Deleting A Few Lines Of Code Can Yield "Significant" Power Savings On Some Linux Systems

[zyxxel]

But how do you know our waste heat won't influence how we build datacenters in the future? Because the IPCC says "CO2 is definitely the culprit" with their highly questionable scientific methods? I'm a much stronger believer in the laws of thermodynamics. So far thermodynamics have served us much better than politics as far as finding answers to scientific issues. That's not to say we don't need initiatives for funding research, such as the emission regulations constantly pushing us to develop more efficient combustion engines, but the science itself should be left to researchers.

The sun throws in about 1 kW per square meter. The heat produced by datacenters is irrelevant to the environment. It's the way we are producing the energy that is the problem. And it's the amount of reflection of heat back out from earth that matters - not the puny amounts of heat produced by even thousand times more/bigger datacenters.

[Djhg2000]

Chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the climate change deniers' handbook: scientists are somehow too invested in the CO2 hypothesis. I've been hearing this chestnut for more than 20 years.

Yeah because apparently a statement like "climate change can be better explained by waste heat than CO2" is clearly denying climate change. It's like one of us just had a stroke.

Except, science doesn't really care what the culprit is. It's the fossil fuel lobby who are the ones invested in an outcome. The beauty of this tactic is that you neuter the damning indictment of the vested interest by claiming that it's somehow science that has a vested interest. No evidence, though, because it's pure nonsense.

You think the fossil fuel industry is vested in proving climate change happens because of waste heat? What are you smoking?

Who's "we" and why are you now suddenly an authority on global forestry practices?

It's "we" as in humans. I don't know how that became such a mystery. And I was referring to one of the studies you linked, so you might want to either be more careful before you attack your own source. Seriously, you're not having a stroke, are you? I'm becoming genuinely worried by now.

When you clear a forest or convert a peat bog into farm land, you release vast amounts of CO2 and methane. They are not being replanted with trees - they're being used for farming and grazing, both of which tend to be net greenhouse emitters. Grazing is a greenhouse gas emitter for obvious reasons, but modern, non-organic farming is as well, especially if the crop stubble is burned.

Sure, in the few instances where forest is replaced by farm land. But that's not such a massive trend, at least not where I live.

Agreed. If politicians stopped trying to meddle in science, we might actually have a hope of reigning in CO2 emissions before the climate reaches a tipping point.

The very definition of a tipping point is the point where the positive-feedbacks outweigh the negative ones. You take self-regulation for granted and downplay the sheer extent to which humans are bollocksing it up.

I know what a tipping point is you know. And I'm not ignoring CO2, I'm saying waste heat is obviously a main contributing factor and from some quick eyeballing it should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics why that is. Yet you're too obsessed with CO2 to even attempt to counter my theory.

What's your real issue? Are you in the oil & gas industry? Or are you one of these conspiracy-theory types who just has a deep, contrarian urge to feel like you know something the "elites" don't?

So it's a binary choice then; I'm either a slave to the CO2 theory or I dare question it so therefore I must be in cahoots with the oil and gas industry? It's always the same deal, the CO2 theory is like a fucking religion at this point. Heresy I say, heresy!

Because the real issue isn't the science or the scientists. The real issue is you and some financial or emotional need that you have.

No, the real issue is when you sidestep science. Again, science doesn't give you an answer, it gives you tools to figure out relations of variables. Science itself doesn't give a crap where the funding comes from, but the people who draw the conclusions do.

Just because CO2 is a plausible answer doesn't mean it's the only answer. Like a differential equation (which many thermodynamic theorems end up with by the way) there can be many valid solutions but some are more straightforward than others.

That's a religious statement, not a scientific one. The way science works is to look at the data, find a theory, then try to disprove it. When enough people try hard enough to disprove it and they can't, then it becomes accepted. It doesn't work on the basis of someone just deciding they have the right answer and that's the end of the story.

So freedom of thought can only be the product of a religion? I think you've got that backwards.

Also what you're describing is a scientific method, an integral part of research. It requires freedom of thought to find theories and logic to disprove them. You're not demonstrating much of either in this particular post.

A favorite tool of demagogues is to appeal to rationality by peddling simplistic explanations. It's actually dangerous to believe that you have all the tools and knowledge you need in order to know what's true or not, simply on the basis of some narrative a person can weave. Most pseudo-science and the more successful conspiracy theories have a certain logic to them. By a somewhat Darwinian processes, most of those that are blatantly illogical don't survive long or spread far.

I don't know where you got that from but I certainly don't believe I have all the tools and knowledge to tell of anything is true or not, that would imply I'm all-knowing. But neither do you.

What I do have is tools, knowledge and methods to progressively work myself closer to a definite answer. Critical thinking is a part of that. Have you ever stopped to think "what if the CO2 theory is wrong?" or "what proof do we have to support the CO2 theory?", or do you just blindly accept the first answer you get without actually following the logic?

You can't tell whether they're true by simply looking at whether they seem to make sense. The real test is in the data, the testing methodology, whether others can replicate the tests, and whether anyone can disprove the theory. In science, this is a continual ongoing process that eventually weeds out bad theories and replaces them with better ones. We have that process to thank for virtually all the scientific advances of the last couple centuries.

Unless it's a trivial case (which before you complain, no this is not trivial) then yes, you do need to investigate further. Have you ever applied any of this to the CO2 theory? It's not just me either, others have also looked at the data and said the data doesn't fit the theory all that well. Before the social distancing shutdown the model did fit well enough to be passable but it was hardly a perfect fit.

If you listen carefully you'll hear them admit it themselves, always coming up with "better" models to explain a new phenomena. It's just like traditional science before the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics; the models just keep getting more and more special cases until there's barely anything left except special cases. Anyone who's ever taken a basic science class knows that a growing number of special cases is a strong sign that the initial theory is flawed. There's usually a more straightforward explanation with far fewer exceptions.

In this case, that more straightforward explanation would be waste heat.

That's called a false equivalence. I'm sure most climate scientists would be happy if the CO2 hypothesis were wrong and just go study something else, whether climate-related or not. The fossil fuel industry has no plan B. They're too invested in what they're doing. They're fighting the truth with the ferocity and viciousness of a cornered animal.

What, you think IPCC is made up of homeless people working for free? They have official and pretty much worldwide government funding based on finding out how CO2 causes climate change, BP makes its money in profits from selling their products. They both have incredibly deep pockets, and arguably equally corrupted "research".

We've already agreed that politics should stay out of science. Stick to your word and acknowledge how IPCC is not only funded by politics but founded on politics. It literally has one explicit political purpose.

No, the only thing that doesn't make sense is you. The atmosphere is like a swimming pool and we've been filling it up with CO2. Just reducing the rate of output by some percentage, for a couple months, isn't going to suddenly empty it. Even if we completely stopped emitting greenhouse gasses, it'd probably take a couple centuries to return to historical norms, assuming we're not already at a tipping point.

But you're not getting it; we're filling it with waste heat as well! In your analogy that would be like filling the swimming pool with water, custard, dirt and oranges, then saying it's the water that makes it overflow. It's technically not wrong since water is one of the things in it, but that's ignoring all of the other stuff.

Anyway, we're not talking about a few percents in reduced waste heat now. Meanwhile there was yet again a need for new models to explain how a decrease in CO2 could make the weather recover from the trend of getting warmer so quickly. Are your bullshit detectors going off yet?

The effect on the weather is obvious to the point where local crops are dying because they are freezing, so farmers are lighting up hay bales at night to save what they can. In May. This hasn't happened at all in recent history. Our production of strawberries ẃhich usually grow in time for the early summer rush is legitimately threatened by cold weather. I could go on.

Seriously, where do you even get this garbage? I doubt even Russian state media could spout such crap with a straight face.

Have you been following the news at all lately or are they just filled with coverage about Trump where you live? It's been a major talking point for a while in Europe.

If you want examples of this then here's a few:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-how-coronavirus-impacts-climate-change

https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/news/how-changes-brought-on-by-coronavirus-could-help-tackle-climate-change

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.svt.se%2Fnyheter%2Futrikes%2Fanalys-for-tidigt-att-saga-om-coronaviruset-kan-kopplas-till-klimatforandringar

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fsvenska.yle.fi%2Fartikel%2F2020%2F03%2F29%2Futslappen-minskar-kraftigt-men-ar-coronaviruset-bra-for-klimatet-tvartom-menar

There's plenty more to find with your favorite search engine, these are just what was on the first page.

[Djhg2000]

The sun throws in about 1 kW per square meter. The heat produced by datacenters is irrelevant to the environment. It's the way we are producing the energy that is the problem. And it's the amount of reflection of heat back out from earth that matters - not the puny amounts of heat produced by even thousand times more/bigger datacenters.

That's 1 kW per square meter cross section. Our waste heat production is largely independent on where we are relative to the sun, although solar panels are a notable exception. Fortunately for the sake of doing some quick math they're still an insignificant part in the total energy production.

Let's do the math (for simplicity, let's assume the Earth is a perfect sphere):
Area of a sphere cross section: pi*r^2
Area of a sphere surface: 4*pi*r^2

So in our ballpark estimate we'd only have to convert 1/4 of the incoming energy per square meter to equal the amount of energy received by the sun radiation. However, most sources like NASA actually give figures around 300-350 W per square meter. This is because most of the incoming radiation is also reflected out.

Let's assume the NASA figure of 340 W per square meter just so that we have a fixed number to work with. That in turn leaves us with 85 W per square meter to equal the incoming energy from the sun. 85 W may not sound like much but per square meter that's a lot of energy. So, how close are we to this figure?

According to this Wikipedia article (source reference seems broken so I couldn't give it to you directly, but it's quoted as "IEA/OECD"), the average worldwide electricity production for 2008 was 2311,4 GW. This is likely to have gone up but we'll accept 2300 GW as our ballpark figure. As previously discussed most of that energy ends up as heat, either by direct conversion or parasitic stuff like air friction or light absorption. This covers anything electric from cars to light bulbs, and everything in between powered by the power grid.

Then there's natural gas. According to Enerdata the top 12 largest consumers of natural gas used 2598 bcm (Billion Cubic Meters) of natural gas in 2018, noting an upwards trend. To then get the released energy we need to convert that volume into how much heat is released by burning it. This article averages a few numbers from textbooks and organizations to arrive at 37 MJ/m^3. Our ballpark figure here then becomes out to 2600*10^9 (volume) * 37*10^6 (energy per volume) / 32*10^6 (seconds in a year) ~= 3006*10^9 (energy per second). That's an additional 3000 GW.

There are of course other factors to include such as heat from vehicles, but those take more time to analyze since we can't just derive the number from oil production. Some oil goes to electric power plants, some go to house heating, some go to lubricants, so go to plastic production, etc. I might include them in a later analysis because when you analyze different vehicles you arrive at some interesting proportions (like the surprising amount of heat released by ships).

So far we have:
Power grid: 2300 GW
Natural gas: 3000 GW
---
Total: 5300 GW.

Great, now we can plug that into the equation for finding energy per square meter; 5300*10^9 (watts) / 510*10^12 (surface square meters) ~= 10*10^-3 (watts per square meter). That's about 0,01 W per square meter.

Now, do you see why this makes me worried? If not, let me clarify; 340 W per square meter is what's keeping the Earth at it's natural temperature. These are just two of the large contributors and we're already talking numbers at a whopping 10^-4 magnitude of the solar heat input (85 W/m^2). In any other context that would be a clear indicator that this needs further investigation. Add to that how the waste heat is far from being evenly distributed across a large area like the solar radiation is and it's no wonder our cities are getting warmer.

Maybe I'll do some more calculations later and explore just how large the local effects are.

Edit: Of course I forgot to clarify the number we're comparing 0,01 W/m^2 with is 85 W/m^2, not 340 W/m^2. This should make the final paragraphs easier to follow.

[zyxxel]

That's 1 kW per square meter cross section. Our waste heat production is largely independent on where we are relative to the sun, although solar panels are a notable exception. Fortunately for the sake of doing some quick math they're still an insignificant part in the total energy production.

Let's do the math (for simplicity, let's assume the Earth is a perfect sphere):
Area of a sphere cross section: pi*r^2
Area of a sphere surface: 4*pi*r^2

So in our ballpark estimate we'd only have to convert 1/4 of the incoming energy per square meter to equal the amount of energy received by the sun radiation. However, most sources like NASA actually give figures around 300-350 W per square meter. This is because most of the incoming radiation is also reflected out.

See - you somewhere did pick something up.

It's that "reflected out" that is the only really important factor here. The one very major factor. Because if 1% more stays, that's a huge amount.

Human energy use in one year is about the same as what the sun sends to earth in one hour. So human energy consumption is about 1 in 9000 of what the sun sends in.
So 1% changed reflection of heat is about 90 times the total human energy production. So a change in the atmosphere reflection with around 0.01% correspond to the total human energy production. That's why we are scared of changes that will affect the reflection factor.

Let's assume the NASA figure of 340 W per square meter just so that we have a fixed number to work with. That in turn leaves us with 85 W per square meter to equal the incoming energy from the sun. 85 W may not sound like much but per square meter that's a lot of energy. So, how close are we to this figure?

According to this Wikipedia article (source reference seems broken so I couldn't give it to you directly, but it's quoted as "IEA/OECD"), the average worldwide electricity production for 2008 was 2311,4 GW. This is likely to have gone up but we'll accept 2300 GW as our ballpark figure. As previously discussed most of that energy ends up as heat, either by direct conversion or parasitic stuff like air friction or light absorption. This covers anything electric from cars to light bulbs, and everything in between powered by the power grid.

Then there's natural gas. According to Enerdata the top 12 largest consumers of natural gas used 2598 bcm (Billion Cubic Meters) of natural gas in 2018, noting an upwards trend. To then get the released energy we need to convert that volume into how much heat is released by burning it. This article averages a few numbers from textbooks and organizations to arrive at 37 MJ/m^3. Our ballpark figure here then becomes out to 2600*10^9 (volume) * 37*10^6 (energy per volume) / 32*10^6 (seconds in a year) ~= 3006*10^9 (energy per second). That's an additional 3000 GW.

There are of course other factors to include such as heat from vehicles, but those take more time to analyze since we can't just derive the number from oil production. Some oil goes to electric power plants, some go to house heating, some go to lubricants, so go to plastic production, etc. I might include them in a later analysis because when you analyze different vehicles you arrive at some interesting proportions (like the surprising amount of heat released by ships).

So far we have:
Power grid: 2300 GW
Natural gas: 3000 GW
---
Total: 5300 GW.

Great, now we can plug that into the equation for finding energy per square meter; 5300*10^9 (watts) / 510*10^12 (surface square meters) ~= 10*10^-3 (watts per square meter). That's about 0,01 W per square meter.

Now, do you see why this makes me worried? If not, let me clarify; 340 W per square meter is what's keeping the Earth at it's natural temperature. These are just two of the large contributors and we're already talking numbers at a whopping 10^-4 magnitude of the solar heat input (85 W/m^2). In any other context that would be a clear indicator that this needs further investigation. Add to that how the waste heat is far from being evenly distributed across a large area like the solar radiation is and it's no wonder our cities are getting warmer.

Maybe I'll do some more calculations later and explore just how large the local effects are.

Edit: Of course I forgot to clarify the number we're comparing 0,01 W/m^2 with is 85 W/m^2, not 340 W/m^2. This should make the final paragraphs easier to follow.

We have already several times in history seen changes in atmosphere reflection that are way many times larger than this. Which is why you should look up and wonder about that reflection factor, and what might affect it.

[Djhg2000]

See - you somewhere did pick something up.

It's that "reflected out" that is the only really important factor here. The one very major factor. Because if 1% more stays, that's a huge amount.

1% less reflected energy would equal somewhere around 0,1 W per surface square meter, just electricity and natural gas is already at 0,01 W per square meter. 10% of a huge amount is still very big.

However, that doesn't mean anything unless you have a way to support your assertion that 1% is a relevant number. Find the relevant numbers and do the math. We're only looking at ballpark numbers here so you can get by with an accuracy of 2-3 significant digits for basic numerical operations.

Human energy use in one year is about the same as what the sun sends to earth in one hour. So human energy consumption is about 1 in 9000 of what the sun sends in.
So 1% changed reflection of heat is about 90 times the total human energy production. So a change in the atmosphere reflection with around 0.01% correspond to the total human energy production. That's why we are scared of changes that will affect the reflection factor.

Again, show me the math. Getting an accurate number for human energy use isn't as easy as it sounds.

For example, is it taking into account that most jet fuel is burned way higher up in the atmosphere where less infrared radiation reaches the surface (reflected by clouds etc) or dumped before landing? Does it take into account that oil tanker ships burn crude oil at international waters (illegal in pretty much all national waters) so that they don't show up in the statistics from refined diesel?

There are a lot of complicating factors here and that statement about "Human energy use in one year is about the same as what the sun sends to earth in one hour." sounds like it matches up far too conveniently to be an actual number.

We have already several times in history seen changes in atmosphere reflection that are way many times larger than this. Which is why you should look up and wonder about that reflection factor, and what might affect it.

Sure, I'll have a look at it if you can find a credible source. But it has to be real independent research, not IPCC sponsored. I realize historic expeditions are expensive but IPCC can't be the only ones sponsoring them.

On that note, finding reflection spectra are nigh on impossible because search engines go "oh, here are some absorption spectruma". The downside of search optimizing AI is that it doesn't understand that transmission, absorption and reflection are three very different things. It's easy to just use the reflection factor but that doesn't say much about the distribution. The transmitted and reflected light spectra are usually almost identical but not exactly.

An example of where this is used are in those modern selective yellow light bulbs for cars, where blue light is reflected back in while other wavelengths are allowed to pass through. This filter lasts much longer than an absorption filter because it doesn't get as hot, which has always been an issue with films on light bulbs. In that case it's done through well defined internal reflection (instead of photon penetration distance through a gas) to get a sharp filter, but that's an example of what the spectrum could look like.

[zyxxel]

1% less reflected energy would equal somewhere around 0,1 W per surface square meter, just electricity and natural gas is already at 0,01 W per square meter. 10% of a huge amount is still very big.

How do you figure 1% would result in 0.1W / square meter when the incoming energy for the cross-section is around 1000 W / square meter?

173,000 terawatts hits earth. 173000E12 or 173E15 or 1.73E17 W.
Figure from MIT: http://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026
Notice also the additional note "That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."
But when I talking about energy production, I'm including losses so the world energy production is higher than the total energy use.


1% reflection is about 1.7E15 W.

The total surface of earth is about 510 million km^2.
Would you believe Wikipedia for this? You can of course do a rough calculation yourself if you find a radius/diameter source that you trust.

1.7E15 / 510E6 is 3.3 MW / km^2 or 3.3 W / m^2.
3.3 W / m^2 is more than your estimated 0.1W / m^2. Quite a lot more.

It would have been around 10 W (1% of 1000 W) if earth had been a flat disk but earth's surface area is significantly larger than the cross-section area - you know where to find the formulas for area of circle and area of sphere.

But this is where you should instantly have seen that 1% could never, ever, get even close to your claim of 0.1W / m^2.

1.7E15 W times 24 hours times 365 days is around 1.5E19 Wh.

2017, we produced around 162,494 TWh or 1.6E17 Wh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

So 1% difference in how much is reflected is about 100 times the energy we are currently producing.

0.01% difference in how much the atmosphere reflects is about the same as the heat produced from the human civilization.

However, that doesn't mean anything unless you have a way to support your assertion that 1% is a relevant number. Find the relevant numbers and do the math. We're only looking at ballpark numbers here so you can get by with an accuracy of 2-3 significant digits for basic numerical operations.

I can get away with an accuracy of 1 significant digit.

And it shows that 1% change in how much is reflected is 100% times our civilizations energy production. 0.01% change in reflection gives similar change in total heat on earth as the heat produced by our energy production (if we ignore the small part of energy production that is solar energy and actually reusing the heat that hits earth).

So why are you still convinced it's the amount of energy we produce that is the big problem, instead of how we produce the energy - and perform other activities. And how that affects the atmosphere? Because we have already seen the atmosphere changing reflection way more than 0.01% several times in history. We know that dust from volcanic eruptions results in much larger changes. But we don't really know exactly how much the carbon dioxide changes affects the reflection - which is why the researchers are so worried because carbon dioxide is a green house gas - something that reduces the reflection and keeps more heat locked in.

Again, show me the math. Getting an accurate number for human energy use isn't as easy as it sounds.

Show you the math? Are you saying that you haven't spent any time looking at this before you went into this debate with a fixed view on things?

That's like saying "show me the math" when you don't believe someone says iron is heavier than wood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-2019

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/bu...ull-report.pdf

For example, is it taking into account that most jet fuel is burned way higher up in the atmosphere where less infrared radiation reaches the surface (reflected by clouds etc) or dumped before landing? Does it take into account that oil tanker ships burn crude oil at international waters (illegal in pretty much all national waters) so that they don't show up in the statistics from refined diesel?

Good question. But exactly what does it matter? I haven't made a claim on how much 1 ton of CO2 is affecting the atmosphere reflection - so then I don't need to show how the height matters.

What matters is that we have already managed to measure a change in reflection - exactly how large part that is caused by greenhouse gases at ground level and how large part is greenhouse gases at airplane height is a completely different debate. The change in reflection itself is quite significant.

If you have a bleeding cut in your leg - should the debate be if it the knife was held in left or right hand? Or should the first step be to tend to the wound?

This link shows you our knowledge of how the composition of the atmosphere have changed over time - ignoring short-term events like dust from volcanos:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/606

There are a lot of complicating factors here and that statement about "Human energy use in one year is about the same as what the sun sends to earth in one hour." sounds like it matches up far too conveniently to be an actual number.

Foil hat?

The graphs shows how human consumption changes. So that match is just for a specific year - and I think you got that match somewhere around 2014.

Are you saying that the physicians are incapable of measuring the amount of energy hitting earth?
Or are you saying that all energy companies are spreading false numbers about how much energy they are producing?

Sure, I'll have a look at it if you can find a credible source. But it has to be real independent research, not IPCC sponsored. I realize historic expeditions are expensive but IPCC can't be the only ones sponsoring them.

You are claiming that it's bad IPCC research that figured out the dinosaurs died because of a change in the reflection of solar energy?

And it's bad IPCC research that made false claims that ozone affected the amount of UVB and UVC ratiation being reflected?

And it's bad IPCC research that make you think it's warmer or colder depending on amount of clouds? Where I live, the winter mornings are scorching cold if the night sky was clear, because all heat reflected out.

Look at this picture, and you can see that there are very many heat vectors to take into consideration. And there is much research still needed to try to figure out the actual implications of changes of the relations of gases in the atmosphere.

https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy

But reflection is just one of the multiple factors. You have absorbtion and reflection - and both for energy from ground and energy from the sun.

On that note, finding reflection spectra are nigh on impossible because search engines go "oh, here are some absorption spectruma". The downside of search optimizing AI is that it doesn't understand that transmission, absorption and reflection are three very different things. It's easy to just use the reflection factor but that doesn't say much about the distribution. The transmitted and reflected light spectra are usually almost identical but not exactly.

Note that our eyes operates in a narrow window of wavelengths. View the world in a wider perspective that includes IR and UV and transmitted and reflected suddenly isn't the same. If you could see UV, then you would notice that the UV gets through the clouds while the visible light doesn't. So don't lock yourself into thinking red, green, blue when considering spectra.

An example of where this is used are in those modern selective yellow light bulbs for cars, where blue light is reflected back in while other wavelengths are allowed to pass through. This filter lasts much longer than an absorption filter because it doesn't get as hot, which has always been an issue with films on light bulbs. In that case it's done through well defined internal reflection (instead of photon penetration distance through a gas) to get a sharp filter, but that's an example of what the spectrum could look like.

[coder]

Yeah because apparently a statement like "climate change can be better explained by waste heat than CO2" is clearly denying climate change. It's like one of us just had a stroke.

You think the fossil fuel industry is vested in proving climate change happens because of waste heat? What are you smoking?

The fossil fuel lobby has lately started shifting from outright denial of climate change to instead claiming that it's not human-caused or that it's too late to stop it. Since I don't know where you're getting this crap, I figured some of it might have its origins in their propaganda.

It's "we" as in humans. I don't know how that became such a mystery.

Well, then a lot of what you're describing isn't accurate, because a lot of forest is being cleared for farming, grazing, or other activities that don't result in those trees being replanted.

Sure, in the few instances where forest is replaced by farm land. But that's not such a massive trend, at least not where I live.

And why do you presume "where you live" is a representative sample of what's happening, globally?

I know what a tipping point is you know. And I'm not ignoring CO2, I'm saying waste heat is obviously a main contributing factor and from some quick eyeballing it should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics why that is. Yet you're too obsessed with CO2 to even attempt to counter my theory.

Formalize your model, collect some data, check it against your model, and write a paper (which should include your methodology). You can submit it to journals, or just post it on a website, where those knowledgeable on the subject can comment.

If you're so confident in your ideas, that's how you get them out. Others might have suggestions to help you improve or refine your model or methodology, but the more likely outcome is you'll get data which disproves it.

It's always the same deal, the CO2 theory is like a fucking religion at this point. Heresy I say, heresy!

Science, dude. You want all the benefits brought to us through science, yet somehow you're unwilling to accept 40 years of scholarship, data, and simulations from many thousands of scientists from all over the world. You can't pick and choose that science is right whenever it's convenient for you, but wrong when it's not.

No, the real issue is when you sidestep science. Again, science doesn't give you an answer, it gives you tools to figure out relations of variables.

I disagree. Science is a process, which includes trying to disprove your theory and publishing it for others to do the same. Only when nobody can shoot it down does it finally become accepted.

Just because CO2 is a plausible answer doesn't mean it's the only answer.

Scientists don't like to speak in absolutes, like saying something is 100%. However, it's what the preponderance of evidence points to. A consequence is that there's probably not some other answer they're simply overlooking.

So freedom of thought can only be the product of a religion? I think you've got that backwards.

You're confusing freedom of thought with free will?

You can think whatever you want, even if it's wrong. I don't deny that.

Also what you're describing is a scientific method, an integral part of research. It requires freedom of thought to find theories and logic to disprove them.

This is what you're missing. Logic isn't enough. Sure, if there an error in the formal logic of some theory, then that's enough to disprove it. However, it's usually all about the data and its analysis. That's what you're missing. There's no substitute for good data and sound analysis.

What I do have is tools, knowledge and methods to progressively work myself closer to a definite answer. Critical thinking is a part of that.

Sure, but you first have to understand the theory you're trying to disprove. So far, you've given no evidence you truly grasp modern climate science.

Have you ever stopped to think "what if the CO2 theory is wrong?" or "what proof do we have to support the CO2 theory?", or do you just blindly accept the first answer you get without actually following the logic?

You could also ask the same questions about whether we don't truly orbit the sun, or how do I know that we do? There's nothing special about being able to think up other hypotheses, and there's no way an individual can ever individually prove every piece of scientific knowledge on which modern civilization is built. That's why the scientific process is so important, and you're just completely ignoring it.

It's one of the most amazing creations of the human mind: a way to filter, amass, and compound our understanding of our universe. If I believed in the Devil, I'd say the cruelest trick he could play on humanity is not to make us abandon religion, but to make us abandon science.

It's not just me either, others have also looked at the data and said the data doesn't fit the theory all that well.

Yes, fossil fuel shills.

Before the social distancing shutdown the model did fit well enough to be passable but it was hardly a perfect fit.

This is wrong. Covid-19 lockdowns disproved nothing. It's only climate-change deniers who are even trying to claim it did.

In this case, that more straightforward explanation would be waste heat.

According to whom? Where's the model? Where's the supporting data?

Stick to your word and acknowledge how IPCC is not only funded by politics but founded on politics. It literally has one explicit political purpose.

Is that what Right-Wing media told you?

I still haven't figured out exactly which kind, but I do know that you're a nut. Given that you don't trust science or international institutions, I'm guessing you're also an anti-vaxer?

we're filling it with waste heat as well! In your analogy that would be like filling the swimming pool with water

Heat radiates into space, which is why it gets colder at night. The greenhouse effect changes this rate, which is why greenhouse gasses are such a problem. And they stick around in the atmosphere waaay longer than waste heat. That's why the "swimming pool" a poor analogy for your "waste heat" hypothesis.

The effect on the weather is obvious to the point where local crops are dying because they are freezing, so farmers are lighting up hay bales at night to save what they can. In May. This hasn't happened at all in recent history. Our production of strawberries ẃhich usually grow in time for the early summer rush is legitimately threatened by cold weather.

This is another example of you not understanding that your local area is not representative of the world. Globally, this May was the warmest on record. But, I gather you don't care about data - instead paying attention to only what you can directly observe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/06/05/earth-just-had-its-warmest-may-record-amid-startling-siberian-heat-wave/

Climate and weather are two different things. Climate influences weather, but over the long term and sometimes in indirect and complex ways.

It's been a major talking point for a while in Europe.

Most of what's been in the news is reduction of particulates, smog, nitrogen dioxide & such, in urban areas.

If you want examples of this then here's a few:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...climate-change

Cites only an estimated 8% drop in emissions for the year - that doesn't get us down to a sustainable level (and your next article has a neat chart to help you see that).

https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/posts/...climate-change

The coronavirus pandemic will not turn around the long-term upward trend in global emissions. But governments around the world are announcing economic stimulus measures, and they way they’re spent may affect how emissions evolve in future.

https://translate.google.com/transla...atforandringar

Didn't load for me.

https://translate.google.com/transla...-tvartom-menar

Given our discussion, I had a chuckle at this choice quote:

This is a scary lesson that shows what happens if we do not start to believe in the scientific reports.

Anyway, the article seems to be saying that we'll probably wait too long to do anything about climate change, and then overreact, leading to a prolonged economic shutdown, similar to what we've been experiencing.

I'm more pessimistic. I worry that humanity will just bumble along from one climate-related disaster to the next, always telling ourselves that now isn't a good time to reform our energy sector.

There's plenty more to find with your favorite search engine, these are just what was on the first page.

You could try reading the articles first, and then you might learn they really aren't backing up your claim.

[Djhg2000]

The fossil fuel lobby has lately started shifting from outright denial of climate change to instead claiming that it's not human-caused or that it's too late to stop it. Since I don't know where you're getting this crap, I figured some of it might have its origins in their propaganda.

No you didn't figure it comes from their propaganda. You're having problems dealing with a perspective that doesn't match your own and therefore you must find the box of an opposing opinion to put me in. Which is failing miserably I might add.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not denying climate change and it would be obvious to even a 5 year old that waste heat from power plants and the like isn't a natural phenomena.

Well, then a lot of what you're describing isn't accurate, because a lot of forest is being cleared for farming, grazing, or other activities that don't result in those trees being replanted.

That obviously varies by country. Then again it would help if so many people weren't hellbent on turning vegan and driving E85 cars, further increasing the need for farm land. The need for wood isn't decreasing that rapidly either. Paper sales are tumbling down since we're pushing hard to become a paper free society (not the best idea either but at least it cut down on deforesting so that replanting can catch up) but wood as a building material is having a relatively stable decrease.

And why do you presume "where you live" is a representative sample of what's happening, globally?

It doesn't represent the entire globe but there isn't much to suggest the same trends don't apply to much of Europe.

Formalize your model, collect some data, check it against your model, and write a paper (which should include your methodology). You can submit it to journals, or just post it on a website, where those knowledgeable on the subject can comment.

If you're so confident in your ideas, that's how you get them out. Others might have suggestions to help you improve or refine your model or methodology, but the more likely outcome is you'll get data which disproves it.

So who do you suggest might be financing that project then? Do you have any idea how much work goes into producing a scientific paper? It's like you're expecting anyone with a different opinion to take years of their life without income just to prove a point on a forum with a scientific paper. It's absolutely delusional to suggest something like that.

Science, dude. You want all the benefits brought to us through science, yet somehow you're unwilling to accept 40 years of scholarship, data, and simulations from many thousands of scientists from all over the world. You can't pick and choose that science is right whenever it's convenient for you, but wrong when it's not.

You clearly have no idea how science works anyway, but I'll give you a quick hint; most of our significant scientific advancements throughout history have stemmed either from accidents or trying to explain data points that don't fit with the existing models. Very few have actually been small incremental discoveries.

I disagree. Science is a process, which includes trying to disprove your theory and publishing it for others to do the same. Only when nobody can shoot it down does it finally become accepted.

You can disagree all you want. Fortunately for the rest of us, science doesn't care about which cherry picked parts of it you think defines science.

Scientists don't like to speak in absolutes, like saying something is 100%. However, it's what the preponderance of evidence points to. A consequence is that there's probably not some other answer they're simply overlooking.

Yet unlike you they're open to different ideas. You know why? It's because real scientists care more about about the answer than being flawless.

You're confusing freedom of thought with free will?

You can think whatever you want, even if it's wrong. I don't deny that.

The ability to evaluate new information with your existing knowledge requires free will, sure, but that's not what I'm getting at.

This was about your armchair science statement. Your stance suggests there's a strong authoritative component to science and that free thought should be left to the people higher up in the hierarchy. This is not just an insult to scientific processes but it very clearly threatens freedom of thought. If only the top of the hierarchy is allowed to use science then you take the science out of it. Scientific results should be independently verifiable by anyone with the means to do so.

This is what you're missing. Logic isn't enough. Sure, if there an error in the formal logic of some theory, then that's enough to disprove it. However, it's usually all about the data and its analysis. That's what you're missing. There's no substitute for good data and sound analysis.

I'm not saying logic is enough, quite the contrary actually. I'm trying to explain the scientific method you brought up but you won't even have that.

Sure, but you first have to understand the theory you're trying to disprove. So far, you've given no evidence you truly grasp modern climate science.

But this is what you're refusing to understand; I'm not trying to disprove the CO2 theory, in fact I'm not trying that hard to prove anything, I'm trying to argue waste heat is a viable alternate theory. Providing an alternate theory isn't the same as disproving another theory at all. In this case it's motivated by the only theory being a bad fit, but still. It seems your one track mind simply isn't capable of grasping this, so there's really no point to going into more detail.

You could also ask the same questions about whether we don't truly orbit the sun, or how do I know that we do? There's nothing special about being able to think up other hypotheses, and there's no way an individual can ever individually prove every piece of scientific knowledge on which modern civilization is built. That's why the scientific process is so important, and you're just completely ignoring it.

It's one of the most amazing creations of the human mind: a way to filter, amass, and compound our understanding of our universe. If I believed in the Devil, I'd say the cruelest trick he could play on humanity is not to make us abandon religion, but to make us abandon science.

What, you didn't go though this in science class or something? At least when I was a kid we followed the processes of Nicolaus Copernicus and Tycho Brahe to arrive at the conclusion that Earth does indeed orbit the sun. Contrary theories are more important than you think.

Speaking of which, Tycho Brahe is a good example of how far you can go in trying to prove a faulty theory. I almost forgot he even go so far as to have a somewhat working model of the old geocentric theory in which almost everything seemed to fit. Except Mars didn't appear to orbit around Earth, but that was simply glossed over as insignificant.

Yes, fossil fuel shills.

You're seriously still going with this?

This is wrong. Covid-19 lockdowns disproved nothing. It's only climate-change deniers who are even trying to claim it did.

So I'm both trying to prove climate change and denying it simultaneously? Do you even hear yourself?

According to whom? Where's the model? Where's the supporting data?

According to me, the model is some mumbo jumbo and the supporting data is written in the sky. I can't be arsed to type out something sensible to refute this bullshit anymore, you've already proved you're going to read it anyway (hint; I've already explained the basics earlier in this thread).

Is that what Right-Wing media told you?

I still haven't figured out exactly which kind, but I do know that you're a nut. Given that you don't trust science or international institutions, I'm guessing you're also an anti-vaxer?

Is this the fabled "Trump Derangement Syndrome" I've been hearing about from the right wing? I was half joking last time I exclaimed you have a one track mind but this is painfully obvious compartmentalization to avoid having to deal with someone who doesn't comply with your internal stereotypes.

Just for the record, I'm a centrist, it's specifically the IPCC I don't trust and no, I'm not a fucking anti-vaxer.

Heat radiates into space, which is why it gets colder at night. The greenhouse effect changes this rate, which is why greenhouse gasses are such a problem. And they stick around in the atmosphere waaay longer than waste heat. That's why the "swimming pool" a poor analogy for your "waste heat" hypothesis.

That's not right either. It gets colder at night because the local outgoing energy is larger than the local incoming energy. In your model, at least as you explain it, the entire Earth gets colder when you can't see the sun.

Also that quote is both incomplete and out of context, suggesting you don't understand it.

This is another example of you not understanding that your local area is not representative of the world. Globally, this May was the warmest on record. But, I gather you don't care about data - instead paying attention to only what you can directly observe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/06/05/earth-just-had-its-warmest-may-record-amid-startling-siberian-heat-wave/

Climate and weather are two different things. Climate influences weather, but over the long term and sometimes in indirect and complex ways.

So what you're saying is since now that we've opened up factories in China and people are moving out to the streets the temperature has gone back up on a global scale. Except it has very little relevance to the discussion. At this point it's no surprise you don't understand why.

I guess I'll end with this as my response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-calvsGLRfs

Most of what's been in the news is reduction of particulates, smog, nitrogen dioxide & such, in urban areas.

So what's your point? That neither of those aren't a part of climate change?

Cites only an estimated 8% drop in emissions for the year - that doesn't get us down to a sustainable level (and your next article has a neat chart to help you see that).

Further proving my point that it has been discussed in the media.

Didn't load for me.

Noted.

Given our discussion, I had a chuckle at this choice quote:

Anyway, the article seems to be saying that we'll probably wait too long to do anything about climate change, and then overreact, leading to a prolonged economic shutdown, similar to what we've been experiencing.

I'm more pessimistic. I worry that humanity will just bumble along from one climate-related disaster to the next, always telling ourselves that now isn't a good time to reform our energy sector.

Well at least we share the pessimism. For vastly different reasons, but it's probably the best I could hope for.

You could try reading the articles first, and then you might learn they really aren't backing up your claim.

They are, you're just not understanding my claim. But that's fine, as explained earlier I've run out of fucks to give trying to make you understand what I'm talking about.

[zyxxel]

No you didn't figure it comes from their propaganda. You're having problems dealing with a perspective that doesn't match your own and therefore you must find the box of an opposing opinion to put me in. Which is failing miserably I might add.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not denying climate change and it would be obvious to even a 5 year old that waste heat from power plants and the like isn't a natural phenomena.

There are quite a lot of things that are "obvious" to a 5 year old - but still aren't true.

And if you figure out your errors in your previous evaluations, you should see how very little heat we are producing.

Heat is more a local issue - the warm water from a nuclear power plant can definitely hurt the local ecology. But it doesn't affect the climate - the climate is on a global scale.

That obviously varies by country. Then again it would help if so many people weren't hellbent on turning vegan and driving E85 cars, further increasing the need for farm land. The need for wood isn't decreasing that rapidly either. Paper sales are tumbling down since we're pushing hard to become a paper free society (not the best idea either but at least it cut down on deforesting so that replanting can catch up) but wood as a building material is having a relatively stable decrease.

Ouch. Turning vegan isn't a problem - no need to worry about farm land. While I definitely eat meat, it's important to notice that it's better for the environment if we eat green stuff instead of we first have the cows eating green stuff and then we eat the cows.

A little sad thing about alcohol and cars is that for a number of countries, it would have been better with methanol instead of etanol, because it's possible to produce a huge amount of methanol from waste from the forest industry. But politicians are humans too, and so take bad decisions now and then based on what they think instead of what researchers writes in too complicated papers they do not understand.

It doesn't represent the entire globe but there isn't much to suggest the same trends don't apply to much of Europe.

Some things - like total amount of particles in the air - might be a more or less local problem. But in the end, what ends up in the atmosphere and oceans tends to end up be global problems. It's just that the global time scale is way longer. So long that lots of people decides "not a problem".

So who do you suggest might be financing that project then? Do you have any idea how much work goes into producing a scientific paper? It's like you're expecting anyone with a different opinion to take years of their life without income just to prove a point on a forum with a scientific paper. It's absolutely delusional to suggest something like that.

Why the straw man? [Rhetoric question]

According to me, the model is some mumbo jumbo and the supporting data is written in the sky. I can't be arsed to type out something sensible to refute this bullshit anymore, you've already proved you're going to read it anyway (hint; I've already explained the basics earlier in this thread).

But "according to you" is a bit interesting - you think that what is "obvious" to a 5yo must be true...

I'd say you find the model "mumbo jumbo" because the current model doesn't fit your intended idea about the world. And - as you say yourself - you can't be arsed...

That's not right either. It gets colder at night because the local outgoing energy is larger than the local incoming energy. In your model, at least as you explain it, the entire Earth gets colder when you can't see the sun.

Why does the oven get cold after having been turned off? Because it radiates out heat. The outgoing energy from earth is affected by the atmosphere just as we uses clothes to reduce the amount of heat radiating out from our bodies.

You are failing here. No one is saying that it doesn't matter if the sun is up or not. There is obviously less incoming energy at night than at day. But that wasn't what the argument was about. The argument was that clouds or no clouds makes a huge difference in how much heat that will radiate out duding the night. I can make an extremely ! large difference - something people living in cold climates learns quite early. So the atmosphere do matter - it is quite a number of degrees difference between a night with or without clouds during a winter night in colder climates.

Also that quote is both incomplete and out of context, suggesting you don't understand it.

Think again. A pool cover can be just protection from garbage and stopping people from falling in. But quite often also having isolation to reduce the need for warning the water for next day.

So what you're saying is since now that we've opened up factories in China and people are moving out to the streets the temperature has gone back up on a global scale. Except it has very little relevance to the discussion. At this point it's no surprise you don't understand why.

But it's you would fail to understand - the time scale of the planet is very, very, very long. A couple of months of covid19 affects the dust in the air - better air to breathe. But it doesn't affect the global climate - it's a many years too short time interval to be measurable when talking about global warming. It's like peeing in the ocean and expecting the water level to rise.

[Djhg2000]

There are quite a lot of things that are "obvious" to a 5 year old - but still aren't true.

Yeah but as to whether or not power plants are natural it doesn't take much guesswork to figure out the answer, does it?

And if you figure out your errors in your previous evaluations, you should see how very little heat we are producing.

Heat is more a local issue - the warm water from a nuclear power plant can definitely hurt the local ecology. But it doesn't affect the climate - the climate is on a global scale.

Most of the waste heat which power plants contribute to aren't emitted at the plant itself, it's at the endpoints where the electricity is used. But that is of course another thing I didn't factor in when I didn't do the calculations above; the power plants aren't 100% efficient so they are releasing waste heat as well. In my defense I was just doing back of the envelope calculations anyway so the final answer probably wouldn't have been that much larger.

Ouch. Turning vegan isn't a problem - no need to worry about farm land. While I definitely eat meat, it's important to notice that it's better for the environment if we eat green stuff instead of we first have the cows eating green stuff and then we eat the cows.

A little sad thing about alcohol and cars is that for a number of countries, it would have been better with methanol instead of etanol, because it's possible to produce a huge amount of methanol from waste from the forest industry. But politicians are humans too, and so take bad decisions now and then based on what they think instead of what researchers writes in too complicated papers they do not understand.

Well turning vegan has a few more obvious issues like wearing out your intestine and causing various nutrient deficiencies, but using up more farm land for growing crops is the issue I'm focusing on here. Farm animals still need to eat so you can't just take their grass, usually that's not land useful for farming anyway (either for topological reasons or because the soil needs fertilization). That means trees are next in line on the cutting board.

I do seem to remember some issues with methanol in regular cars but I haven't looked into it for a good few years. I guess it's time for another round of reading on that soon.

Some things - like total amount of particles in the air - might be a more or less local problem. But in the end, what ends up in the atmosphere and oceans tends to end up be global problems. It's just that the global time scale is way longer. So long that lots of people decides "not a problem".

Sure but that statement was in the context of the climate suddenly turning drastically colder.

Why the straw man? [Rhetoric question]

But the suggestion was literally to "Formalize your model, collect some data, check it against your model, and write a paper (which should include your methodology).". I do have other things going on in my life besides arguing about possible causes for climate change on a tech forum.

But "according to you" is a bit interesting - you think that what is "obvious" to a 5yo must be true...

I'd say you find the model "mumbo jumbo" because the current model doesn't fit your intended idea about the world. And - as you say yourself - you can't be arsed...

That entire section was a sarcastic joke because I had enough of the meaningless bickering. I thought it was obvious...

Why does the oven get cold after having been turned off? Because it radiates out heat. The outgoing energy from earth is affected by the atmosphere just as we uses clothes to reduce the amount of heat radiating out from our bodies.

It radiates heat no matter if the heater is on. The reason it gets colder is because you're not putting heat into it anymore and therefore it slowly finds a new equilibrium at room temperature.

I was however nitpicking just to poke fun at what remained of a garbage post. You can of course say that the oven gets colder because it radiates out heat.

You are failing here. No one is saying that it doesn't matter if the sun is up or not. There is obviously less incoming energy at night than at day. But that wasn't what the argument was about. The argument was that clouds or no clouds makes a huge difference in how much heat that will radiate out duding the night. I can make an extremely ! large difference - something people living in cold climates learns quite early. So the atmosphere do matter - it is quite a number of degrees difference between a night with or without clouds during a winter night in colder climates.

The model, as he stated it in that paragraph, did technically imply Earth only radiates energy at night. It's been a long thread of their deteriorating conspiracy theories and I just can't bother to take whatever comes flying back from them seriously anymore.

Think again. A pool cover can be just protection from garbage and stopping people from falling in. But quite often also having isolation to reduce the need for warning the water for next day.

See, this is exactly the problem with partial and out of context quotes. Here is the full quote:

But you're not getting it; we're filling it with waste heat as well! In your analogy that would be like filling the swimming pool with water, custard, dirt and oranges, then saying it's the water that makes it overflow. It's technically not wrong since water is one of the things in it, but that's ignoring all of the other stuff.

As you can see I was critical of their model where CO2 was the water. In context your swimming pool cover would be something stopping CO2 from getting into the atmosphere or something.

But it's you would fail to understand - the time scale of the planet is very, very, very long. A couple of months of covid19 affects the dust in the air - better air to breathe. But it doesn't affect the global climate - it's a many years too short time interval to be measurable when talking about global warming. It's like peeing in the ocean and expecting the water level to rise.

Exactly why CO2 doesn't fit that well. We had record cold after just a month or two, far too fast for CO2 to be the culprit. This is after several years of ever increasing record heat. CO2 doesn't explain that change at all but waste heat, at the very least on a plausible level, does!