Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 528944 times)

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1750 on: April 23, 2019, 08:14:23 AM »
It seems to me that something is missing from the cloud discussion: For clouds to constitute negative feedback as regards global warming, two things have to be shown to be true.

a) Clouds have a net cooling effect, and b) this cooling effect increases with increased temperature warming.

The effects clouds have differ not only between daytime and nighttime but also between types of cloud and how high in the atmosphere they are. A thin cloud layer at the correct height in the atmosphere can increase temperatures in daytime as well as reduce heat loss in nighttime.

All in all, as has been pointed out, clouds probably have a slight cooling effect. But to constitute a negative feedback re global warming, this cooling effect should presumably have to increase with increased warming. I have occasionally searched for studies that address this issue, and found very little. Cloud cover as measured from ground observations seems to perhaps have increased slightly since the 50's, while another study that I saw some time ago indicated a rising in cloud level over the last decades. But whether these small changes actually constitute a negative feedback or not (or even a positive one) seems to be a big unknown.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 103
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1751 on: April 23, 2019, 01:46:02 PM »
The important aspect that never should be omitted when analyzing the effects of clouds on climate, is latitude. There is a great difference between how an increase in cloud cover influences the Arctic, and the effects it will have in the tropics. As the tropics receive the dominating part of solar heat, the way clouds behave there is way more important to understand.

I found this interview with a cloud researcher at Yale clarifying:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change

"... if you think about those low clouds that block sunlight, they are going to be much more effective in the tropics, where there’s kind of more sunlight, than there is further toward the poles, where the sun’s less intense. And climate change is predicted to alter atmospheric circulation patterns. It’s predicted to push everything poleward. "

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1752 on: April 23, 2019, 03:07:31 PM »
At one point, I dimly recall that somebody on the forum posted a graph of the mean sea ice extent by year. Any idea where I could find it?

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1753 on: April 23, 2019, 03:52:23 PM »
The leading cloud researcher at NASA, del Genio, has a lecture recorded here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAZDO8ohS5Y&feature=youtu.be

He states that the majority of GCM models predict fewer clouds, and hence constitute a positive warming feedback.  Additionally, they predict fewer clouds in the tropics and mid-latitudes (which would cool the planet) and more cloud cover in the high latitudes (which warm the planet).  He admits that cloud cover in the tropics is largely uncertain, and may have a much larger role in future climate changes.  Interactions of aerosols have a larger role, but higher uncertainty.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1754 on: April 23, 2019, 04:12:41 PM »
Here is a fairly good overview of the cloud problem in Cosmos magazine and another from The Guardian about research that indicates that the clouds are shifting polewards and upwards.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 847
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1755 on: April 23, 2019, 04:38:29 PM »
At one point, I dimly recall that somebody on the forum posted a graph of the mean sea ice extent by year. Any idea where I could find it?
Do you mean this one perhaps?

The graph attached looks back 365 days for each day's average reading.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2533.msg194562.html#msg194562

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1756 on: April 23, 2019, 05:50:52 PM »
https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger-clouds-tipping-point-and-8c-of-global-warming

Extreme CO2 levels could trigger clouds ‘tipping point’ and 8C of global warming

Quote
If atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 1,200 parts per million (ppm), it could push the Earth’s climate over a “tipping point”, finds a new study. This would see clouds that shade large part of the oceans start to break up.

...
They found a striking result: in their simulations, stratocumulus cloud decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200ppm. When these clouds break up they no longer shade the surface, triggering global warming of 8C – and as much as 10C in subtropical regions. This is in addition to the 5C or so of global warming above pre-industrial levels associated with 1,200ppm CO2.
...
The authors find that once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially, to below 300ppm.
...
Despite a lot of public attention on tipping points, scientists have found limited evidence of them in climate models, at least over time-frames relevant to humans. The finding in this paper is important, say scientists, because it represents one of the first firm climate tipping points to come out of modeling exercises.

partly replying to
All in all, as has been pointed out, clouds probably have a slight cooling effect. But to constitute a negative feedback re global warming, this cooling effect should presumably have to increase with increased warming. I have occasionally searched for studies that address this issue, and found very little. Cloud cover as measured from ground observations seems to perhaps have increased slightly since the 50's, while another study that I saw some time ago indicated a rising in cloud level over the last decades. But whether these small changes actually constitute a negative feedback or not (or even a positive one) seems to be a big unknown.

From that, it sounds as if temperature increases causing break up of low cooling clouds and replacing with high warming clouds would make clouds changes a positive feedback.

I am not terribly clear on why this might be a tipping point rather than just a feedback unless it is just temperature induced effect, and the temperature effect is expected to be large so that a large CO2 reduction is needed to reverse it.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 05:59:45 PM by crandles »

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1757 on: April 23, 2019, 06:33:18 PM »
...when CO2 levels rise above 1,200ppm...

I wondered about this before. How would we even get there? I mean even with the current high growth rate this would take hundreds of years and how i see it the (anthropogenic) growth rate will turn negative sometime in the next 10-20 years. Isn't this extremely far fetched?

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1758 on: April 23, 2019, 07:21:39 PM »
I agree we are unlikely to get there quickly.

RCP 8.5 has 1100ppm by 2100 only 80 years away but that is average of nearly 9ppm per year about 3.5 times current rate on average. This would take massive coal expansion and lack of solar and wind expansion which seems unlikely.

It might be helped along with methane burb from clathrates or permafrost or something.

Even if unlikely, still interesting to know about cloud feedback and/or tipping point.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1759 on: April 23, 2019, 07:28:52 PM »
Agreed, thanks Crandles.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1760 on: April 24, 2019, 03:43:37 AM »
Such a weird limit. 1200 ppm of CO2. Does that 1200 ppm have an ECS related to it? I would expect the behavior of clouds to be responsive to temperatures not CO2 content.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1761 on: April 24, 2019, 03:45:39 AM »
Stupid question 1: leaving aside any lack of actual current technology to use it, does the energy present in our oceans fall short of, equal, or exceed the energy required to draw down the amount of CO2 we would need to draw down?
Stupid question 2: leaving aside practicalities around energy requirements, can gaseous CO2 be reacted with something else to create a solid form of carbon we could happily drop to the sea floor?
Really stupid question 3: Whats the answer to the question "What is causing Arctic Sea Ice loss (3 letters, acronym) ?:" that my computer keeps asking to prove I'm not a robot/idiot because CO2 and GHG are all i got.

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1762 on: April 24, 2019, 03:50:45 AM »
3: AGW

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1763 on: April 24, 2019, 04:11:18 AM »

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1764 on: April 24, 2019, 05:23:07 AM »
Re: energy present in our oceans

Relative to ? If one were willing to freeze the oceans solid, there is far more energy there than you need. More prosaically, the graphs of ocean heat content have units of 1e22 Joule

Re: energy to drawdown CO2

To draw down carbon would require atleast the enthalpy of combustion, say 20MJ/kg. If you want to put a trillion tonnes of carbon back in the ground, surprise, surprise, that's on the order of 1e22 Joule also ...

sidd

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1765 on: April 24, 2019, 06:47:42 AM »
Re: energy present in our oceans

Relative to ? If one were willing to freeze the oceans solid, there is far more energy there than you need. More prosaically, the graphs of ocean heat content have units of 1e22 Joule

Re: energy to drawdown CO2

To draw down carbon would require atleast the enthalpy of combustion, say 20MJ/kg. If you want to put a trillion tonnes of carbon back in the ground, surprise, surprise, that's on the order of 1e22 Joule also ...

sidd

I suppose i was wondering if carbon capture on floating vessels powered by wave energy is a runner. I was reading about Salter's Duck a wave energy converter that seems to be admired for its efficiency at capturing the power of a wave and also Climeworks carbon capture. I have no idea if the wave power could do that much work and if it could would the effect be negligible in the big picture. Could the CO2 be bound up in a solid form and dropped into the sea? The idea of a humongous catamaran style vessel with a Salter's duck mounted between the hulls would look cool and should be immediately constructed as looking cool obviously trumps maths and physics :P

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1766 on: April 24, 2019, 07:07:52 AM »
Forget anything you ever heard of geoengineering Piongain. It's all bullshit.

There aren't any ships even moving with wave energy. So no, there aren't and there won't be any ships using wave energy to capture CO2. If it was a thing you'd need millions of them to have an effect. Building millions of them would use up more CO2 globally, we need to lower the CO2 consumption though.

You can view geoengineering in any light you want, such things don't make sense. I've heard a lot of proposals in this direction and they are all nothing more then megalomania. The numbers never check out.

There is one possible form that would work: Stopping and reversing the deforestation. Humanity can't even do that. The Brazilians just elected a guy who promised to cut down the rainforest.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1767 on: April 24, 2019, 07:17:56 AM »
Forget anything you ever heard of geoengineering Piongain. It's all bullshit.

There aren't any ships even moving with wave energy. So no, there aren't and there won't be any ships using wave energy to capture CO2. If it was a thing you'd need millions of them to have an effect. Building millions of them would use up more CO2 globally, we need to lower the CO2 consumption though.

You can view geoengineering in any light you want, such things don't make sense. I've heard a lot of proposals in this direction and they are all nothing more then megalomania. The numbers never check out.

There is one possible form that would work: Stopping and reversing the deforestation. Humanity can't even do that. The Brazilians just elected a guy who promised to cut down the rainforest.

Ok so bear with me. Is part of the problem not that we have excess energy now in our oceans? Is using that energy to grab CO2 not plausible?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1768 on: April 24, 2019, 07:23:59 AM »
Ok so bear with me. Is part of the problem not that we have excess energy now in our oceans?

What do you mean by "excess energy" ... the oceans are warming up due to AGW, is that what you mean?

Is using that energy to grab CO2 not plausible?

If by "excess energy" you mean the small temperature increase, then no - there is no known or exptected future technology that can harvest that energy in any meaningful way.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1769 on: April 24, 2019, 07:24:10 AM »
Ok so bear with me. Is part of the problem not that we have excess energy now in our oceans? Is using that energy to grab CO2 not plausible?

Not in the slightest. It makes no sense at all.

Do you have a link to the one proposing it?

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1770 on: April 24, 2019, 07:39:14 AM »
Ok so bear with me. Is part of the problem not that we have excess energy now in our oceans? Is using that energy to grab CO2 not plausible?

Not in the slightest. It makes no sense at all.

Do you have a link to the one proposing it?

It's not a proposal other than carbon capture in general being a proposal.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 847
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1771 on: April 24, 2019, 07:40:02 AM »
piongain - no there isn't enough useful wave energy in the oceans to capture all the excess CO2.
If you're looking for a way to generate the required amount of energy, the answer would be photo-voltaic solar. But really the best way to deal with all that excess CO2 is not to emit it in the first place, and use that solar energy directly.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1772 on: April 24, 2019, 07:47:36 AM »
Ok so bear with me. Is part of the problem not that we have excess energy now in our oceans?

What do you mean by "excess energy" ... the oceans are warming up due to AGW, is that what you mean?

Is using that energy to grab CO2 not plausible?

If by "excess energy" you mean the small temperature increase, then no - there is no known or exptected future technology that can harvest that energy in any meaningful way.

Yes i mean that the majority of heat being trapped is in our oceans. Wave energy conversion is surely not an impossible technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salter%27s_duck#Energy_efficiency that's a link to one option.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1773 on: April 24, 2019, 07:53:18 AM »
piongain - no there isn't enough useful wave energy in the oceans to capture all the excess CO2.
If you're looking for a way to generate the required amount of energy, the answer would be photo-voltaic solar. But really the best way to deal with all that excess CO2 is not to emit it in the first place, and use that solar energy directly.

Ok thanks Oren, that's what I was wondering, was it mathematically a non-runner energy wise. The best way to deal with it would be to not have put it up in the atmosphere but it is up.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1774 on: April 24, 2019, 07:59:25 AM »
The average SST is about 17˚C.

The SST warmed by ~ 0.5˚C (? depending on baseline).

Why would it be possible to harvest this recent 0.5˚C but not the one between 16.5˚C and 17˚C, Piongain? What's the difference with this warming (heat excess)?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1775 on: April 24, 2019, 08:02:37 AM »
Ok so bear with me. Is part of the problem not that we have excess energy now in our oceans?

What do you mean by "excess energy" ... the oceans are warming up due to AGW, is that what you mean?

Is using that energy to grab CO2 not plausible?

If by "excess energy" you mean the small temperature increase, then no - there is no known or exptected future technology that can harvest that energy in any meaningful way.

Yes i mean that the majority of heat being trapped is in our oceans. Wave energy conversion is surely not an impossible technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salter%27s_duck#Energy_efficiency that's a link to one option.

But wave energy has nothing to do with the increased temperature of the oceans. So the two things are not linked by any means.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1776 on: April 24, 2019, 08:24:07 AM »
No the wave energy converters would not tap into the extra heat (unless seas are stormier with heat, i don't know about that) but OTEC for example works on a temperature difference at different heights in a water column. I'm not proposing anything, i'm in the stupid corner for a reason, was just wondering if the energy required to carry out carbon capture at sea is a mathematical impossibility scenario or a job done with loads to spare scenario, thanks guys.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1777 on: April 24, 2019, 08:49:07 AM »
Piongain, how would this even work? You are aware the ship is going up and down with the very waves you try to harvest.

For how understand wave plants, they are mounted on the coast in order to use the wave amplitudes, right?

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1778 on: April 24, 2019, 08:56:40 AM »
Piongain, how would this even work? You are aware the ship is going up and down with the very waves you try to harvest.

For how understand wave plants, they are mounted on the coast in order to use the wave amplitudes, right?

Jeez man I'm asking in principle is there energy in our oceans to suck down the carbon. I'm not Elon Musk, I'm not a scientist or anything useful and i'm not breaking turf on a ship building facility in the morning. I'm trying to assess the territory between denialist, catastrophists, and everything in between and i'm sorry i asked tbh.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1779 on: April 24, 2019, 09:19:59 AM »
I can understand your frustration piongain ... your original thought seems to have been whether or not floating wave-energy plants could generate enough energy to sequester enough carbon to make a significant impact on CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think this has been answered as a decisive no. Wave energy plants (such as Salters' duck) are tethered - a floating vessel could theoretically capture wave energy, but at a much lesser efficiency. And total wave power capacity (according to Wikipedia) is only 2TW.

The energy needed to sequester a significant amount of carbon is vast, as sidd pointed out it's in the region of 1e22J per trillion tons =~ 100 years of man-made CO2 release at current rate. To keep up with emission, 1e20J would bee needed every year.

You also asked about harvesting energy from temperature differentials, i.e. OTEC.

OTEC has potential capacity of 88.000 TWh/yr according to Wikipedia, or ~ 3e24J ... so theoretically yes, OTEC could be used to produce enough energy to sequester manmade CO2 emissions (if my calculations and presumptions hold water) ...

But in reality, when compared to current annual world energy consumption at 5e20J, I don't really see any change of this ever becoming a reality.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1780 on: April 24, 2019, 09:34:48 AM »
I can understand your frustration piongain ... your original thought seems to have been whether or not floating wave-energy plants could generate enough energy to sequester enough carbon to make a significant impact on CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think this has been answered as a decisive no. Wave energy plants (such as Salters' duck) are tethered - a floating vessel could theoretically capture wave energy, but at a much lesser efficiency. And total wave power capacity (according to Wikipedia) is only 2TW.

The energy needed to sequester a significant amount of carbon is vast, as sidd pointed out it's in the region of 1e22J per trillion tons =~ 100 years of man-made CO2 release at current rate. To keep up with emission, 1e20J would bee needed every year.

You also asked about harvesting energy from temperature differentials, i.e. OTEC.

OTEC has potential capacity of 88.000 TWh/yr according to Wikipedia, or ~ 3e24J ... so theoretically yes, OTEC could be used to produce enough energy to sequester manmade CO2 emissions (if my calculations and presumptions hold water) ...

But in reality, when compared to current annual world energy consumption at 5e20J, I don't really see any change of this ever becoming a reality.

Thanks binntho. So there are solutions to this that ppl are in the way of not physics, that correct?

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1781 on: April 24, 2019, 09:36:44 AM »
No.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1782 on: April 24, 2019, 09:39:53 AM »
No.

So it's hopeless? So can i stop not flying now?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1783 on: April 24, 2019, 09:50:39 AM »
So there are solutions to this that ppl are in the way of not physics, that correct?

Yes, I think there always have been theoretical solutions to the current problem, whether it be sequestration or emission reduction.

People are the hurdle, and it's the only one that matters. And we will never get around that one!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1784 on: April 24, 2019, 09:56:05 AM »
So there are solutions to this that ppl are in the way of not physics, that correct?

Yes, I think there always have been theoretical solutions to the current problem, whether it be sequestration or emission reduction.

People are the hurdle, and it's the only one that matters. And we will never get around that one!

Well I'll sleep a little better knowing it's only ppl and not physics. Because people who think this is hopeless will not change. I hope everyone appreciates that.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1785 on: April 24, 2019, 10:00:40 AM »
What's the deal with this sudden cooling in the Kara Sea?

Nasa Worldview: Brightness Temperature for Sea Ice (89V Ghz) GCOM-W1 / AMSR2

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1786 on: April 24, 2019, 10:01:02 AM »
wave energy, if you could use all of it, might to it. A couple terawatt times a year (31 million seconds) is about 1e20 J . Using all wave energy is left as an exercise for the reader.

But i think carbon drawdown will be biological, into vegetation and soils.

sidd

Niall Dollard

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1787 on: April 24, 2019, 12:01:57 PM »
What's the deal with this sudden cooling in the Kara Sea?

Nasa Worldview: Brightness Temperature for Sea Ice (89V Ghz) GCOM-W1 / AMSR2

Wind direction has been from the north or northwest in recent days, bringing considerably lower temps to the Kara Sea Area.

uniquorn

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1461
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1788 on: April 24, 2019, 12:56:58 PM »
What's the deal with this sudden cooling in the Kara Sea?
Nasa Worldview: Brightness Temperature for Sea Ice (89V Ghz) GCOM-W1 / AMSR2
Possibly has the same limitations as viirs - clouds.
Quote
The VIIRS Brightness Temperature, Band I5, Day | Night layer is the brightness temperature, measured in Kelvin (K), calculated from the top-of-the-atmosphere radiances. It does not provide an accurate temperature of either clouds nor the land surface, but it does show relative temperature differences which can be used to distinguish features both in clouds and over clear land. It can be used to distinguish land, sea ice, and open water over the polar regions during winter (in cloudless areas).
eg. you can estimate SST close to ice on a clear day in summer by assuming the ice to be at ~-1.8C and adjusting the temperatures shown accordingly. If it's cloudy you get cloud temperature or a melange.

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1789 on: April 24, 2019, 01:07:51 PM »
If by "excess energy" you mean the small temperature increase, then no - there is no known or exptected future technology that can harvest that energy in any meaningful way.

Yes i mean that the majority of heat being trapped is in our oceans. Wave energy conversion is surely not an impossible technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salter%27s_duck#Energy_efficiency that's a link to one option.

It is an impossible technology.  Specifically, it breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

All energy ultimately ends up as heat.  Whenever you convert heat into some other form of energy (kinetic energy or motion, chemical potential energy, or whatever), you inevitable generate more heat in the process.

What you are asking for is a way of converting the heat energy of the oceans into stored chemical energy of bound CO2, with no further heat loss to the surroundings such that you end up with a net loss of heat.  This is impossible.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1790 on: April 24, 2019, 01:09:05 PM »
eg. you can estimate SST close to ice on a clear day in summer by assuming the ice to be at ~-1.8C and adjusting the temperatures shown accordingly. If it's cloudy you get cloud temperature or a melange.

Thanks a lot Uniquorn and Niall for your answers. Very much appreciated.

I'm not convinced though.

I get the GCOM is only an estimation but when you see variance you also see it levelling out the next day or couple of days after. But it stays persistent for a rather long time, which at least looks like a trend to me. And since we are not talking absolute numbers, isn't this rather arbitrary anyway?

As of the weather situation, there wasn't a persistent cold blob or cloud cover over this region during this time (IIRC. would appreciate a hint for historical data for the era, not finding it as of yet Edit: I forgot 'Old Wind'. Nullschool has it.).
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 05:31:00 PM by b_lumenkraft »

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1791 on: April 24, 2019, 01:11:00 PM »
If you want to remove heat from the ocean, that heat has to go somewhere - and it has to go somewhere that is colder than the ocean. You could melt the ice caps, using Greenland and Antarctica as the heat sinks. This is a bad idea. Or you can let the energy radiate out to space, using the cosmic microwave background as a heat sink. This is a better idea, but requires us to stop adding insulating gases that get in the way of transferring heat from our planet into space.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1792 on: April 24, 2019, 01:26:25 PM »
But really the best way to deal with all that excess CO2 is not to emit it in the first place, and use that solar energy directly.

We are too late. While not emitting is still a requirement for survival, we must draw CO2 out ... somehow.

Piongain, there is plenty of energy everywhere. The problem is that transforming it to useful energy has a cost larger than burning fossil fuel or solar/wind. In most cases the solution hasn't been invented at all, let alone the capacity to deploy it at the scale necesary to reverse the damage in time to avoid the worst.

Geoengineering is not BS. It is scary because it is potentially lethal for the planet, but we are already controlling the climate. We are warming the planet against all natural patterns. We control the planet's climate. What we can't control is ourselves.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1793 on: April 24, 2019, 01:30:51 PM »

What you are asking for is a way of converting the heat energy of the oceans into stored chemical energy of bound CO2, with no further heat loss to the surroundings such that you end up with a net loss of heat.  This is impossible.

The Laws of Physics are a bummer
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1794 on: April 24, 2019, 01:37:59 PM »
LOL!

Dharma Rupa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1795 on: April 24, 2019, 01:44:13 PM »
Geoengineering is not BS.

I'd have to disagree for the simple reason that we are not smart enough to figure out all the potential consequences.  Any sort of proposed geoengineering is too dangerous to be anything other than BS.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1796 on: April 24, 2019, 01:48:05 PM »
At one point, I dimly recall that somebody on the forum posted a graph of the mean sea ice extent by year. Any idea where I could find it?
Do you mean this one perhaps?

The graph attached looks back 365 days for each day's average reading.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2533.msg194562.html#msg194562

That's the one, thank you!

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1017
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1797 on: April 24, 2019, 02:22:48 PM »
What you are asking for is a way of converting the heat energy of the oceans into stored chemical energy of bound CO2, with no further heat loss to the surroundings such that you end up with a net loss of heat.  This is impossible.

I'm not sure if that was what he was asking - and if the energy is used to chemically convert CO2 into e.g. pure C and frefloating O2 (or some other combination of solid/liquid that can be sequestered, and non-greenhouse gas) then most of the energy will be converted into chemical energy and stored there for the foreseeable future, and therefore not released as warmth.

Chemical sequestration of CO2 (as opposed to spatial, i.e. pumping it underground) is effectively a giant battery, taking energy and storing it.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1798 on: April 24, 2019, 03:50:49 PM »
At one point, I dimly recall that somebody on the forum posted a graph of the mean sea ice extent by year. Any idea where I could find it?
Do you mean this one perhaps?

The graph attached looks back 365 days for each day's average reading.


That's the one, thank you!
I did another one using NSIDC data going back to 1980
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1799 on: April 24, 2019, 04:49:58 PM »
These are interesting thanks. I followed SpaceX from nearly day 1. As a complete non-scientist I had no idea if what Elon Musk was proposing was pie in the sky, faster than the speed of light level breaking the laws of physics nonsense or possible but hugely unlikely. I just knew it was cool. To this day I don't understand the science of it. All criticism i read would suggest that at best it just wouldn't happen because whatever, people, pessimism, don't be stupid, massive stresses, massive reinforcement, rocket equation will get ya..... But now i watch 3 first stages land. So now i wake up at 3am over climate. And I read ppl say we can do these technologies and others criticise it as "BS". So it's either against the laws of physics or its just people's attitudes. Meanwhile most of us are not rocket scientists which might seem shocking in the rocket science canteen. I'd like to think physics will take us down not a sandwich between greed and pessimism.