Waste Heat

[caroline!]

Sorry to break it to ya but we're all dead. This we call life is a perpetual reminiscense floating in the ether of universe. We all died in 2020.

 

[the54thvoid]

Comprehension failure. Yes, her comment was silly, but the timeline for extinction isn't five years, the reasoning (poor as it is) was if we don't stop using fossil fuels in five years, (in the future) we will face extinction.

Inaccurate statement, but then used as counter proof in a poor counter argument.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Sorry to break it to ya but we're all dead. This we call life is a perpetual reminiscense floating in the ether of universe. We all died in 2020.

View attachment 303873

You know what the argument is though, right?

That the increasing heat will tip a point where polar-ice begins to melt. The melting ice will cause permafrost regions to become dry (rather than wet), causing them to release CO2 en-masse. Its... not 100% unbelievable, but its an interesting theory.

When we look at the wildfires this year in Canada, a lot of it is in this (what should have been very wet / permafrost) regions near the polar ice caps. Why have those areas gotten so hot and dried out this year?

--------------

Under this "doomsday theory", which btw I don't 100% believe in but lets at least try to see where they're coming from... we're on an unsustainable path because the CO2 emissions will cause polar-ice to melt, causing dryer conditions, causing more CO2 to be released, causing more polar ice to melt, causing more CO2 to be released. The wildfires and smoke all across North America is unfortunately, evidence, towards this theory.

I don't know if I believe that this "cannot be reversed". But its clear that Canada has never caught on fire to this crazy extent before. Its worth studying / trying to understand what the change in climate has done to the polar-ice regions of the world. We know that Siberia / Russia has caught on fire last year, we see Canada catching on fire, etc. etc. Is this the new norm? Is there any reason why you can tell me that this won't be a problem in 2024? Are fires in these icy areas supposed to be this numerous? Or should we seriously be thinking about "a new world" that we live in, now that we're crossing over these temperature thresholds?

Crazy wildfires in California are understandable. What bothers me about this year are the wildfires in new areas that haven't really happened to this size / extent before.

 

[Dr. Dro]

The truth is that if we want to be completely inoffensive to the ecology and mother nature as a whole, we would have to regress back to a nomadic, paleolithic lifestyle. Doomsday theories about mankind destroying the planet work like any other logical fallacy, by having trace amounts of truth to exploit the guillibility of the audience.

Large-scale urbanization has been far worse than arguably, even industry to the planet. It's the stone jungle, for more reasons than one.

 

[mechtech]

Waste heat..................pretty much any use of energy gives off waste heat. I think a person is about ~100W..............do the math on that for earth's population!!

All thermodynamic cycles dump a lot of waste heat, Rankin, Brayton, Carnot, etc...........

Sun gives off lots of waste heat as well

As for waste heat, and CO2, those should be lower on the list of "uh-ohs" I think garbage, toxic waste, toxic pollution, chemicals in the air, water, ground, food, radioactive waste, heavy metals, synthetic food additives, etc. I would reason should be higher on the list of "uh-ohs" that should be addressed.

 

[Bones]

Sorry to break it to ya but we're all dead. This we call life is a perpetual reminiscense floating in the ether of universe. We all died in 2020.

View attachment 303873

Let's bookmark this one and check back in 5 years.
I mean where are the cities today that were predicted in 2000 to be going to be under water in 20 years from all the glacial melt from things being warmer?

How about the 90's? -80's?
Or even the 70's when it was said BY the year 2000 they'd be under from it all?
For reference, NYC being the subject city this was stated about in the 70's.

It just keeps getting said over and over again, same crap being spewed with a different, extended target date but it never happens.
All these cities (Like NYC) look like they're all still swimming just fine with regard to the sea itself.

It's the same thing about "When" we'd face extinction and this time she's claiming it's just 5 years from now unless we do "Something", which happens to be something they want us all to do because they, as in them being a very small minority don't like whatever they are against......
Which makes it all a full load of some freshly dropped and stirred bullshit.

This has also been said many times before and the target (Death) date just keeps moving along like we do into the future.
I've been hearing all this for the past 50 years and not one single example has even come close to reality, much less being real.

Now - No one is actually denying that changes do in average temps, glacial meltoff and all that because it happens - Has before and will again but we (As in "Us") probrably will never see the other end of it from where we are today.
Nature behaves alot like a pendulum because it's always going to one side, then the other and history has a long factual record of it.

 

[dragontamer5788]

The truth is that if we want to be completely inoffensive to the ecology and mother nature as a whole, we would have to regress back to a nomadic, paleolithic lifestyle. Doomsday theories about mankind destroying the planet work like any other logical fallacy, by having trace amounts of truth to exploit the guillibility of the audience.

Large-scale urbanization has been far worse than arguably, even industry to the planet. It's the stone jungle, for more reasons than one.

The opposite.

Staying on topic here: cities like New York City can capture waste-heat from power plants and use them for heating in the winter, or cooling (yes, refrigeration powered by waste heat) in the summer. Rural / decentralized lifestyle will only hamper us.

I mean where are the cities today that were predicted in 2000 to be going to be under water in 20 years from all the glacial melt from things being warmer?

So someone made a bad argument 30 years ago and you just want to beat the bad argument from 30 years ago, rather than the evidence that's coming out today?

Please, talk about the wildfires in Canada this year. Talk about the Siberian wildfires of 2020. Is this "natural" to you? We have new evidence, new things happening to earth. Things that have literally never happened in all of written history that seems to be equating to yes, a warmer world.

Now I don't know if that means we're actually going to all go extinct or whatever. I find that unlikely. But if it means more code-purple days in my city as we choke on Canada's wildfires, maybe that's something I'm still interested in?

 

[mechtech]

You know what the argument is though, right?

That the increasing heat will tip a point where polar-ice begins to melt. The melting ice will cause permafrost regions to become dry (rather than wet), causing them to release CO2 en-masse. Its... not 100% unbelievable, but its an interesting theory.

View attachment 303880

When we look at the wildfires this year in Canada, a lot of it is in this (what should have been very wet / permafrost) regions near the polar ice caps. Why have those areas gotten so hot and dried out this year?

Where there is perma frost there is no trees. Nothing grows on permafrost except moss and crap.

Look up a map of the tree line for north america. It's basically the perma frost line.

As for the heat/lack of rain this year, part of it is probably elnino. As for the fires, most are probably human error.

edit

 

[dragontamer5788]

Look up a map of the tree line for north america. It's basically the perma frost line.

The tree line that's moving north every year due to a warmer climate and retreating permafrost region?

Like what are you trying to talk about? My point is that the permafrost region is provably shrinking, and is starting to catch on fire. I know exactly what permafrost is thank you very much. That's why I'm pointing out its movement.

 

[Dr. Dro]

The opposite.

Staying on topic here: cities like New York City can capture waste-heat from power plants and use them for heating in the winter, or cooling (yes, refrigeration powered by waste heat) in the summer. Rural / decentralized lifestyle will only hamper us.

Yes, but we're in a context here where an urbanized environment already exists, my point was to have a true zero-footprint in the natural balance, we would have to live like any other lifeform, contrary to human ability to master the elements and bend them to our will. Knowing of our unique ability, we must do all within our power for a responsible use of the elements, but by merely being humans, we will certainly alter the course of things. Pollution, greenhouse gases, waste heat, toxic waste, etc. - are by large products of the human hand, and the tech industry is one of those who are at highest fault for it.

Have you ever watched Koyaanisqatsi? It's a cult movie that has given me much food for thought over the years.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I read a Google search is like boiling a kettle.

I don't think all the problems lye where exactly people Say they lie.

You ask Google what's using all the power, Google isn't going to be in that list, for example.

I don't think civilization has to go back to the dark age.

We ARe Humans, we adopted into this shit we will dopt through it as will the earth, scaling is probably the only variable IE we might in decades get down to 50 million
That last bits a joke.

But I still think we should be optimising HEAT use, IE recapture.

Design Pc's to run hot and heat rooms if required, shit Nvidia is Game so. Are AMD and Intel in they're way.

 

[tabascosauz]

Please, talk about the wildfires in Canada this year. Talk about the Siberian wildfires of 2020. Is this "natural" to you? We have new evidence, new things happening to earth. Things that have literally never happened in all of written history that seems to be equating to yes, a warmer world.

I don't know what exactly you think Canada is, but the most permafrost you'll get out of the affected fire region is sporadic patches of it. There's not a lot of real permafrost outside of the northern 3 territories.

It's a pretty bad fire year, and yes the fires do have an effect of encouraging permafrost to release a lot more CO2, but I like how you Americans only ever notice when the smoke drifts over there, lol. And then all of a sudden y'all proclaiming the end of the world. This is every summer or every other summer for us, I'm just not sure what those bozos in the eastern provinces did to themselves this year

 

[mechtech]

The tree line that's moving north every year due to a warmer climate and retreating permafrost region?

Like what are you trying to talk about? My point is that the permafrost region is provably shrinking, and is starting to catch on fire. I know exactly what permafrost is thank you very much. That's why I'm pointing out its movement.

And that's fine and true, however due to the short summers etc. a 20ft tall tree in that region is probably 100 years old. My point was if you look at the forest fire map, there isn't any fires in the permafrost region cause there is no trees there to burn. I've been there, it's swamp, muskeg and rock.

 

[Bones]

The opposite.

Staying on topic here: cities like New York City can capture waste-heat from power plants and use them for heating in the winter, or cooling (yes, refrigeration powered by waste heat) in the summer. Rural / decentralized lifestyle will only hamper us.



So someone made a bad argument 30 years ago and you just want to beat the bad argument from 30 years ago, rather than the evidence that's coming out today?

Please, talk about the wildfires in Canada this year. Talk about the Siberian wildfires of 2020. Is this "natural" to you? We have new evidence, new things happening to earth. Things that have literally never happened in all of written history that seems to be equating to yes, a warmer world.

Now I don't know if that means we're actually going to all go extinct or whatever. I find that unlikely. But if it means more code-purple days in my city as we choke on Canada's wildfires, maybe that's something I'm still interested in?

Not "A" bad arguement - I mean all of them at least from the 1920's onward.
Well, we're still here right?

Every few years the cycle of these predictions repeats with the same results..... Everytime.

Waste heat is a problem but it's not as big of a problem as it's made out to be and I'll say again these changes are indeed happening, just not in the ways they are being presented or with the doomsday consequenses stated.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Well, we're still here right?

At much higher temperatures. As I stated earlier, I don't believe in the "we're going extinct" kind of global warming.

I believe in the "Look, its fucking hot outside and our temperatures have exceeded the world record temperature for 5 days in a row, literally this week" and I'm concerned about how uncomfortable its getting kind of global warming. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html

We're literally the hottest its ever been recorded in all of recorded history this past week. And you're... trying to pretend that we're not getting warmer? Siberia was on fire. Canada is on fire. Smoke from those wildfires was literally blocking out the sun as I look towards the horizon. Yeah, I'm going to be concerned. I can visibly see the effects of this "global warming" theory right now and feel it in the heat.

Like... we have thermometers. We know how to measure temperature and have done so for centuries. And other indirect measures of temperature (ex: folk tales about ice bridges in Japan, etc. etc.) have been passed down for millenia. We have indirect means of measuring the temperature across recorded history (though it gets less scientific as we reach back in time). We actually have a pretty good idea of how hot things are _supposed_ to be under normal circumstances.

 

[freeagent]

The world is warming up, but I doubt its from fossil fuels, or anything that we have done.

 

[the54thvoid]

Your doubts don't change the statistical evidence. Thankfully, all of us here will be dead before things get far worse.

There's a bucket load of data from NASA, Govt scientists, and other verifiable sources that correlate greatly increased global warming with industrialisation.

No, we'll not go extinct, but life is already changing. Humans are short-term creatures driven by comfort. Thinking about the world in a century is beyond most of us.

 

[dragontamer5788]

The world is warming up, but I doubt its from fossil fuels, or anything that we have done.

As a modern world, we've increased background radiation with our nuclear weapons (to the point that we could measure the radiation on all steel made after 1940: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel), destroyed the Ozone layer... and then restored it.

We've caused global-events that have shifted climates, increased radiation and changed the planet-scale ecosystem. And do so on a regular basis. What's so hard to believe about changing CO2 values to the point that climate has changed?

No different than our application of CFCs destroying the Ozone layer (and watching the Ozone layer repair itself after we banned those materials). We can do plenty of things that change the planet, even as just a country (let alone as a collection of countries).

---------------

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason why CO2 cannot be blamed is because maybe methane is the bigger contributor to global warming, and our release of methane into the atmosphere is also pretty crazy. But at this point, "why not both?" There's two pretty valid theories about how these gasses have changed our atmosphere in measurable ways and how it affects climate.

I'm quite intimately familiar with how we as a society have changed the world. Its not all for the worse, its not all for the better. The important thing, is that we can change the world if we set our minds to it (or even, if in our ignorance, decide not to change our own behavior). We've shifted the mighty Colorado River and allocated over 100% of it so that it no longer even trickles into the Pacific Ocean anymore, and we've done it to irrigate a desert called California to grow our crops. We can do a lot of things, and these planet-scale events aren't even that expensive in the great scheme of things.

 

[freeagent]

There are a bunch of cities, lost civilizations, monuments, etc. at the bottom of the ocean. I don't think this is the first time this has happened, and I think it is cyclic.

I don't doubt we are filthy as a species, and I don't doubt that we have done some damage, but I do doubt we have done the damage that we have been told.

 

[the54thvoid]

Doubt away. Doubt science. It's cool.

 

[freeagent]

Doubt away. Doubt science. It's cool.

Its all about money.

 

[Bones]

At much higher temperatures. As I stated earlier, I don't believe in the "we're going extinct" kind of global warming.

I believe in the "Look, its fucking hot outside and our temperatures have exceeded the world record temperature for 5 days in a row, literally this week" and I'm concerned about how uncomfortable its getting kind of global warming. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html

We're literally the hottest its ever been recorded in all of recorded history this past week. And you're... trying to pretend that we're not getting warmer? Siberia was on fire. Canada is on fire. Smoke from those wildfires was literally blocking out the sun as I look towards the horizon. Yeah, I'm going to be concerned. I can visibly see the effects of this "global warming" theory right now and feel it in the heat.

Like... we have thermometers. We know how to measure temperature and have done so for centuries. And other indirect measures of temperature (ex: folk tales about ice bridges in Japan, etc. etc.) have been passed down for millenia. We have indirect means of measuring the temperature across recorded history (though it gets less scientific as we reach back in time). We actually have a pretty good idea of how hot things are _supposed_ to be under normal circumstances.

I'm not "Pretending" anything - I did say these things were happening:

Now - No one is actually denying that changes do in average temps, glacial meltoff and all that because it happens - Has before and will again but we (As in "Us") probrably will never see the other end of it from where we are today.
Nature behaves alot like a pendulum because it's always going to one side, then the other and history has a long factual record of it.

No one includes myself of course.
Keep listening to the same old predictions with the same result (Failure) as always if you want, I'm not.

History itself has consistently shown this as fact, not fiction with the continuous string of these predictions along the way all coming up wrong.

Is the heat we're having a problem?
Why yes!
Is it happening for the reasons being claimed with the results predicted with no other contributing factors too as it's been layed out to us?
No.

Referring to an earlier post, it's far more likely for an earthquake to make a city slide/fall into the ocean than for the water levels to simply come up the way they're saying.
There are simply too may variables for a single prediction to cover all the bases of cause and effect from it.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Is it happening for the reasons being claimed with the results predicted with no other contributing factors too as it's been layed out to us?

So you don't see a problem with Cars created CO2 -> causes rise in temperature -> causes Siberia to be over 100F in 2020 -> Causes huge fires across Siberia -> causes CO2 to be released -> causes higher temperature in 2023 -> causes Canada to rise to record high temperatures ever recorded in history -> causes Canadian wildfires -> releases more CO2 -> what happens in 2025?

Here's a big difference between 1990 and 2023. We didn't have the Siberian wildfires back then. We didn't have the Canadian wildfires back then, certainly not at these sizes, intervals, or as high north as they've ever been before. These unnatural events (which are releasing even more CO2) are seemingly on a path to perpetuate themselves in the near future.

 

[the54thvoid]

Its all about money.

Yes. It is. But not where you think. Saudi, Russia, the US. Global oil barons. So much clout. At the COP (Climate change conference) there were more lobbyists from oil and gas than any other single entity.

Verifiable fact.

 

[dragontamer5788]

water levels to simply come up the way they're saying.

Also, Waterworld was a dumb movie filled with dumb people and dumb concepts.

There. I said it. I'm serious, its a dumb theory and obviously wrong. 90s-style mania over rising water levels was obviously stupid in hindsight.

That doesn't change my concerns about the climate this year. No one else in this topic is talking about this stupid crap. You're pretty much bringing up a strawman. There's some concerns about sinking cities (but this issue is more about the ground under say Venice seemingly being unstable so the city keeps sinking), maybe some wasted money if Saudi Arabia's city built on sand will get wrecked by +1 foot of rising sea levels or something (Or New Orleans which is already below sea level and relies on pumps/levies to stay dry), but that's not what I'm talking about at all.