# Tag Info

1

I suggest to compare human produced heat with the incident heat of the sun which is around 1 kW/m$^2$. The usual comparison is "the sun delivers more heat in an hour than humans use in a day". While such a comparison may not remain accurate forever, a difference in scale of 7000x suggests that even if humans doubled thei energy consumption every 17 years ...

2

Global energy consumption is $5\times10^{20}\ J/yr$ Assume it is all used to power incandescent lightbulbs, so 95% goes to heating the atmosphere The mass of the atmosphere is $5\times10^{18}\ kg$ The heat capacity of air is $1\times10^{3}\frac{J}{kg\cdot °C}$ Assuming all the heat goes to the atmosphere and stays there, using the definition of heat ...

2

Q=mc(t1-t2) You need to calculate C, the specific heat capacity of Earth(as a whole). You need to calculate the specific heat capacity of everything present on, inside earth for that purpose. It might be possible after we advance a bit more further:).

5

To a first-order effect, there would be no change. But one consequence of melting is that the water moves to other places. Water that moves from the poles to other areas on the surface of the earth would serve to (slightly) increase the moment of inertia of the planet. This is because the mass of the water would be farther from the rotational axis. The ...

0

There is no reason why you couldn't excite waves near a fixed surface, but these won't be surface waves. And if they are travelling close to a fixed surface, there'll be much larger material deformation than in surface waves, thus the attenuation will be strong.

Top 50 recent answers are included