5 ms·

> And the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere? That's what CO2 does. It is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat that would otherwise have escaped into spa

> And the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere? That's what CO2 does. It is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat that would otherwise have escaped into space. > Or if we want to preserve it on earth, a way to turn heat back into hydrocarbon? It is literally impossible to turn heat, by itself, into anything useful. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and it's a cruel mistress. It's nice to think about alternative solutions to these problems, but you need to have at least a basic understanding of basic level physics if you want to discuss this sort of thing.

addicted 7y ago
My biggest frustration with global warming deniers has been that I understood the basics of global warming as a 6-7 year old, when I first read something about the greenhouse effect (it wasnt even in the context of global warming). The only basic pieces of information you need to understand climate change are: 1) The greenhouse effect exists. That is, when you have something like glass, it will let energy in in the form of light, but it won't let as much energy escape once it's converted to heat. This concept can be grasped by anyone who has walked into a car that has been parked out in the sun. And by the massive clue in the name, that is the existence of greenhouses. 2) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is, it acts like glass does in a greenhouse. This is harder to believe from first principles, but it's not that hard to believe. For me the clinching explanation (again, as a kid) was learning Venus was hotter than Mercury. And there is no reason to believe folks are lying about this, and I don't believe anyone is even contesting this. 3) Understanding how fossil fuels came into existence (basically, organic material trapped over centuries in the ground. again, the clue is in the name) and understanding the CO2 lifecycle, and how burning fossil fuels adds material to the CO2 lifecycle that was not there earlier. This isn't something that can be determined easily by a kid from 1st principles, but it's something that no one is really contesting either. Once you accept these 3 fairly straightforward basic physics phenomena, global warming is inevitable. The only questions are whether the release of CO2 is significant enough to have an impact, where we have to rely on measurements and scientists. But seeing that there was a fairly standard progression in how deniers would first deny global warming was ever happening, then deny that it was anthropogenic, then claim it wouldnt have as negative an impact, and now claim that well, it's too late...let's look at mitigation; I was able to filter them out when they were at step 1 itself. Aside: I also want to point out the horrific misunderstanding people have about the terms "global warming" and "climate change" which are fairly self descriptive, but apparently is a nefarious effort to "hide the spike". Global Warming (i.e., more energy in the earth's ecosystem due to the greenhouse effect) leads to Climate Change (that is, changes in our climate behavior). One is a cause, and the other is the effect. Both are valid and orthogonal concepts, and not some sort of conspiracy.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > 3) Understanding how fossil fuels came into existence (basically, organic material trapped over centuries in the ground. again, the clue is in the name) and understanding the CO2 lifecycle, and how burning fossil fuels adds material to the CO2 lifecycle that was not there earlier. Adds material to the CO2 lifecycle that was not there earlier? Isn't it just rereleasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere earlier?
  - audunw 7y ago
    > Isn't it just rereleasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere earlier? I don't know the facts here, but I'm pretty sure carbon can slowly be added from other sources. So sure, that CO2 might have been in the atmosphere before, but then we added more CO2 as well. The point being, the CO2 we're digging up wasn't in our atmosphere before. The atmosphere that we and all the animal and plants have been adapted too. Sure, there's a time when the CO2 concentration (and even O2) was wildly different. But then there were other animals living on earth, that was adapted to those conditions. Slow change is fine, rapid change is disastrous.
  - woofyman 7y ago
    >Isn't it just rereleasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere earlier? Yes, and the Arctic was once tropical.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Much of the coal comes from a unique period in earth's history when there were many trees, but enzymes that could deal with lignins hadn't yet evolved. Which led to a steady and significant accumulation of carbon in that coal. Humans, and much of the life we see around us, evolved in the subsequent periods of higher oxygen and depleted CO2. As we reverse that effect, we return the atmosphere nearer to how it once was - when humans and such weren't around. The planet and its life will be fine. Us and the multiple species on which we depend may well not be. By burning it we are releasing carbon that has been stored for millennia and accumulated over millennia. It's introduced as though it were new into our carbon cycle.
- graeme 7y ago
benj111 7y ago
"It is literally impossible to turn heat, by itself, into anything useful. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics" That's not quite true/relevant. Matter can be turned into energy, energy can be turned into matter, theoretically at least. More practically a Stirling engine or peltier will turn heat into electricity, and filament bulbs did a good enough job of turning heat into light. Plus you can still cheat the 2nd law locally. I can heat my house in winter for example, it isn't just a slow uniform slide to the heat death of the universe.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > That's not quite true/relevant. It’s actually extremely true and relevant. > Matter can be turned into energy, energy can be turned into matter, theoretically at least. None of these conversions are 100% efficient. The second law effectively puts limits on the efficiency of heat engines[1] that depend on the difference between “hot” and “cold” in the engine. At low temperature differences, the theoretical efficiency is extremely poor[2] and the practical efficiency is even worse. Peltiers are not exempt from this either. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency
  - benj111 7y ago
    I'm not saying any of it is efficient, just not 'literally impossible'.
    - knodi123 7y ago
      I said "heat, by itself", not just "heat". And I stand by what I said. It is fundamentally correct. The state of entropy of the an isolated system will always increase over time. Yes, you can bring in other things, like an outside system or additional useable energy, but that only disproves the misquoted version of my statement.
Igelau 7y ago
> you need to have at least a basic understanding of basic level physics if you want to discuss this sort of thing. I'm sure when you talk to people like that it makes you feel really good and secure about your own beliefs and like you're on The Winning Team, but being a dick like this to someone who is asking a question makes everything more divisive and worse. If you like arguments and preserving your own sense of intellectual superiority over others, congratulations on perpetuating more of the same stagnation. If you're interested in anything productive, sorry, but you done goofed.
- knodi123 7y ago
  Does talking down to people and calling them dicks often yield the kind of results you're looking for? Remove the beam from thine own eye, buddy.

addicted 7y ago

My biggest frustration with global warming deniers has been that I understood the basics of global warming as a 6-7 year old, when I first read something about the greenhouse effect (it wasnt even in the context of global warming). The only basic pieces of information you need to understand climate change are: 1) The greenhouse effect exists. That is, when you have something like glass, it will let energy in in the form of light, but it won't let as much energy escape once it's converted to heat. This concept can be grasped by anyone who has walked into a car that has been parked out in the sun. And by the massive clue in the name, that is the existence of greenhouses. 2) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is, it acts like glass does in a greenhouse. This is harder to believe from first principles, but it's not that hard to believe. For me the clinching explanation (again, as a kid) was learning Venus was hotter than Mercury. And there is no reason to believe folks are lying about this, and I don't believe anyone is even contesting this. 3) Understanding how fossil fuels came into existence (basically, organic material trapped over centuries in the ground. again, the clue is in the name) and understanding the CO2 lifecycle, and how burning fossil fuels adds material to the CO2 lifecycle that was not there earlier. This isn't something that can be determined easily by a kid from 1st principles, but it's something that no one is really contesting either. Once you accept these 3 fairly straightforward basic physics phenomena, global warming is inevitable. The only questions are whether the release of CO2 is significant enough to have an impact, where we have to rely on measurements and scientists. But seeing that there was a fairly standard progression in how deniers would first deny global warming was ever happening, then deny that it was anthropogenic, then claim it wouldnt have as negative an impact, and now claim that well, it's too late...let's look at mitigation; I was able to filter them out when they were at step 1 itself. Aside: I also want to point out the horrific misunderstanding people have about the terms "global warming" and "climate change" which are fairly self descriptive, but apparently is a nefarious effort to "hide the spike". Global Warming (i.e., more energy in the earth's ecosystem due to the greenhouse effect) leads to Climate Change (that is, changes in our climate behavior). One is a cause, and the other is the effect. Both are valid and orthogonal concepts, and not some sort of conspiracy.

leereeves 7y ago
> 3) Understanding how fossil fuels came into existence (basically, organic material trapped over centuries in the ground. again, the clue is in the name) and understanding the CO2 lifecycle, and how burning fossil fuels adds material to the CO2 lifecycle that was not there earlier. Adds material to the CO2 lifecycle that was not there earlier? Isn't it just rereleasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere earlier?
- audunw 7y ago
  > Isn't it just rereleasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere earlier? I don't know the facts here, but I'm pretty sure carbon can slowly be added from other sources. So sure, that CO2 might have been in the atmosphere before, but then we added more CO2 as well. The point being, the CO2 we're digging up wasn't in our atmosphere before. The atmosphere that we and all the animal and plants have been adapted too. Sure, there's a time when the CO2 concentration (and even O2) was wildly different. But then there were other animals living on earth, that was adapted to those conditions. Slow change is fine, rapid change is disastrous.
- woofyman 7y ago
  >Isn't it just rereleasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere earlier? Yes, and the Arctic was once tropical.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Much of the coal comes from a unique period in earth's history when there were many trees, but enzymes that could deal with lignins hadn't yet evolved. Which led to a steady and significant accumulation of carbon in that coal. Humans, and much of the life we see around us, evolved in the subsequent periods of higher oxygen and depleted CO2. As we reverse that effect, we return the atmosphere nearer to how it once was - when humans and such weren't around. The planet and its life will be fine. Us and the multiple species on which we depend may well not be. By burning it we are releasing carbon that has been stored for millennia and accumulated over millennia. It's introduced as though it were new into our carbon cycle.
graeme 7y ago

benj111 7y ago

"It is literally impossible to turn heat, by itself, into anything useful. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics" That's not quite true/relevant. Matter can be turned into energy, energy can be turned into matter, theoretically at least. More practically a Stirling engine or peltier will turn heat into electricity, and filament bulbs did a good enough job of turning heat into light. Plus you can still cheat the 2nd law locally. I can heat my house in winter for example, it isn't just a slow uniform slide to the heat death of the universe.

AlexandrB 7y ago
> That's not quite true/relevant. It’s actually extremely true and relevant. > Matter can be turned into energy, energy can be turned into matter, theoretically at least. None of these conversions are 100% efficient. The second law effectively puts limits on the efficiency of heat engines[1] that depend on the difference between “hot” and “cold” in the engine. At low temperature differences, the theoretical efficiency is extremely poor[2] and the practical efficiency is even worse. Peltiers are not exempt from this either. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency
- benj111 7y ago
  I'm not saying any of it is efficient, just not 'literally impossible'.
  - knodi123 7y ago
    I said "heat, by itself", not just "heat". And I stand by what I said. It is fundamentally correct. The state of entropy of the an isolated system will always increase over time. Yes, you can bring in other things, like an outside system or additional useable energy, but that only disproves the misquoted version of my statement.

Igelau 7y ago

> you need to have at least a basic understanding of basic level physics if you want to discuss this sort of thing. I'm sure when you talk to people like that it makes you feel really good and secure about your own beliefs and like you're on The Winning Team, but being a dick like this to someone who is asking a question makes everything more divisive and worse. If you like arguments and preserving your own sense of intellectual superiority over others, congratulations on perpetuating more of the same stagnation. If you're interested in anything productive, sorry, but you done goofed.

knodi123 7y ago
Does talking down to people and calling them dicks often yield the kind of results you're looking for? Remove the beam from thine own eye, buddy.