If all of mankind’s energy was supplied through solar panels would the effect be big enough to decrease the temperature (since light is converted in part to electricity)?
If all of mankind’s energy was supplied through solar panels would the effect be big enough to decrease the temperature (since light is converted in part to electricity)?
What?
Fossil fuels are carbon.
That carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere millions of years ago.
Burning fossil fuels releases that carbon into the atmosphere, which then makes the earth hotter
Think of oil as dead dinosaurs and coal as dead trees, that’s basically what it is.
All that stuff was taken out of circulation over an insanely long timeline, and now on a very short timeline we’re digging it up and putting it back into circulation. So fast that species can’t adapt to the change and die out before they can evolve.
My highlights had nothing to do with fossil fuels.
This?
The “watt of energy” is a watt from the coal… And they’re saying to leave the coal buried and sequestered.
I assumed that was understood, so I explained how burning coal heats up the planet…
You may have not realized what you highlighted had to do with fossil fuels, but that’s just because you didn’t understand.
Which is fine, you did the right thing and asked questions.
Burning coal doesn’t significantly heat the planet directly. The CO2 released by this causes solar heating to be more effective by trapping the escaping infrared radiation. It’s the greenhouse gases that are the issue, not the energy released by combustion. “Watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. Burning coal makes watts from the sun more effective at heating the earth.
Participate pollution melts glaciers which increases the temperature long after it fucks shit up by trapping heat in the atmosphere and blocking photosynthesis.
Just saying “watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. That’s an insignificant amount of energy compared to what the sun is delivering and what’s being trapped by CO2. “Carbon staying underground” is much more the priority.
Which is why I clarified for someone what someone else likely meant…
I’m not sure what you’re doing here, do you want me to go complain to the person who first used that phrasing on your behalf?
Didn’t realize users changed, my bad.
That’s not really relevant. Fine particulate emissions from coal power plants, which are already mostly gone in the US but are still used around the world, don’t travel a really long distance.
No, they do.
Precipitate pollution from coal use in India and China is making it to the northern glaciars.
It doesn’t need to be a lot, a small speck on a glacier can “snowball” into a substantial melt because black soot gets hotter than white snow.
https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/coal-soot-darkened-melted-glaciers-during-industrial-revolution-8C11069699
It’s not like the soot has to blanket it, especially when they’re already melting.
Grammatically, coal was not the subject of that sentence. But that’s fine, I see what OP was going for.
Weird choice to downvote the person who helped you understand, but you do you I guess.
It’s definitely convinced me not to spend anytime helping you in the future though. So maybe don’t be like this to the next person, Lemmy is small and there’s only so many people to help you, eventually you’ll run out.
I downvote those who downvote me. No worries, I didn’t really need your “help”.