Given a radiative forcing coefficient of ln(new ppm/old ppm)/ln(2)*3.7 W/m**2 I have previously calculated that for every 1kWh of electricity generated from natural gas, an additional 2.2 kWh of heat is dumped into the atmosphere due to greenhouse effect in every year thereafter (for at least 1000 years that the resulting carbon dioxide remains in the air). So while the initial numbers are similar, you have to remember that the heat you generate is a one-time release (that dissipates into space as infrared radiation), but the greenhouse effect remains around in perpetuity, accumulating from year to year. If you are consuming 1kW of fossil electricity on average, after 100 years you are still only generating 1.67kW of heat (1kW from your devices and .67kW from 60% efficient power plant), but you also get an extra 220kW of heat from accumulated greenhouse gas.
I have wondered this question myself, and it does appear that the heat from the fossil/nuclear power itself is negligible over long term compared to the greenhouse effect. At least until you reach a Kardashev type I civilization level and have so many nuclear/fusion reactors that they noticeably raise the global temperature and necessitate special radiators.
Yeah, you're not going to get a self-sustaining reaction in Earth's atmosphere if it wasn't already hot and compressed enough that there would be a self-sustaining reaction happening anyway. It's just not a plausible concern. You only get self-sustaining fusion in stars, so Earth would have to be a star in this scenario.
There was an air-quality researcher who tried getting samples in Toronto, of pollen.
He couldn’t find the pollen.
Only tires-particles.
The significance of the changes in tires, since the 1970’s, is astonishing.
What tires can do, nowadays, … outright unbelievable, compared with way back when.
Look at how far over modern bicycle-racers can lean, compared with images of the old races, when their tires hadn’t anywhere near the grip they’ve got now…
but they’re still being poured into the atmosphere at stunning rate…
All the wear of your tires, as the tread gets thinner, its going into the ecology, either the air or the waters or the land around the roads,
& then you’ve got the oceans-of-used-tires which often can’t be recycled, or cost too much to be recycled…
There has been extensive study on this stuff, btw, dig a bit & you’ll find some in-depth stuff!
This falls a bit outside my wheelhouse but I believe the answer is no. The established symmetries in particle physics are all associated with the quantum mechanical state of a particle (charge, parity, etc) and to my knowledge there isn’t an “information” quantum number.
The closest you might get to this is quantum information theory, where information is encoded in other physical characteristics (spin, parity, energy, etc). In this sense information is more of an emergent phenomenon than a fundamental property.
There’s also a Planck temperature, which is the highest we can currently predict in the Standard Model - that’s the temperature at which thermal radiation is at the highest possible energy
The atmosphere sure changed a lot because of life, which might have had its effects on incoming solar radiation? Which might have changed the temperatures of some ocean currents/continental plates? I don’t think it would differ significantly
I had access to a laminar flow hood at work, so I cleaned the dust off my phone and installed a new screen protector inside it. That was the best screen protector installation I ever did. Being able to ensure you’ve removed 100% of particles from the screen really makes a difference haha
I think I read somewheres that you need 240Hz monitor to reach flicker-fusion with parrots?
It was either 120Hz or 240Hz.
I lost flicker-fusion one time in a movie theatre when an onscreen character pulled a knife, & suddenly the screen was AVALANCHING my mind with discrete-frames, & they were jumping around ( my eyes were jumping-around, but my perspective, within my brain, had been jarred ). That even seemed to have lasted about 1 second.
There is some video, journalism or documentary or something, on dragonflies, and the person with the knowledge was saying…
~ we know how long it takes for each layer in a brain ( neural-network ) to process its layer’s stuff, and we know from the short reaction-time of dragonflies that they’re using 3-neurons-deep brain for navigating/hunting/reacting.
We don’t know how. ~
I seem to remember that neural-signal in our biology runs at about … 300km/h?
Something like that.
So, with all the circuitry being shorter in an always-smaller kind of animal, it may have a predictably-shorter flicker-fusion rate?
( within kind, so no extrapolating from humans to birds, e.g. )
askscience
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.