano-eruption that warmed our planet

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

What I meant to say with the pot of water and the candle is that the heat of the flame has to go somewhere. If as you say the surrounding air cools the pot before the water heats up then the warmth has gone into the surrounding air and has created a rise of temperature there.

Same goes for your heatsink. I know they work great, but all they do is transport the heat from where you don't want it (cpu ?) to somewhere else. the heatsink gives off the heat taken from the source (cpu ?) and dissipates it to , again, the surrounding air, which in the end will make the room warmer.

You say people use water to cool car engines (and computers) . Have you ever noticed the radiator on a car ? It is a device through which hot/warm water runs in order to be cooled by passing air. So again you warm up the air surrounding the machine/engine in which you burn your fossil fuel.

You ask me if I'm trying to say that once heat is created is never goes anywhere. Part may escape in the form of radiation, provided it is not trapped by greenhouse gases.

I said I would like to know what could be the influence of the burniong of fossil fuels on the rise of global temperature.

Try to imagine how much gasoline/diesel is burned every day in internal combustion engines. Set it off in one go and it would even scare Red Adair.

A 747 (or similar plane) needs well over 100 tonnes of fuel for an 8 hour flight. On major airports one takes off every 3 minutes or so.

Think of sea transport and the vast quantities of fuel that is burned there.

These last two you rarely see in the charts and graphs. probably because we depend too much on them and it is easier to blame and tax carowners, but add that to sea of fuel used by cars and you must surely agree with me that a lot of heat is created that was not created roughly 150 years ago, when it was only the sun and the odd vulcano-eruption that warmed our planet

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (686 days ago)

"Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation" LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

"Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation" LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (686 days ago)

That stat is a bit misleading. Sure cattle rearing emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases - as well as methane from cow farts, the stat includes transportation, land lost to growing cattle feed, refridgeration etc.

If in transportation you included land lost to roads and airports, and emissions when building the cars, ships, planes and infrastructure, then cattle rearing may not look so bad.

Bottom line, we are dangerously changing the composition of the atmosphere, so reducing emissions anywhere helps. After all, wherever the greenhouse gases come from, they end up in the same atmosphere.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

That stat is a bit misleading. Sure cattle rearing emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases - as well as methane from cow farts, the stat includes transportation, land lost to growing cattle feed, refridgeration etc.

If in transportation you included land lost to roads and airports, and emissions when building the cars, ships, planes and infrastructure, then cattle rearing may not look so bad.

Bottom line, we are dangerously changing the composition of the atmosphere, so reducing emissions anywhere helps. After all, wherever the greenhouse gases come from, they end up in the same atmosphere.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (686 days ago)

It would be easier to convert the country to vegetarian than it would be to remove all the tranportation methods combined. Most of the people in India are vegetarians so it's definitely possible.

There is no need to eat meat but there is a need for transportation.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

It would be easier to convert the country to vegetarian than it would be to remove all the tranportation methods combined. Most of the people in India are vegetarians so it's definitely possible.

There is no need to eat meat but there is a need for transportation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (686 days ago)

I saw the documentary/propaganda piece Earthlings a while back. Since then I have been thinking a bit about these things.

Ruminants transforms high cellulose plant material into nutrition which can be utilized by people. Grazing ruminants must be the most efficient and economical way for us to harvest energy from a major part of the carbon cycle which would otherwise be unavailable to us. I think this is a good thing. (And in the absence of cattle, nature would surely fill the niche by other ruminants discharging comparable amounts of methane.)

However, if you refer to the factory style livestock operations where the cows are fed soy and grain (already human nutrition) I tend to agree with you. This cannot be sustainable in the long haul.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

I saw the documentary/propaganda piece Earthlings a while back. Since then I have been thinking a bit about these things.

Ruminants transforms high cellulose plant material into nutrition which can be utilized by people. Grazing ruminants must be the most efficient and economical way for us to harvest energy from a major part of the carbon cycle which would otherwise be unavailable to us. I think this is a good thing. (And in the absence of cattle, nature would surely fill the niche by other ruminants discharging comparable amounts of methane.)

However, if you refer to the factory style livestock operations where the cows are fed soy and grain (already human nutrition) I tend to agree with you. This cannot be sustainable in the long haul.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (685 days ago)

I think lab-grown meat is the future for meat eaters. That is meat grown from stem cells in a lab rather than growing the whole animal, keeping it alive in appalling conditions, pumping it with god-knows-what, and cutting down forest to grow animal feed. Lab-grown meat is not cruel, healthier and will have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Electric is obviously the future for transport, we just have to make our electricity cleanly. The Koch brothers have made enough money, it's time for them and their ilk to retire.

The challenge, and it's a huge challenge, is scale and urgency - can we make the necessary changes before we all boil to death. Put it this way, although many people suffer, we (humans) can survive any economic crash however bad. As a species, we can probably also survive global nuclear war. But runaway global warming that turns Earth into Venus, that's a different kettle of fish. Remember fish, those things that used to swim in the oceans - when the oceans were water, not carbonic acid.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

I think lab-grown meat is the future for meat eaters. That is meat grown from stem cells in a lab rather than growing the whole animal, keeping it alive in appalling conditions, pumping it with god-knows-what, and cutting down forest to grow animal feed. Lab-grown meat is not cruel, healthier and will have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Electric is obviously the future for transport, we just have to make our electricity cleanly. The Koch brothers have made enough money, it's time for them and their ilk to retire.

The challenge, and it's a huge challenge, is scale and urgency - can we make the necessary changes before we all boil to death. Put it this way, although many people suffer, we (humans) can survive any economic crash however bad. As a species, we can probably also survive global nuclear war. But runaway global warming that turns Earth into Venus, that's a different kettle of fish. Remember fish, those things that used to swim in the oceans - when the oceans were water, not carbonic acid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (686 days ago)

I am no scientist, but I'll offer my two cents in the matter. Energy coming in to earth and energy escaping earth is in equilibrium. Thus when heat is produced on earth (e.g. through burning fossile fuels), the heat radiated from earth will increase proportionally and the net temperature increase will be negligible. The anthropogenic climate gasses in the atmosphere on the other hand, adds another layer of insulation around the earth. This shifts the equilibrium towards higher overall temperatures. This is what's known as global warming or climate change.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

I am no scientist, but I'll offer my two cents in the matter. Energy coming in to earth and energy escaping earth is in equilibrium. Thus when heat is produced on earth (e.g. through burning fossile fuels), the heat radiated from earth will increase proportionally and the net temperature increase will be negligible. The anthropogenic climate gasses in the atmosphere on the other hand, adds another layer of insulation around the earth. This shifts the equilibrium towards higher overall temperatures. This is what's known as global warming or climate change.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (686 days ago)

Well put. Worth much more than 2 cents.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Well put. Worth much more than 2 cents.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (687 days ago)

That's an interesting point I haven't heard before. Just to clarify, I think you are asking how much of the rise in temperature is from the heat we create, ie. car engines, smelting steel, heating homes, cooking etc.

I'm not sure if this works, but see what you think. Apparently, 1 hour of the sun's energy is enough to power all our needs globally for 1 year. Assuming that is true, then the heat that we create in 1 year, can't be more than 1 hour's worth of sun. Does that make sense, or is it flawed logic?

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

That's an interesting point I haven't heard before. Just to clarify, I think you are asking how much of the rise in temperature is from the heat we create, ie. car engines, smelting steel, heating homes, cooking etc.

I'm not sure if this works, but see what you think. Apparently, 1 hour of the sun's energy is enough to power all our needs globally for 1 year. Assuming that is true, then the heat that we create in 1 year, can't be more than 1 hour's worth of sun. Does that make sense, or is it flawed logic?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (687 days ago)

As usual, flawed logic. True it cannot be more than 1 hour's worth of sun. But not all energy is used to heat things. You can have energy from the hoover dam used to charge an electric car. Not all of that energy is converted to heat.

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

As usual, flawed logic. True it cannot be more than 1 hour's worth of sun. But not all energy is used to heat things. You can have energy from the hoover dam used to charge an electric car. Not all of that energy is converted to heat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (687 days ago)

You agree with me and then you say it's flawed logic. I'm confused.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

You agree with me and then you say it's flawed logic. I'm confused.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thermodynamics (686 days ago)

Yes it is all ultimately converted to heat, that's thermodynamics. And yes it is negligible compared with the Sun's heat.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Yes it is all ultimately converted to heat, that's thermodynamics. And yes it is negligible compared with the Sun's heat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (686 days ago)

Not sure that's accurate. The first law of thermodynamics explains that energy can be converted into the same amount of heat or work. It can be either and you can exchange heat into work and vice versa.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Not sure that's accurate. The first law of thermodynamics explains that energy can be converted into the same amount of heat or work. It can be either and you can exchange heat into work and vice versa.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thermodynamics (685 days ago)

Yes heat can be converted to work too, but each conversion has inevitable inefficiency that leads to heat being emitted. In the long term all the energy ends up as heat. OK we maybe store some energy eg in the form of charged batteries or water pumped uphill, but eventually when the battery is discharged or the water flows down, it returns to heat in a form which could not even in principle be used to completely recharge the battery or pump the water up again. (This is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics).

Not that this is relevant to the main point, which is that even if we stored none of the energy which our economy uses, the heat equivalent would still have a negligible effect on global temperatures compared with the heat from the Sun.

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

Yes heat can be converted to work too, but each conversion has inevitable inefficiency that leads to heat being emitted. In the long term all the energy ends up as heat. OK we maybe store some energy eg in the form of charged batteries or water pumped uphill, but eventually when the battery is discharged or the water flows down, it returns to heat in a form which could not even in principle be used to completely recharge the battery or pump the water up again. (This is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics).

Not that this is relevant to the main point, which is that even if we stored none of the energy which our economy uses, the heat equivalent would still have a negligible effect on global temperatures compared with the heat from the Sun.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (685 days ago)

Don't know what you're talking about with the 2nd law. It has nothing to do with loss in conversion from heat to work or work to heat or anything to do with not completely recharging batteries.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process."

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

Don't know what you're talking about with the 2nd law. It has nothing to do with loss in conversion from heat to work or work to heat or anything to do with not completely recharging batteries.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (684 days ago)

So you take your electric car and charge it with electricity from the Hoover Dam like you said. On Friday afternoon you bring your wife and your cat along, and drive your car to a mountain lodge for the weekend. When you return to your drive way Sunday night your car battery is empty. Where is the energy now smarty-pants?

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

So you take your electric car and charge it with electricity from the Hoover Dam like you said. On Friday afternoon you bring your wife and your cat along, and drive your car to a mountain lodge for the weekend. When you return to your drive way Sunday night your car battery is empty. Where is the energy now smarty-pants?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (684 days ago)

The energy was converted into work.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

The energy was converted into work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (684 days ago)
Latest comment:

And what happened to the work? There is no mass in motion now.

ReplyVote up (82)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

And what happened to the work? There is no mass in motion now.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Not Forgotten (686 days ago)

Roar for cecil the lion

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

Roar for cecil the lion

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Science of Thinking
The Science of Thinking
Veritasium - Your amazing molecular machines
Veritasium - Your amazing molecular machines
It's Okay To Be Smart - A brief history of time
It's Okay To Be Smart - A brief history of time
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
It's Okay To Be Smart - Doomsday Machines
It's Okay To Be Smart - Doomsday Machines