Earth trapping heat

Do we need to go nuclear, and quickly?

 

That would help, but won’t solve the issue alone.
There is no ‘sliver bullet’.

However, there are a number of partial solutions that will easily add up to tackle the issue.

 

i would like to trap some for this winter

 

sooooooo, stop using energy all together and look for shade ?

I predict 0% of people will do this

 

At first I’d say this is a straw man fallacy, however it is so far out there I think the better classification is a non-sequitur.

 

I’m pretty close to zero energy use in so far as my gas and electric bill is concerned

Lots of people won’t give up a 4000sqft home cooled to 65 and heated to 80 with precision manicured / chemically treated climate destroying ground cover and have Luke warm sub 5 minute showers to get anywhere near that though.

 

nice opinion. but do you have one for the topic of this thread ?

 

humans like nice things, I'll agree about that. I really like heated interiors in the winter and cooled in the summer myself.

given I probably have somewhere between 0-5,500 data left, I'm going to continue to enjoy things like eating meat daily and a comfortable home. I can't knock anyone else for doing the same.

 

If you mean Net Zero energy use, a number of us PruisChat members have already achieved that with our homes, producing enough net-metered solar energy on our rooftops or in community solar project shares to power the entire home. And do so without changing thermostat setting or turning down shower temperatures or other sacrifices. No fossil energy needed.

I haven't (yet) extended this to my personal transportation, but a smaller number of folks already have done so, with their own solar energy powering plug-in vehicles.

There are several more steps to getting one's supply chain weaned off fossil fuels, but these are good starts.

 

way cool!
. we're bathing in energy waste here in our home. trees block the sun, and geothermal won't work (rock), so we're tied to the grid until we don't like being comfortable.

 

We suffer substantial shading from neighbor's trees, and from a rotten winter climate that serves up a painful number of 100% overcast cloudcover days.

But we did it anyway. Those impairments just meant that I had to put up some more panels than people who live in solar-friendly locations.

Some well drillers know how to bore through rock. Though that is usually for ground source heat pumps, which are for energy efficiency, not energy production, and air source is commonly cheaper.

We're tied to the grid too, because our energy production isn't at the same time as our energy consumption. So we need either humongous storage batteries, or to use grid-tied net metering as a giant battery. The later is vastly cheaper and more resource efficient.

It also nice to be on a carbon neutral grid. Not many utilities (in the U.S. at least) have achieved that. But the solar (or other home renewable source) net metering just as useful -- or even more so -- on the many other utilities that are not carbon neutral.

 

Publication behind this discussion:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

(free if you want it)

Here is their 'money shot'


The change in outgoing long-wave radiation strongly resembles marine heat uptake according to TOGA float fleet. 90% of newly thusly trapped heat goes into oceans (consistent with many other ways to understand this situation).

Total increase is 0.5 watts/m2/decade, leaving 0.05 watts/m2/decade to warm troposphere by 0.18 deg C per decade. Aha! a Bob-Wilson steam tables problem may present itself.

One m2 of average troposphere contains about 370 grams of water, almost all in gaseous (vapor) phase. Even in puffy white unto gray clouds, only a tenth of water is liquid droplets that backscatter and absorb light. This, among many other things, we shall ignore here.

Narrow question posed is whether +0.05 watts increases temperature of 370 grams of water vapor by 0.18 deg C? It happened over 10 years (3.16*10^8 seconds), but that cancels out.

I suppose that the other (nitrogen oxygen argon) gaseous heat capacities must be considered, but water has 3 atoms which gives it several more ways to jiggle. Yes, that is middle-school terminology, but the next step up involves techno-words that readers may not even want to hear. Let us ask first what the steam tables show.

 

OT, but no more so than most responses here Those which I also very much enjoy.

Five to 10 years ago I wondered about Mars. Its atmosphere is thin, but it has as much CO2 'in the stack' as Earth's. Much less 'greenhouse' warming happens there, per solar watt. Why ain't it working?

Mar's atmosphere is 95% CO2. Every CO2 molecule sees the same solar heating (jiggle making), but can only transfer kinetic energy to other CO2 getting the same. So net energy transfers are zero. In contrast, Earth's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, which 'can't see' solar watts, but it totally feels the bump from (rare but kinetic) CO2.

This was my aha moment. The always-called-on greenhouse effect is completely context dependent. When James Webb Telescope goes up and looks at planetary atmospheres many light years distant, it might have enough spectroscopy powers to discern if CO2 is a minority gas. Only for some planets can CO2 modify perceived habitable zones and this depends on CO2 being a minority gas.

 

Yeah what’s going on; getting a little toasty on the weekend…

 

And then there's this.

http://www.mic.com/p/its-118-degrees-in-the-arctic-which-sure-seems-bad-81301365

 

“Great White North” in the news:

Google News - Canada records highest temperature ever amid heat wave

Yesterday was punishing hot, and today is supposed to be a degree or two higher. Doing our evening dog walk around 8:30-9:00 to dodge the sun. It hit 41C (108F) here in Coquitlam yesterday.