Originally when I wrote my article, I had thought that greater brains than I
would pick up the baton , examine the evidense and see the discrepencies in
my arguement,,both pro and con.
I am a blue collar worker with little time for research,but I read a great deal and
in my line of work I happen to be experienced with heat loss and heat gain on
what you might term a small scale as opposed to a macroscopic scale.
Now who knows,,perhaps my theory is wrong,,that is,, that is "that it is mankinds
waste heat that is the source of global warming".
Not CO2 buildup,,not extra energy from solar gain,but simply the fires that we
have built on the Earth.
But no one here has examined my numbers,but has simply accepted my numbers
as I have quoted them from other sources. I was awaiting someone to do so.
Now Adoucette argued con that I had to be wrong,for my own numbers proved it.
But are those numbers correct,for I had simply pulled those numbers from the
same sources that Adoucette is familar with?
And who has proved or challenged those numbers?
Adoucette is the best scientist of all,,but he has missed something, and I think he knows just what I mean.
If the solar gain or the effective solar gain is much lower than what we have
been led to believe then it will be proved that the percentage of heat given off
by mankinds activities will be much larger--and therefore not neglible,,but rather
a serious concern.
Another source that I referred to earlier mentioned that mankind is using the
equivallent of 400 years of solar gain in biomass in 1 year of time.
Is not something awry with the numbers?
For would not the biomass cover the Earth in order to accept all the "effective"
energy of the solar gain?
But if you add energy during the summer,,do you not get hotter summers?
And if you add energy during the winter,,do you not get less cold winters?
I would ask you all to read my article,and realize that my numbers need
researched,,but to do that with an open mind!
And so once again--here is the article
Blinded by Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In the more modern era, engineering as a discipline, already rooted, now flourished. But at some point, an assumption for the sake of convenience was made. This assumption was that the surroundings are an infinite heat sink. Bear in mind that for the purpose of designing, for example internal combustion engines, etc, then this assumption is perfectly valid, for a designer generally focuses only on the design of his or her particular project and not on any larger implication. The problem is that this early assumption, meant only for the purpose of designing various things that used energy, gradually grew into an assertation of fact about the larger world; a completely unquestionable tenant of modern engineering in relationship to the environment of the globe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that assumption.
While the effect of large cities on the local climate is recognized, perhaps we should take a more inclusive all encompassing view of our energy usage. We are using gargantuan quantities of energy from oil, coal, gas, etc. all around the globe. A great deal of these fossil fuels is converted to electricity at huge generating plants. During the conversion stage, much of the heat energy is given off to the atmosphere either through the chimney along with the flue gases, or dissipated through cooling towers, or discharged as warm water into a nearby river. Also combustion releases water vapor, which has a greater “green house effect than carbon dioxide.” Further more, once the energy of combustion is converted to electricity, the trail of waste heat continues. As the electricity is transmitted, heat is given off along the transmission lines and at the transformers. When the electricity is converted into light energy or mechanical motion, most of this energy ultimately ends up as heat again. Although most of this heat loss is not noticeable, it is measurable, and added up. The amounts are very great indeed.
We have many millions of internal combustion driven vehicles around the world. They convert the energy given off by combustion into motion. Again, the total amounts of energy that these vehicles consume and give off as waste heat is staggering. These automobiles, trucks, trains, boats, and airplanes lose a good portion of the heat of combustion through their exhaust and then more again through their cooling systems. All engines need a cooling system: with land vehicles the cooling system gives off its heat to the air. With ships, that cooling system gives off its heat to the rivers and oceans upon which they travel. The amount of heat given off into the rivers and oceans by the giant barges, tankers, and military vessels would be considerable. Also energy of motion is lost through friction with the medium through which they travel, whether that is the tires against the road, the air against the surface of the vehicle, or the water against the surface of the boat.
The fact that heat losses from the transmission of electricity and from vehicles is spread out over a wider area and not usually noticeable or easily measurable, does not make it insignificant. In total, the amounts are very large.
All of our dwelling places, large and small, over large portions of the globe, must be heated. If they are heated with fossil fuels, a portion of this heat goes into the atmosphere through the flue gases and the rest is merely delayed in the dwelling place. All this heat is dissipated to the surrounds through the walls, sooner or later, depending upon how well the place is insulated. If the dwelling is heated by electric resistance heat, the trail of heat lose begins at the generating plant and ends at the dwelling, with every BTU released into our environment.
All of societies mechanized activities including travel and industrial processes give off a certain amount of heat. The sum of all this waste heat forms a more or less constant baseline which is added to the Earth’s solar gain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The magnitude of this baseline while large is growing ever larger.
Besides the magnitude of the heat that we are releasing into the biosphere perhaps there are also synergistic effects that come into play. Synergy can be defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example we will commonly go into an area, raze the trees and bulldoze the greenery, which both had previously had a cooling effect, and then build blacktopped parking lots and roads and erect black-roofed buildings. Often we will do this in parts of the world that are already very hot. In addition we will then add internal combustion engines, fossil fueled power plants, etc. to the locale. It might be reasonable to assume that there would be a net warming effect from those changes. Perhaps this warming effect extends further and perhaps is greater than the sum of its components.
Not only do we add heat to the environment at all times due to travel, trade, and industry but we also exert feedback into the natural environment due to residential and business heating and cooling needs. During the “heating season” man’s consumption of all types of fuel and electricity increases in direct proportion to how cold the outside environment is. By necessity, the colder the weather, the more energy we infuse into our homes and businesses, and of course this all leaks “out.” Now an ever-increasing amount of electricity consumption is used for cooling both for air conditioning homes and businesses and to run the ever-increasing number of food and beverage coolers. These cooling processes consume more energy in direct proportion to how high the outside temperature is. By increasing the generation of electricity we also infuse even more energy into the surroundings as it gets hotter outside. Just to repeat, we are adding a positive baseline of heat to the environment at all times, which alone would tend to raise peak temperatures and also raise low temperatures from the previous average. Then again we are adding feedback to the environment for the colder it gets, the more heat we release and the hotter it gets the more heat we release. This process would also tend to raise peak temperatures and low temperatures as well.
And what effect do the vast military, commercial, and pleasure craft navies of the worlds nations have on the ocean temperature or on just the surface temperature. It is said that various types of ships have their own unique heat signatures, making them readily identifiable by infrared imaging via satellite. For all the waste heat of the engines of gigantic battleships, cargo ships, tankers, and cruise liners is released into the surface of the ocean as they travel. Furthermore, ships that require cooling of product or people would use cooling methods that would result in the release of even more heat into the oceans. Although the oceans are vast, is it not possible that there is some effect, especially where marine traffic is large and/or where surface temperatures are already warm. Warm water tends to stay on the surface, and stay warm especially during times of little wave action and when days and nights are warm. Is it not possible that synergistic effects would be seen on sections of the world’s oceans?
There is theory of chaotic behavior, which states that the behavior of very complex systems can be perturbed by relatively small changes from within or outside the system. For instance, supposedly the beat of a butterfly’s wings in South Africa could trigger a blizzard in the Arctic. The point is that chaotic behavior is unpredictable. The weather is widely regarded as a chaotic system and we are making more than small changes to the “outside” world.
Some mental images maybe be appropriate to try to comprehend the scale of the changes that mankind is causing. If the early image of mankind was of scattered bands of people crouched around camp fires, then we have reached a point where a far different scene can be imagined.
If we were naturally endowed with sensitive infrared vision the modern world would be an eye-opening experience. It may help to conceptualize this by imagining this in our local area, perhaps as we drive to work. Picture every source of energy consumption as an open fire. In regards to the laws of thermodynamics it matters not that the energy conversion is contained within a car engine, a home heating system, or an electrical generating plant. It matters not that the conversion from potential energy to kinetic takes place in an open fire or within any of our numerous power devices. All of that heat is sooner or later released to the great outdoors.
Now on this drive to work we would see vehicles of every size, each represented by a fire within, some smaller and some truly large. A busy highway would appear as a continuous stream of fire, for we are burning streams and rivers of oil. A power plant would appear as a gigantic bonfire. Buildings of every sort would glow with fires within.
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x1020 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x1017 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x1012 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x1012 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
Sources
1. Solar Radiation Budget. Bonnet, Bernard Yves, http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3621/SOLAR.HTM
2. International Energy Outlook 2005 – Highlights. U.S. Government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/
3. Earth’s Energy Budget. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget
Blinded By Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In
QUOTE (overlookedinfo+Apr 19 2006, 01:26 AM)
Originally when I wrote my article, I had thought that greater brains than I
would pick up the baton , examine the evidense and see the discrepencies in
my arguement,,both pro and con.
I am a blue collar worker with little time for research,but I read a great deal and
in my line of work I happen to be experienced with heat loss and heat gain on
what you might term a small scale as opposed to a macroscopic scale.
Now who knows,,perhaps my theory is wrong,,that is,, that is "that it is mankinds
waste heat that is the source of global warming".
Not CO2 buildup,,not extra energy from solar gain,but simply the fires that we
have built on the Earth.
But no one here has examined my numbers,but has simply accepted my numbers
as I have quoted them from other sources. I was awaiting someone to do so.
Now Adoucette argued con that I had to be wrong,for my own numbers proved it.
But are those numbers correct,for I had simply pulled those numbers from the
same sources that Adoucette is familar with?
And who has proved or challenged those numbers?
Adoucette is the best scientist of all,,but he has missed something, and I think he knows just what I mean.
If the solar gain or the effective solar gain is much lower than what we have
been led to believe then it will be proved that the percentage of heat given off
by mankinds activities will be much larger--and therefore not neglible,,but rather
a serious concern.
Another source that I referred to earlier mentioned that mankind is using the
equivallent of 400 years of solar gain in biomass in 1 year of time.
Is not something awry with the numbers?
For would not the biomass cover the Earth in order to accept all the "effective"
energy of the solar gain?
But if you add energy during the summer,,do you not get hotter summers?
And if you add energy during the winter,,do you not get less cold winters?
I would ask you all to read my article,and realize that my numbers need
researched,,but to do that with an open mind!
And so once again--here is the article
Blinded by Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In the more modern era, engineering as a discipline, already rooted, now flourished. But at some point, an assumption for the sake of convenience was made. This assumption was that the surroundings are an infinite heat sink. Bear in mind that for the purpose of designing, for example internal combustion engines, etc, then this assumption is perfectly valid, for a designer generally focuses only on the design of his or her particular project and not on any larger implication. The problem is that this early assumption, meant only for the purpose of designing various things that used energy, gradually grew into an assertation of fact about the larger world; a completely unquestionable tenant of modern engineering in relationship to the environment of the globe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that assumption.
While the effect of large cities on the local climate is recognized, perhaps we should take a more inclusive all encompassing view of our energy usage. We are using gargantuan quantities of energy from oil, coal, gas, etc. all around the globe. A great deal of these fossil fuels is converted to electricity at huge generating plants. During the conversion stage, much of the heat energy is given off to the atmosphere either through the chimney along with the flue gases, or dissipated through cooling towers, or discharged as warm water into a nearby river. Also combustion releases water vapor, which has a greater “green house effect than carbon dioxide.” Further more, once the energy of combustion is converted to electricity, the trail of waste heat continues. As the electricity is transmitted, heat is given off along the transmission lines and at the transformers. When the electricity is converted into light energy or mechanical motion, most of this energy ultimately ends up as heat again. Although most of this heat loss is not noticeable, it is measurable, and added up. The amounts are very great indeed.
We have many millions of internal combustion driven vehicles around the world. They convert the energy given off by combustion into motion. Again, the total amounts of energy that these vehicles consume and give off as waste heat is staggering. These automobiles, trucks, trains, boats, and airplanes lose a good portion of the heat of combustion through their exhaust and then more again through their cooling systems. All engines need a cooling system: with land vehicles the cooling system gives off its heat to the air. With ships, that cooling system gives off its heat to the rivers and oceans upon which they travel. The amount of heat given off into the rivers and oceans by the giant barges, tankers, and military vessels would be considerable. Also energy of motion is lost through friction with the medium through which they travel, whether that is the tires against the road, the air against the surface of the vehicle, or the water against the surface of the boat.
The fact that heat losses from the transmission of electricity and from vehicles is spread out over a wider area and not usually noticeable or easily measurable, does not make it insignificant. In total, the amounts are very large.
All of our dwelling places, large and small, over large portions of the globe, must be heated. If they are heated with fossil fuels, a portion of this heat goes into the atmosphere through the flue gases and the rest is merely delayed in the dwelling place. All this heat is dissipated to the surrounds through the walls, sooner or later, depending upon how well the place is insulated. If the dwelling is heated by electric resistance heat, the trail of heat lose begins at the generating plant and ends at the dwelling, with every BTU released into our environment.
All of societies mechanized activities including travel and industrial processes give off a certain amount of heat. The sum of all this waste heat forms a more or less constant baseline which is added to the Earth’s solar gain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The magnitude of this baseline while large is growing ever larger.
Besides the magnitude of the heat that we are releasing into the biosphere perhaps there are also synergistic effects that come into play. Synergy can be defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example we will commonly go into an area, raze the trees and bulldoze the greenery, which both had previously had a cooling effect, and then build blacktopped parking lots and roads and erect black-roofed buildings. Often we will do this in parts of the world that are already very hot. In addition we will then add internal combustion engines, fossil fueled power plants, etc. to the locale. It might be reasonable to assume that there would be a net warming effect from those changes. Perhaps this warming effect extends further and perhaps is greater than the sum of its components.
Not only do we add heat to the environment at all times due to travel, trade, and industry but we also exert feedback into the natural environment due to residential and business heating and cooling needs. During the “heating season” man’s consumption of all types of fuel and electricity increases in direct proportion to how cold the outside environment is. By necessity, the colder the weather, the more energy we infuse into our homes and businesses, and of course this all leaks “out.” Now an ever-increasing amount of electricity consumption is used for cooling both for air conditioning homes and businesses and to run the ever-increasing number of food and beverage coolers. These cooling processes consume more energy in direct proportion to how high the outside temperature is. By increasing the generation of electricity we also infuse even more energy into the surroundings as it gets hotter outside. Just to repeat, we are adding a positive baseline of heat to the environment at all times, which alone would tend to raise peak temperatures and also raise low temperatures from the previous average. Then again we are adding feedback to the environment for the colder it gets, the more heat we release and the hotter it gets the more heat we release. This process would also tend to raise peak temperatures and low temperatures as well.
And what effect do the vast military, commercial, and pleasure craft navies of the worlds nations have on the ocean temperature or on just the surface temperature. It is said that various types of ships have their own unique heat signatures, making them readily identifiable by infrared imaging via satellite. For all the waste heat of the engines of gigantic battleships, cargo ships, tankers, and cruise liners is released into the surface of the ocean as they travel. Furthermore, ships that require cooling of product or people would use cooling methods that would result in the release of even more heat into the oceans. Although the oceans are vast, is it not possible that there is some effect, especially where marine traffic is large and/or where surface temperatures are already warm. Warm water tends to stay on the surface, and stay warm especially during times of little wave action and when days and nights are warm. Is it not possible that synergistic effects would be seen on sections of the world’s oceans?
There is theory of chaotic behavior, which states that the behavior of very complex systems can be perturbed by relatively small changes from within or outside the system. For instance, supposedly the beat of a butterfly’s wings in South Africa could trigger a blizzard in the Arctic. The point is that chaotic behavior is unpredictable. The weather is widely regarded as a chaotic system and we are making more than small changes to the “outside” world.
Some mental images maybe be appropriate to try to comprehend the scale of the changes that mankind is causing. If the early image of mankind was of scattered bands of people crouched around camp fires, then we have reached a point where a far different scene can be imagined.
If we were naturally endowed with sensitive infrared vision the modern world would be an eye-opening experience. It may help to conceptualize this by imagining this in our local area, perhaps as we drive to work. Picture every source of energy consumption as an open fire. In regards to the laws of thermodynamics it matters not that the energy conversion is contained within a car engine, a home heating system, or an electrical generating plant. It matters not that the conversion from potential energy to kinetic takes place in an open fire or within any of our numerous power devices. All of that heat is sooner or later released to the great outdoors.
Now on this drive to work we would see vehicles of every size, each represented by a fire within, some smaller and some truly large. A busy highway would appear as a continuous stream of fire, for we are burning streams and rivers of oil. A power plant would appear as a gigantic bonfire. Buildings of every sort would glow with fires within.
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x1020 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x1017 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x1012 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x1012 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
Sources
1. Solar Radiation Budget. Bonnet, Bernard Yves, http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3621/SOLAR.HTM
2. International Energy Outlook 2005 – Highlights. U.S. Government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/
3. Earth’s Energy Budget. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget
Blinded By Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In
As I stated in my article-
Take a sine wave of naturally occuring temperatures,,
Then add to that sine wave the sine wave of all mankinds activities,such as
industrial heat pollution,,transportation heat pollution,[both land and sea], and
all waste heat given off by electrical generation.
Now add another sine wave of all mankinds heating and cooling needs,in order to heat the dwellings in the winter and cool them in the summer
Combine these three sine waves,,and you have an exact match to our weather
conditions today.
It is a sine wave that is way hotter in the summer,,warmer in the winter,,and generally flattened out between the two
would pick up the baton , examine the evidense and see the discrepencies in
my arguement,,both pro and con.
I am a blue collar worker with little time for research,but I read a great deal and
in my line of work I happen to be experienced with heat loss and heat gain on
what you might term a small scale as opposed to a macroscopic scale.
Now who knows,,perhaps my theory is wrong,,that is,, that is "that it is mankinds
waste heat that is the source of global warming".
Not CO2 buildup,,not extra energy from solar gain,but simply the fires that we
have built on the Earth.
But no one here has examined my numbers,but has simply accepted my numbers
as I have quoted them from other sources. I was awaiting someone to do so.
Now Adoucette argued con that I had to be wrong,for my own numbers proved it.
But are those numbers correct,for I had simply pulled those numbers from the
same sources that Adoucette is familar with?
And who has proved or challenged those numbers?
Adoucette is the best scientist of all,,but he has missed something, and I think he knows just what I mean.
If the solar gain or the effective solar gain is much lower than what we have
been led to believe then it will be proved that the percentage of heat given off
by mankinds activities will be much larger--and therefore not neglible,,but rather
a serious concern.
Another source that I referred to earlier mentioned that mankind is using the
equivallent of 400 years of solar gain in biomass in 1 year of time.
Is not something awry with the numbers?
For would not the biomass cover the Earth in order to accept all the "effective"
energy of the solar gain?
But if you add energy during the summer,,do you not get hotter summers?
And if you add energy during the winter,,do you not get less cold winters?
I would ask you all to read my article,and realize that my numbers need
researched,,but to do that with an open mind!
And so once again--here is the article
Blinded by Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In the more modern era, engineering as a discipline, already rooted, now flourished. But at some point, an assumption for the sake of convenience was made. This assumption was that the surroundings are an infinite heat sink. Bear in mind that for the purpose of designing, for example internal combustion engines, etc, then this assumption is perfectly valid, for a designer generally focuses only on the design of his or her particular project and not on any larger implication. The problem is that this early assumption, meant only for the purpose of designing various things that used energy, gradually grew into an assertation of fact about the larger world; a completely unquestionable tenant of modern engineering in relationship to the environment of the globe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that assumption.
While the effect of large cities on the local climate is recognized, perhaps we should take a more inclusive all encompassing view of our energy usage. We are using gargantuan quantities of energy from oil, coal, gas, etc. all around the globe. A great deal of these fossil fuels is converted to electricity at huge generating plants. During the conversion stage, much of the heat energy is given off to the atmosphere either through the chimney along with the flue gases, or dissipated through cooling towers, or discharged as warm water into a nearby river. Also combustion releases water vapor, which has a greater “green house effect than carbon dioxide.” Further more, once the energy of combustion is converted to electricity, the trail of waste heat continues. As the electricity is transmitted, heat is given off along the transmission lines and at the transformers. When the electricity is converted into light energy or mechanical motion, most of this energy ultimately ends up as heat again. Although most of this heat loss is not noticeable, it is measurable, and added up. The amounts are very great indeed.
We have many millions of internal combustion driven vehicles around the world. They convert the energy given off by combustion into motion. Again, the total amounts of energy that these vehicles consume and give off as waste heat is staggering. These automobiles, trucks, trains, boats, and airplanes lose a good portion of the heat of combustion through their exhaust and then more again through their cooling systems. All engines need a cooling system: with land vehicles the cooling system gives off its heat to the air. With ships, that cooling system gives off its heat to the rivers and oceans upon which they travel. The amount of heat given off into the rivers and oceans by the giant barges, tankers, and military vessels would be considerable. Also energy of motion is lost through friction with the medium through which they travel, whether that is the tires against the road, the air against the surface of the vehicle, or the water against the surface of the boat.
The fact that heat losses from the transmission of electricity and from vehicles is spread out over a wider area and not usually noticeable or easily measurable, does not make it insignificant. In total, the amounts are very large.
All of our dwelling places, large and small, over large portions of the globe, must be heated. If they are heated with fossil fuels, a portion of this heat goes into the atmosphere through the flue gases and the rest is merely delayed in the dwelling place. All this heat is dissipated to the surrounds through the walls, sooner or later, depending upon how well the place is insulated. If the dwelling is heated by electric resistance heat, the trail of heat lose begins at the generating plant and ends at the dwelling, with every BTU released into our environment.
All of societies mechanized activities including travel and industrial processes give off a certain amount of heat. The sum of all this waste heat forms a more or less constant baseline which is added to the Earth’s solar gain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The magnitude of this baseline while large is growing ever larger.
Besides the magnitude of the heat that we are releasing into the biosphere perhaps there are also synergistic effects that come into play. Synergy can be defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. For example we will commonly go into an area, raze the trees and bulldoze the greenery, which both had previously had a cooling effect, and then build blacktopped parking lots and roads and erect black-roofed buildings. Often we will do this in parts of the world that are already very hot. In addition we will then add internal combustion engines, fossil fueled power plants, etc. to the locale. It might be reasonable to assume that there would be a net warming effect from those changes. Perhaps this warming effect extends further and perhaps is greater than the sum of its components.
Not only do we add heat to the environment at all times due to travel, trade, and industry but we also exert feedback into the natural environment due to residential and business heating and cooling needs. During the “heating season” man’s consumption of all types of fuel and electricity increases in direct proportion to how cold the outside environment is. By necessity, the colder the weather, the more energy we infuse into our homes and businesses, and of course this all leaks “out.” Now an ever-increasing amount of electricity consumption is used for cooling both for air conditioning homes and businesses and to run the ever-increasing number of food and beverage coolers. These cooling processes consume more energy in direct proportion to how high the outside temperature is. By increasing the generation of electricity we also infuse even more energy into the surroundings as it gets hotter outside. Just to repeat, we are adding a positive baseline of heat to the environment at all times, which alone would tend to raise peak temperatures and also raise low temperatures from the previous average. Then again we are adding feedback to the environment for the colder it gets, the more heat we release and the hotter it gets the more heat we release. This process would also tend to raise peak temperatures and low temperatures as well.
And what effect do the vast military, commercial, and pleasure craft navies of the worlds nations have on the ocean temperature or on just the surface temperature. It is said that various types of ships have their own unique heat signatures, making them readily identifiable by infrared imaging via satellite. For all the waste heat of the engines of gigantic battleships, cargo ships, tankers, and cruise liners is released into the surface of the ocean as they travel. Furthermore, ships that require cooling of product or people would use cooling methods that would result in the release of even more heat into the oceans. Although the oceans are vast, is it not possible that there is some effect, especially where marine traffic is large and/or where surface temperatures are already warm. Warm water tends to stay on the surface, and stay warm especially during times of little wave action and when days and nights are warm. Is it not possible that synergistic effects would be seen on sections of the world’s oceans?
There is theory of chaotic behavior, which states that the behavior of very complex systems can be perturbed by relatively small changes from within or outside the system. For instance, supposedly the beat of a butterfly’s wings in South Africa could trigger a blizzard in the Arctic. The point is that chaotic behavior is unpredictable. The weather is widely regarded as a chaotic system and we are making more than small changes to the “outside” world.
Some mental images maybe be appropriate to try to comprehend the scale of the changes that mankind is causing. If the early image of mankind was of scattered bands of people crouched around camp fires, then we have reached a point where a far different scene can be imagined.
If we were naturally endowed with sensitive infrared vision the modern world would be an eye-opening experience. It may help to conceptualize this by imagining this in our local area, perhaps as we drive to work. Picture every source of energy consumption as an open fire. In regards to the laws of thermodynamics it matters not that the energy conversion is contained within a car engine, a home heating system, or an electrical generating plant. It matters not that the conversion from potential energy to kinetic takes place in an open fire or within any of our numerous power devices. All of that heat is sooner or later released to the great outdoors.
Now on this drive to work we would see vehicles of every size, each represented by a fire within, some smaller and some truly large. A busy highway would appear as a continuous stream of fire, for we are burning streams and rivers of oil. A power plant would appear as a gigantic bonfire. Buildings of every sort would glow with fires within.
Meanwhile the scientific debate appears to regard all of this heat as negligible. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t but it does seem worth mentioning when the numbers have become so large! Figures vary but one source puts the conservative total yearly solar input at 7.577x1020 BTUs or 757,000 quads1. Another source puts man’s total energy consumption for 2004 at 412 quads2. Thus man’s total yearly energy consumption seems to be 1/1000 of the total yearly solar gain. We find in the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia3, that the total solar energy reaching Earth is 1.74x1017 watts, and that the tidal energy amounts to 3x1012 watts. The same source puts mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption at 1.3x1012 watts. Thus it seems that mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption alone represents 4 times the power of the world’s tides.
To me these are huge numbers and I find it incredible that mankind’s consumption of energy represents more power than the power of the tides (if the figures are truly accurate). Then again, perhaps it is the where and the when of our heat releases, synergistic effects and feedback that are bigger factors than simply the magnitude of our waste heat. I am not a climatologist but have some science background and read a lot. I also work a job in which I directly experience the heat energy that we are releasing into the environment. If this waste heat has become a factor in our weather, it doesn’t help to ignore the issue.
Sources
1. Solar Radiation Budget. Bonnet, Bernard Yves, http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3621/SOLAR.HTM
2. International Energy Outlook 2005 – Highlights. U.S. Government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/
3. Earth’s Energy Budget. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget
Blinded By Progress
By Dave Latoche
Dave3001@hotmail.com
With the ongoing fixation on carbon dioxide being the cause of “possible global warming,” I think we may be “fiddling while Rome burns.” With all the talk of the dangerous build-up of CO2, nary a word is mentioned of “waste heat,” of which every BTU of energy that we consume becomes “waste heat.” The laws of thermodynamics say this is so, and cannot be rescinded. Eons ago, individual people discovered that fire was a source of power. The idea spread and eventually made modern civilization possible. In
As I stated in my article-
Take a sine wave of naturally occuring temperatures,,
Then add to that sine wave the sine wave of all mankinds activities,such as
industrial heat pollution,,transportation heat pollution,[both land and sea], and
all waste heat given off by electrical generation.
Now add another sine wave of all mankinds heating and cooling needs,in order to heat the dwellings in the winter and cool them in the summer
Combine these three sine waves,,and you have an exact match to our weather
conditions today.
It is a sine wave that is way hotter in the summer,,warmer in the winter,,and generally flattened out between the two
I certainly encourage you to continue to research and to question what you read and their sources and their motivations.
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 19 2006, 02:27 AM)
I certainly encourage you to continue to research and to question what you read and their sources and their motivations.
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
at a figure of say 757000 quads as solar input is a key part of the equation. Does anyone in this discussion know if this figure is accurate to a power of 10, 100,
or even 1000?
On the other hand if someone were to say that mankinds energy consumption
was 412 quads,,it must be realized that that amount of energy is in Addition-repeat Addition and growing,,to whatever the amount of solar gain is!
Anyway in answer to the question,,if heat dissipates rapidly through the air
around the surface of the globe,,then it is not surprizing to see that the Artic shows
a greater increase in temperature. In physics there is a term ,change in temp.
symbolized by a triangle T [unfortunately I cannot show the symbol on this
keyboard]. The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth,if you were to leave
your refrigerator door open,then eventually you would see your freezer section
start to thaw. And also similarly, it may be that the only thing that has kept our
climate to the degree of stability that it has,,,,,is that the great bulk of heat is
just gradually melting that great mass of ice. When that is gone,there may be problems. That is why I speak out.
I see the natural climate [in whatever relation to the solar input],, as a very irregular sine wave,,day and night--summer and winter,,year after year. And yes
our doings may have prevented an ice age.
But now add another sine wave,of mankinds heating and cooling needs.
That sine wave would add heat in the winter,proportionally to how cold the winter was,,and would also add heat in the summer,proportionally to how hot the summer was. Positive feed-back you see?
Now add a third sine wave,,but one of small occillations[corresponding to our
economic cycles]. This would be one of high amplitude,proportional to heat output.
and our economic activity,which is at this time proportional to energy consumption
The 'resultant' sine wave of these three,would be a sine wave with a higher peak
,a higher low,and a general flattening out of the natural sine wave.
And that is Exactly what we are seeing,,warmer winters,,hotter summers,,and
more times of quasi spring and quasi fall.
Whatever the problem,humankind can solve it,,but only by looking square
on the problem and understanding. Only then,no other way!
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
at a figure of say 757000 quads as solar input is a key part of the equation. Does anyone in this discussion know if this figure is accurate to a power of 10, 100,
or even 1000?
On the other hand if someone were to say that mankinds energy consumption
was 412 quads,,it must be realized that that amount of energy is in Addition-repeat Addition and growing,,to whatever the amount of solar gain is!
Anyway in answer to the question,,if heat dissipates rapidly through the air
around the surface of the globe,,then it is not surprizing to see that the Artic shows
a greater increase in temperature. In physics there is a term ,change in temp.
symbolized by a triangle T [unfortunately I cannot show the symbol on this
keyboard]. The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth,if you were to leave
your refrigerator door open,then eventually you would see your freezer section
start to thaw. And also similarly, it may be that the only thing that has kept our
climate to the degree of stability that it has,,,,,is that the great bulk of heat is
just gradually melting that great mass of ice. When that is gone,there may be problems. That is why I speak out.
I see the natural climate [in whatever relation to the solar input],, as a very irregular sine wave,,day and night--summer and winter,,year after year. And yes
our doings may have prevented an ice age.
But now add another sine wave,of mankinds heating and cooling needs.
That sine wave would add heat in the winter,proportionally to how cold the winter was,,and would also add heat in the summer,proportionally to how hot the summer was. Positive feed-back you see?
Now add a third sine wave,,but one of small occillations[corresponding to our
economic cycles]. This would be one of high amplitude,proportional to heat output.
and our economic activity,which is at this time proportional to energy consumption
The 'resultant' sine wave of these three,would be a sine wave with a higher peak
,a higher low,and a general flattening out of the natural sine wave.
And that is Exactly what we are seeing,,warmer winters,,hotter summers,,and
more times of quasi spring and quasi fall.
Whatever the problem,humankind can solve it,,but only by looking square
on the problem and understanding. Only then,no other way!
Energy and global warming
In reply to the post by Dave Latoche, entitled "overlookedinfo", I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been working along the same lines for some months now, and have also come to the same conclusion that global warming is being caused by the very energy being produced by mankind, without any need to bring the idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect into consideration. The difficulty is to get anyone to take any interest. The publications "Science" and "Nature" have declined to publish my paper without giving any reason, and similarly with the press I have tried. I now take this opportunity to present my own thoughts on the matter.
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is now suggested that the total world energy produced by mankind is transported to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents, and each individual area within those regions receives by radiation an amount of energy in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
Although the amounts of energy are relatively small compared with the energy from the Sun, nevertheless it is energy additional to a finely balanced system, and is more than sufficient to cause all the observed melting of the world’s ice, as will be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4×10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89×10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59×10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35×10^5 Joules/Kg, and allowing for a 12% loss of energy, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.2×10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5×10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8×10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^2 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^2 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3×10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0×10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4×10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092×10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394×10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 8.35×10^21 Joules in this 25 year period, allowing for 12% loss to outer space.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 7.235×10^21 Joules, allowing 12% loss.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3)×7.235×10^21 Joules, that is
2.25×10^21 J, allowing a 12% loss of energy, and this can melt 6.7×10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is 9% less than the estimated practical figure of 7.4×10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Allowing 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 47.5 Gt, which is 1.5% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2, and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Allowing for a 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 17.1 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which has a factor of almost 5 in error. However, this is only the energy received by radiation from the “pre-industrial” greenhouse layer, and additional energy will doubtless be received from the circulating air currents. This may well account for the difference.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered, and allowing a 12% loss was 7.27×10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.25×10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.33×10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58×10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.16×10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.11×10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 5.1×10^18 Kg for the mass of the atmosphere, and 1.015×10^3 J/KgdegC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 0.8oC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6oC over the last 150 years.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67×10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, and a 12% loss, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.04×10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 5.25×10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 5.8×10^18 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27×10^21 Joules. After allowing the 12% loss, and the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 4.88×10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67×10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (4.88 – 4.67)×10^20 Joules. That is 2.1×10^19 Joules for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14×10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16×10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.18 degC in one decade.
This is about a factor of 3 down on the practical value, but the discrepancy could be due to the fact that we assumed uniform annual melting of the ice throughout the decade. Moreover, if the geographic factor were to be 0.143 instead of 0.13, then the calculated temperature rise would be 0.6 degC per decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, and only a small proportion can be lost to outer space because of the well-known, pre-anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However, it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because most of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Manchester, UK
In reply to the post by Dave Latoche, entitled "overlookedinfo", I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been working along the same lines for some months now, and have also come to the same conclusion that global warming is being caused by the very energy being produced by mankind, without any need to bring the idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect into consideration. The difficulty is to get anyone to take any interest. The publications "Science" and "Nature" have declined to publish my paper without giving any reason, and similarly with the press I have tried. I now take this opportunity to present my own thoughts on the matter.
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is now suggested that the total world energy produced by mankind is transported to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents, and each individual area within those regions receives by radiation an amount of energy in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
Although the amounts of energy are relatively small compared with the energy from the Sun, nevertheless it is energy additional to a finely balanced system, and is more than sufficient to cause all the observed melting of the world’s ice, as will be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4×10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89×10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59×10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35×10^5 Joules/Kg, and allowing for a 12% loss of energy, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.2×10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5×10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8×10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^2 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^2 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3×10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0×10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4×10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092×10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394×10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 8.35×10^21 Joules in this 25 year period, allowing for 12% loss to outer space.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 7.235×10^21 Joules, allowing 12% loss.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3)×7.235×10^21 Joules, that is
2.25×10^21 J, allowing a 12% loss of energy, and this can melt 6.7×10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is 9% less than the estimated practical figure of 7.4×10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Allowing 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 47.5 Gt, which is 1.5% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2, and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Allowing for a 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 17.1 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which has a factor of almost 5 in error. However, this is only the energy received by radiation from the “pre-industrial” greenhouse layer, and additional energy will doubtless be received from the circulating air currents. This may well account for the difference.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered, and allowing a 12% loss was 7.27×10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.25×10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.33×10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58×10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.16×10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.11×10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 5.1×10^18 Kg for the mass of the atmosphere, and 1.015×10^3 J/KgdegC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 0.8oC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6oC over the last 150 years.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67×10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, and a 12% loss, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.04×10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 5.25×10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 5.8×10^18 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27×10^21 Joules. After allowing the 12% loss, and the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 4.88×10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67×10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (4.88 – 4.67)×10^20 Joules. That is 2.1×10^19 Joules for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14×10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16×10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.18 degC in one decade.
This is about a factor of 3 down on the practical value, but the discrepancy could be due to the fact that we assumed uniform annual melting of the ice throughout the decade. Moreover, if the geographic factor were to be 0.143 instead of 0.13, then the calculated temperature rise would be 0.6 degC per decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, and only a small proportion can be lost to outer space because of the well-known, pre-anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However, it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because most of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Manchester, UK
Energy and global warming
Sorry about the typos in my post above.
The first paragraph re Arctic sea ice should read:-
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was 7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^6 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^6 Km^2.
Sorry about the typos in my post above.
The first paragraph re Arctic sea ice should read:-
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was 7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^6 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^6 Km^2.
I've found this on a kids website. I know it's not appropriate to look at kids stuff but they will still help. This is true...
"What Might Happen? It is important to understand that scientists don't know for sure what global warming will bring. Some changes brought about by global warming will be good. If you live in a very cool climate, warmer temperatures might be welcome. Days and nights could be more comfortable and people in the area may be able to grow different and better crops than they could before. "
It still have a good effect somehow. But I don't really think it will still be a good effect after so many years. Anyway, we can still do something. Here are some of simple ways to help...
1.Bike, Bus, and Walk
2.Save Electricity
3.Recycle
4.When You Buy, Buy Cool Stuff
I know it's really hard for people to do this but I know we can. Let's help make this world a better place...
peace on earth
"What Might Happen? It is important to understand that scientists don't know for sure what global warming will bring. Some changes brought about by global warming will be good. If you live in a very cool climate, warmer temperatures might be welcome. Days and nights could be more comfortable and people in the area may be able to grow different and better crops than they could before. "
It still have a good effect somehow. But I don't really think it will still be a good effect after so many years. Anyway, we can still do something. Here are some of simple ways to help...
1.Bike, Bus, and Walk
2.Save Electricity
3.Recycle
4.When You Buy, Buy Cool Stuff
I know it's really hard for people to do this but I know we can. Let's help make this world a better place...
peace on earth
Thanks, howtothinklikegod. If everyone could work together to do those things you mentioned, we could definitely make the world much better and hopefully smarter. It's nice to hear some optimism! 
QUOTE (AEBanner+May 12 2006, 11:01 PM)
Energy and global warming
In reply to the post by Dave Latoche, entitled "overlookedinfo", I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been working along the same lines for some months now, and have also come to the same conclusion that global warming is being caused by the very energy being produced by mankind, without any need to bring the idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect into consideration. The difficulty is to get anyone to take any interest. The publications "Science" and "Nature" have declined to publish my paper without giving any reason, and similarly with the press I have tried. I now take this opportunity to present my own thoughts on the matter.
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is now suggested that the total world energy produced by mankind is transported to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents, and each individual area within those regions receives by radiation an amount of energy in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
Although the amounts of energy are relatively small compared with the energy from the Sun, nevertheless it is energy additional to a finely balanced system, and is more than sufficient to cause all the observed melting of the world’s ice, as will be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4×10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89×10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59×10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35×10^5 Joules/Kg, and allowing for a 12% loss of energy, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.2×10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5×10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8×10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^2 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^2 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3×10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0×10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4×10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092×10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394×10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 8.35×10^21 Joules in this 25 year period, allowing for 12% loss to outer space.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 7.235×10^21 Joules, allowing 12% loss.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3)×7.235×10^21 Joules, that is
2.25×10^21 J, allowing a 12% loss of energy, and this can melt 6.7×10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is 9% less than the estimated practical figure of 7.4×10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Allowing 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 47.5 Gt, which is 1.5% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2, and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Allowing for a 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 17.1 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which has a factor of almost 5 in error. However, this is only the energy received by radiation from the “pre-industrial” greenhouse layer, and additional energy will doubtless be received from the circulating air currents. This may well account for the difference.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered, and allowing a 12% loss was 7.27×10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.25×10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.33×10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58×10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.16×10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.11×10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 5.1×10^18 Kg for the mass of the atmosphere, and 1.015×10^3 J/KgdegC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 0.8oC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6oC over the last 150 years.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67×10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, and a 12% loss, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.04×10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 5.25×10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 5.8×10^18 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27×10^21 Joules. After allowing the 12% loss, and the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 4.88×10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67×10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (4.88 – 4.67)×10^20 Joules. That is 2.1×10^19 Joules for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14×10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16×10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.18 degC in one decade.
This is about a factor of 3 down on the practical value, but the discrepancy could be due to the fact that we assumed uniform annual melting of the ice throughout the decade. Moreover, if the geographic factor were to be 0.143 instead of 0.13, then the calculated temperature rise would be 0.6 degC per decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, and only a small proportion can be lost to outer space because of the well-known, pre-anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However, it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because most of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Manchester, UK
Thanks,,
What happens is that none want to believe reality because it seems to put an end
to all they hold dear! But it only seems that way. There is another way,,a compromize, that allows humankind a place on the Earth but scaled back
unto their proper place.
I dearly hope that that is possible,,that is why I write.
Anyway thanks
In reply to the post by Dave Latoche, entitled "overlookedinfo", I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been working along the same lines for some months now, and have also come to the same conclusion that global warming is being caused by the very energy being produced by mankind, without any need to bring the idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect into consideration. The difficulty is to get anyone to take any interest. The publications "Science" and "Nature" have declined to publish my paper without giving any reason, and similarly with the press I have tried. I now take this opportunity to present my own thoughts on the matter.
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is now suggested that the total world energy produced by mankind is transported to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents, and each individual area within those regions receives by radiation an amount of energy in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
Although the amounts of energy are relatively small compared with the energy from the Sun, nevertheless it is energy additional to a finely balanced system, and is more than sufficient to cause all the observed melting of the world’s ice, as will be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4×10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89×10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59×10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35×10^5 Joules/Kg, and allowing for a 12% loss of energy, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.2×10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5×10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8×10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^2 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^2 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3×10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0×10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4×10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092×10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394×10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 8.35×10^21 Joules in this 25 year period, allowing for 12% loss to outer space.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 7.235×10^21 Joules, allowing 12% loss.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3)×7.235×10^21 Joules, that is
2.25×10^21 J, allowing a 12% loss of energy, and this can melt 6.7×10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is 9% less than the estimated practical figure of 7.4×10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Allowing 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 47.5 Gt, which is 1.5% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2, and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Allowing for a 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 17.1 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which has a factor of almost 5 in error. However, this is only the energy received by radiation from the “pre-industrial” greenhouse layer, and additional energy will doubtless be received from the circulating air currents. This may well account for the difference.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered, and allowing a 12% loss was 7.27×10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.25×10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.33×10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58×10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.16×10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.11×10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 5.1×10^18 Kg for the mass of the atmosphere, and 1.015×10^3 J/KgdegC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 0.8oC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6oC over the last 150 years.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67×10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, and a 12% loss, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.04×10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 5.25×10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 5.8×10^18 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27×10^21 Joules. After allowing the 12% loss, and the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 4.88×10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67×10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (4.88 – 4.67)×10^20 Joules. That is 2.1×10^19 Joules for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14×10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16×10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.18 degC in one decade.
This is about a factor of 3 down on the practical value, but the discrepancy could be due to the fact that we assumed uniform annual melting of the ice throughout the decade. Moreover, if the geographic factor were to be 0.143 instead of 0.13, then the calculated temperature rise would be 0.6 degC per decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, and only a small proportion can be lost to outer space because of the well-known, pre-anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However, it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because most of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Manchester, UK
Thanks,,
What happens is that none want to believe reality because it seems to put an end
to all they hold dear! But it only seems that way. There is another way,,a compromize, that allows humankind a place on the Earth but scaled back
unto their proper place.
I dearly hope that that is possible,,that is why I write.
Anyway thanks
QUOTE (AEBanner+May 12 2006, 11:01 PM)
Energy and global warming
In reply to the post by Dave Latoche, entitled "overlookedinfo", I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been working along the same lines for some months now, and have also come to the same conclusion that global warming is being caused by the very energy being produced by mankind, without any need to bring the idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect into consideration. The difficulty is to get anyone to take any interest. The publications "Science" and "Nature" have declined to publish my paper without giving any reason, and similarly with the press I have tried. I now take this opportunity to present my own thoughts on the matter.
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is now suggested that the total world energy produced by mankind is transported to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents, and each individual area within those regions receives by radiation an amount of energy in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
Although the amounts of energy are relatively small compared with the energy from the Sun, nevertheless it is energy additional to a finely balanced system, and is more than sufficient to cause all the observed melting of the world’s ice, as will be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4×10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89×10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59×10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35×10^5 Joules/Kg, and allowing for a 12% loss of energy, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.2×10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5×10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8×10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^2 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^2 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3×10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0×10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4×10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092×10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394×10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 8.35×10^21 Joules in this 25 year period, allowing for 12% loss to outer space.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 7.235×10^21 Joules, allowing 12% loss.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3)×7.235×10^21 Joules, that is
2.25×10^21 J, allowing a 12% loss of energy, and this can melt 6.7×10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is 9% less than the estimated practical figure of 7.4×10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Allowing 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 47.5 Gt, which is 1.5% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2, and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Allowing for a 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 17.1 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which has a factor of almost 5 in error. However, this is only the energy received by radiation from the “pre-industrial” greenhouse layer, and additional energy will doubtless be received from the circulating air currents. This may well account for the difference.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered, and allowing a 12% loss was 7.27×10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.25×10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.33×10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58×10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.16×10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.11×10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 5.1×10^18 Kg for the mass of the atmosphere, and 1.015×10^3 J/KgdegC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 0.8oC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6oC over the last 150 years.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67×10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, and a 12% loss, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.04×10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 5.25×10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 5.8×10^18 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27×10^21 Joules. After allowing the 12% loss, and the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 4.88×10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67×10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (4.88 – 4.67)×10^20 Joules. That is 2.1×10^19 Joules for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14×10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16×10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.18 degC in one decade.
This is about a factor of 3 down on the practical value, but the discrepancy could be due to the fact that we assumed uniform annual melting of the ice throughout the decade. Moreover, if the geographic factor were to be 0.143 instead of 0.13, then the calculated temperature rise would be 0.6 degC per decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, and only a small proportion can be lost to outer space because of the well-known, pre-anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However, it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because most of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Manchester, UK
Heat pumps in various forms are part of the solution. Our problem is to find
a way to take low intensity heat and to concentrate that heat into effective
means for us to accomplish that which we need to do,,,while simultaneously
changing our desires into forms that our needs will allow.
In reply to the post by Dave Latoche, entitled "overlookedinfo", I think you are absolutely correct. I have also been working along the same lines for some months now, and have also come to the same conclusion that global warming is being caused by the very energy being produced by mankind, without any need to bring the idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect into consideration. The difficulty is to get anyone to take any interest. The publications "Science" and "Nature" have declined to publish my paper without giving any reason, and similarly with the press I have tried. I now take this opportunity to present my own thoughts on the matter.
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is now suggested that the total world energy produced by mankind is transported to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents, and each individual area within those regions receives by radiation an amount of energy in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
Although the amounts of energy are relatively small compared with the energy from the Sun, nevertheless it is energy additional to a finely balanced system, and is more than sufficient to cause all the observed melting of the world’s ice, as will be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4×10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89×10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59×10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35×10^5 Joules/Kg, and allowing for a 12% loss of energy, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.2×10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5×10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8×10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7×10^6 Km^2, and 6.2×10^2 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0×10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15×10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0×10^2 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3×10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0×10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4×10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092×10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394×10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 8.35×10^21 Joules in this 25 year period, allowing for 12% loss to outer space.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 7.235×10^21 Joules, allowing 12% loss.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3)×7.235×10^21 Joules, that is
2.25×10^21 J, allowing a 12% loss of energy, and this can melt 6.7×10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is 9% less than the estimated practical figure of 7.4×10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Allowing 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 47.5 Gt, which is 1.5% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2, and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Allowing for a 12% loss of energy, calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 17.1 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which has a factor of almost 5 in error. However, this is only the energy received by radiation from the “pre-industrial” greenhouse layer, and additional energy will doubtless be received from the circulating air currents. This may well account for the difference.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered, and allowing a 12% loss was 7.27×10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.25×10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.33×10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58×10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.16×10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.11×10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 5.1×10^18 Kg for the mass of the atmosphere, and 1.015×10^3 J/KgdegC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 0.8oC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6oC over the last 150 years.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67×10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, and a 12% loss, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.04×10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 5.25×10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 5.8×10^18 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27×10^21 Joules. After allowing the 12% loss, and the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 4.88×10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67×10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (4.88 – 4.67)×10^20 Joules. That is 2.1×10^19 Joules for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14×10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16×10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.18 degC in one decade.
This is about a factor of 3 down on the practical value, but the discrepancy could be due to the fact that we assumed uniform annual melting of the ice throughout the decade. Moreover, if the geographic factor were to be 0.143 instead of 0.13, then the calculated temperature rise would be 0.6 degC per decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, and only a small proportion can be lost to outer space because of the well-known, pre-anthropogenic greenhouse effect. However, it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because most of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Manchester, UK
Heat pumps in various forms are part of the solution. Our problem is to find
a way to take low intensity heat and to concentrate that heat into effective
means for us to accomplish that which we need to do,,,while simultaneously
changing our desires into forms that our needs will allow.
QUOTE (overlookedinfo+Apr 19 2006, 02:25 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 19 2006, 02:27 AM)
I certainly encourage you to continue to research and to question what you read and their sources and their motivations.
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
at a figure of say 757000 quads as solar input is a key part of the equation. Does anyone in this discussion know if this figure is accurate to a power of 10, 100,
or even 1000?
On the other hand if someone were to say that mankinds energy consumption
was 412 quads,,it must be realized that that amount of energy is in Addition-repeat Addition and growing,,to whatever the amount of solar gain is!
Anyway in answer to the question,,if heat dissipates rapidly through the air
around the surface of the globe,,then it is not surprizing to see that the Artic shows
a greater increase in temperature. In physics there is a term ,change in temp.
symbolized by a triangle T [unfortunately I cannot show the symbol on this
keyboard]. The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth,if you were to leave
your refrigerator door open,then eventually you would see your freezer section
start to thaw. And also similarly, it may be that the only thing that has kept our
climate to the degree of stability that it has,,,,,is that the great bulk of heat is
just gradually melting that great mass of ice. When that is gone,there may be problems. That is why I speak out.
I see the natural climate [in whatever relation to the solar input],, as a very irregular sine wave,,day and night--summer and winter,,year after year. And yes
our doings may have prevented an ice age.
But now add another sine wave,of mankinds heating and cooling needs.
That sine wave would add heat in the winter,proportionally to how cold the winter was,,and would also add heat in the summer,proportionally to how hot the summer was. Positive feed-back you see?
Now add a third sine wave,,but one of small occillations[corresponding to our
economic cycles]. This would be one of high amplitude,proportional to heat output.
and our economic activity,which is at this time proportional to energy consumption
The 'resultant' sine wave of these three,would be a sine wave with a higher peak
,a higher low,and a general flattening out of the natural sine wave.
And that is Exactly what we are seeing,,warmer winters,,hotter summers,,and
more times of quasi spring and quasi fall.
Whatever the problem,humankind can solve it,,but only by looking square
on the problem and understanding. Only then,no other way!
OLI,
The key you seem to miss is one you point out yourself.
The waste heat that man creates is a relatively fixed amount that increases essentially linearly with population, it is NOT cumulative. What's more as the waste heat is generated in these primarily URBAN areas they then lose heat faster to space.
So YES, mankind's waste heat has SURELY raised the average temp of the planet.
The problem with your analysis is you OVER STATE the amount attributable to waste heat because you ignore the fact that most of the waste heat is lost to space.
What's more, even if your analysis was correct, it doesn't support the IPCC's contention of RISING temps of 3 to 5 times the amount of the last 100 years, without postulating an increase in both the retention of waste heat and the substantial ANNUAL increase in waste heat being generated.
OLI, I'm not trying to say you are TOTALLY wrong. Clearly if man is releasing stored energy (fuel, nuclear) into the ecosystem then this is an additional source of energy that the planet is receiving.
Increase received energy = increased Global Temp.
But, as you pointed out, increased Temp ALSO = Increased rate of loss.
Arthur
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
at a figure of say 757000 quads as solar input is a key part of the equation. Does anyone in this discussion know if this figure is accurate to a power of 10, 100,
or even 1000?
On the other hand if someone were to say that mankinds energy consumption
was 412 quads,,it must be realized that that amount of energy is in Addition-repeat Addition and growing,,to whatever the amount of solar gain is!
Anyway in answer to the question,,if heat dissipates rapidly through the air
around the surface of the globe,,then it is not surprizing to see that the Artic shows
a greater increase in temperature. In physics there is a term ,change in temp.
symbolized by a triangle T [unfortunately I cannot show the symbol on this
keyboard]. The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth,if you were to leave
your refrigerator door open,then eventually you would see your freezer section
start to thaw. And also similarly, it may be that the only thing that has kept our
climate to the degree of stability that it has,,,,,is that the great bulk of heat is
just gradually melting that great mass of ice. When that is gone,there may be problems. That is why I speak out.
I see the natural climate [in whatever relation to the solar input],, as a very irregular sine wave,,day and night--summer and winter,,year after year. And yes
our doings may have prevented an ice age.
But now add another sine wave,of mankinds heating and cooling needs.
That sine wave would add heat in the winter,proportionally to how cold the winter was,,and would also add heat in the summer,proportionally to how hot the summer was. Positive feed-back you see?
Now add a third sine wave,,but one of small occillations[corresponding to our
economic cycles]. This would be one of high amplitude,proportional to heat output.
and our economic activity,which is at this time proportional to energy consumption
The 'resultant' sine wave of these three,would be a sine wave with a higher peak
,a higher low,and a general flattening out of the natural sine wave.
And that is Exactly what we are seeing,,warmer winters,,hotter summers,,and
more times of quasi spring and quasi fall.
Whatever the problem,humankind can solve it,,but only by looking square
on the problem and understanding. Only then,no other way!
OLI,
The key you seem to miss is one you point out yourself.
QUOTE
The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth
The waste heat that man creates is a relatively fixed amount that increases essentially linearly with population, it is NOT cumulative. What's more as the waste heat is generated in these primarily URBAN areas they then lose heat faster to space.
So YES, mankind's waste heat has SURELY raised the average temp of the planet.
The problem with your analysis is you OVER STATE the amount attributable to waste heat because you ignore the fact that most of the waste heat is lost to space.
What's more, even if your analysis was correct, it doesn't support the IPCC's contention of RISING temps of 3 to 5 times the amount of the last 100 years, without postulating an increase in both the retention of waste heat and the substantial ANNUAL increase in waste heat being generated.
OLI, I'm not trying to say you are TOTALLY wrong. Clearly if man is releasing stored energy (fuel, nuclear) into the ecosystem then this is an additional source of energy that the planet is receiving.
Increase received energy = increased Global Temp.
But, as you pointed out, increased Temp ALSO = Increased rate of loss.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 17 2006, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE (overlookedinfo+Apr 19 2006, 02:25 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 19 2006, 02:27 AM)
I certainly encourage you to continue to research and to question what you read and their sources and their motivations.
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
at a figure of say 757000 quads as solar input is a key part of the equation. Does anyone in this discussion know if this figure is accurate to a power of 10, 100,
or even 1000?
On the other hand if someone were to say that mankinds energy consumption
was 412 quads,,it must be realized that that amount of energy is in Addition-repeat Addition and growing,,to whatever the amount of solar gain is!
Anyway in answer to the question,,if heat dissipates rapidly through the air
around the surface of the globe,,then it is not surprizing to see that the Artic shows
a greater increase in temperature. In physics there is a term ,change in temp.
symbolized by a triangle T [unfortunately I cannot show the symbol on this
keyboard]. The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth,if you were to leave
your refrigerator door open,then eventually you would see your freezer section
start to thaw. And also similarly, it may be that the only thing that has kept our
climate to the degree of stability that it has,,,,,is that the great bulk of heat is
just gradually melting that great mass of ice. When that is gone,there may be problems. That is why I speak out.
I see the natural climate [in whatever relation to the solar input],, as a very irregular sine wave,,day and night--summer and winter,,year after year. And yes
our doings may have prevented an ice age.
But now add another sine wave,of mankinds heating and cooling needs.
That sine wave would add heat in the winter,proportionally to how cold the winter was,,and would also add heat in the summer,proportionally to how hot the summer was. Positive feed-back you see?
Now add a third sine wave,,but one of small occillations[corresponding to our
economic cycles]. This would be one of high amplitude,proportional to heat output.
and our economic activity,which is at this time proportional to energy consumption
The 'resultant' sine wave of these three,would be a sine wave with a higher peak
,a higher low,and a general flattening out of the natural sine wave.
And that is Exactly what we are seeing,,warmer winters,,hotter summers,,and
more times of quasi spring and quasi fall.
Whatever the problem,humankind can solve it,,but only by looking square
on the problem and understanding. Only then,no other way!
OLI,
The key you seem to miss is one you point out yourself.
The waste heat that man creates is a relatively fixed amount that increases essentially linearly with population, it is NOT cumulative. What's more as the waste heat is generated in these primarily URBAN areas they then lose heat faster to space.
So YES, mankind's waste heat has SURELY raised the average temp of the planet.
The problem with your analysis is you OVER STATE the amount attributable to waste heat because you ignore the fact that most of the waste heat is lost to space.
What's more, even if your analysis was correct, it doesn't support the IPCC's contention of RISING temps of 3 to 5 times the amount of the last 100 years, without postulating an increase in both the retention of waste heat and the substantial ANNUAL increase in waste heat being generated.
OLI, I'm not trying to say you are TOTALLY wrong. Clearly if man is releasing stored energy (fuel, nuclear) into the ecosystem then this is an additional source of energy that the planet is receiving.
Increase received energy = increased Global Temp.
But, as you pointed out, increased Temp ALSO = Increased rate of loss.
Arthur
Haa,, I got you Arthur,,,,
I never said that most of the heat was released into outer space.
In fact,,if you look at the thin layer of biosphere that is near the surface of the
Earth,,then you would see that that heat is retained,,,,,,,,and that is the problem.
I really like argueing with you,,cause you are smarter by far than most.
Your BASIC premise is FALSE.
Arthur
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
at a figure of say 757000 quads as solar input is a key part of the equation. Does anyone in this discussion know if this figure is accurate to a power of 10, 100,
or even 1000?
On the other hand if someone were to say that mankinds energy consumption
was 412 quads,,it must be realized that that amount of energy is in Addition-repeat Addition and growing,,to whatever the amount of solar gain is!
Anyway in answer to the question,,if heat dissipates rapidly through the air
around the surface of the globe,,then it is not surprizing to see that the Artic shows
a greater increase in temperature. In physics there is a term ,change in temp.
symbolized by a triangle T [unfortunately I cannot show the symbol on this
keyboard]. The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth,if you were to leave
your refrigerator door open,then eventually you would see your freezer section
start to thaw. And also similarly, it may be that the only thing that has kept our
climate to the degree of stability that it has,,,,,is that the great bulk of heat is
just gradually melting that great mass of ice. When that is gone,there may be problems. That is why I speak out.
I see the natural climate [in whatever relation to the solar input],, as a very irregular sine wave,,day and night--summer and winter,,year after year. And yes
our doings may have prevented an ice age.
But now add another sine wave,of mankinds heating and cooling needs.
That sine wave would add heat in the winter,proportionally to how cold the winter was,,and would also add heat in the summer,proportionally to how hot the summer was. Positive feed-back you see?
Now add a third sine wave,,but one of small occillations[corresponding to our
economic cycles]. This would be one of high amplitude,proportional to heat output.
and our economic activity,which is at this time proportional to energy consumption
The 'resultant' sine wave of these three,would be a sine wave with a higher peak
,a higher low,and a general flattening out of the natural sine wave.
And that is Exactly what we are seeing,,warmer winters,,hotter summers,,and
more times of quasi spring and quasi fall.
Whatever the problem,humankind can solve it,,but only by looking square
on the problem and understanding. Only then,no other way!
OLI,
The key you seem to miss is one you point out yourself.
QUOTE
The greater the change in T [temp.] the greater the rate of heat transfer. That is why your house at an inside temp of 70 and an outside temp of
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth
5 degrees loses heat faster than when the inside temp is 70 and the outside
temp is 40 degrees. The former change in temp is 65 degrees and the latter
change in temp is 20 degrees. Similar to the Earth
The waste heat that man creates is a relatively fixed amount that increases essentially linearly with population, it is NOT cumulative. What's more as the waste heat is generated in these primarily URBAN areas they then lose heat faster to space.
So YES, mankind's waste heat has SURELY raised the average temp of the planet.
The problem with your analysis is you OVER STATE the amount attributable to waste heat because you ignore the fact that most of the waste heat is lost to space.
What's more, even if your analysis was correct, it doesn't support the IPCC's contention of RISING temps of 3 to 5 times the amount of the last 100 years, without postulating an increase in both the retention of waste heat and the substantial ANNUAL increase in waste heat being generated.
OLI, I'm not trying to say you are TOTALLY wrong. Clearly if man is releasing stored energy (fuel, nuclear) into the ecosystem then this is an additional source of energy that the planet is receiving.
Increase received energy = increased Global Temp.
But, as you pointed out, increased Temp ALSO = Increased rate of loss.
Arthur
Haa,, I got you Arthur,,,,
I never said that most of the heat was released into outer space.
In fact,,if you look at the thin layer of biosphere that is near the surface of the
Earth,,then you would see that that heat is retained,,,,,,,,and that is the problem.
I really like argueing with you,,cause you are smarter by far than most.
QUOTE (Guest_overlookedinfo+May 18 2006, 03:00 AM)
Haa,, I got you Arthur,,,,
I never said that most of the heat was released into outer space.
In fact,,if you look at the thin layer of biosphere that is near the surface of the
Earth,,then you would see that that heat is retained,,,,,,,,and that is the problem.
I really like argueing with you,,cause you are smarter by far than most.
Reread my post.
The problem with your analysis is you are making the assumption that the heat IS retained and not lost.
But as you pointed out yourself the rate of heat loss goes up as something warms up.
If waste heat WAS retained the Global temp would be much higher (each year's waste heat would accumulate till the place was an oven).
Arthur
I never said that most of the heat was released into outer space.
In fact,,if you look at the thin layer of biosphere that is near the surface of the
Earth,,then you would see that that heat is retained,,,,,,,,and that is the problem.
I really like argueing with you,,cause you are smarter by far than most.
Reread my post.
The problem with your analysis is you are making the assumption that the heat IS retained and not lost.
But as you pointed out yourself the rate of heat loss goes up as something warms up.
If waste heat WAS retained the Global temp would be much higher (each year's waste heat would accumulate till the place was an oven).
Arthur
The global warming is not an isolated event. Over longer term cycles the earth has gone through warm-up and cool-down cycles in the past, even before human intervention. This is not to discredit your theory but maybe extend it. The cycles could be an artifact of global energy output, both from humans and from the earth itself. The heating of oceans may be connected, in part, to heat vents from the mantle.
If look at greenhouse gases, say CO2, it is a self regulating system that should be cyclic. If CO2 is high and the temperature increases, the amount of water in the atmosphere will increase due to evaporation. Water and rain is a good scrubber of CO2 to form carbonic acid H2CO3. This falls into the oceans and is neutralized to form CaCO3 for the shell fish. The higher the CO2, the warmer the conditions. If we combine this with the extra moisture in the atmosphere, this will encourage plant growth, which will also help lower the CO2.
If the level of CO2 gets too low, the greenhouse affect will fall, cooling the earth. This means less evaporation, less rain (more snow), and less CO2 scrubbing. This also means more droughts and cooler weather for less net plant growth. The droughts also mean more forest fires. This increases the CO2, for another cycle.
The CO2 that really matters is what can get above the clouds. Anything at or below the clouds has water and plants to content with. The above the cloud CO2 can come from forest fires, which can send smoke and CO2 100,000 feet.
What is interesting about global warming is that it means larger storms that can rise much higher in the atmosphere. This extends the water higher up in the atmosphere to help scrub the upper CO2.
If look at greenhouse gases, say CO2, it is a self regulating system that should be cyclic. If CO2 is high and the temperature increases, the amount of water in the atmosphere will increase due to evaporation. Water and rain is a good scrubber of CO2 to form carbonic acid H2CO3. This falls into the oceans and is neutralized to form CaCO3 for the shell fish. The higher the CO2, the warmer the conditions. If we combine this with the extra moisture in the atmosphere, this will encourage plant growth, which will also help lower the CO2.
If the level of CO2 gets too low, the greenhouse affect will fall, cooling the earth. This means less evaporation, less rain (more snow), and less CO2 scrubbing. This also means more droughts and cooler weather for less net plant growth. The droughts also mean more forest fires. This increases the CO2, for another cycle.
The CO2 that really matters is what can get above the clouds. Anything at or below the clouds has water and plants to content with. The above the cloud CO2 can come from forest fires, which can send smoke and CO2 100,000 feet.
What is interesting about global warming is that it means larger storms that can rise much higher in the atmosphere. This extends the water higher up in the atmosphere to help scrub the upper CO2.
Energy and global warming
As a result of a number of helpful comments I have revised my ideas to some extent, and have re-worked the numbers. I give my modified paper below, and it shows even better agreement with practical observations than previously.
Please can we have more helpful comments?
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is suggested that the total energy generated by mankind eventually after use enters the atmosphere in the form of heat, as increased kinetic energy of the air molecules. Since oxygen and nitrogen have diatomic molecules and cannot absorb or emit radiation at the wavelengths concerned, this added energy cannot escape from the Earth’s system, and is transported as usual to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well-known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents. Transport times taken to reach the poles are of no significance because no losses are incurred. Each individual area within those regions receives an amount of energy, by kinetic energy transfer by collision, in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
The energy builds up over time, and this constitutes global warming, some heat energy remaining in the atmosphere while some is passed into the ice by the normal method of circulating air currents and kinetic energy transfer.
With the Earth at a stable equilibrium temperature, the incoming solar energy, less the energy given up for photosynthesis and to make things grow (that is, storing chemical energy), is balanced by the outgoing infra-red radiation. Therefore, although small by comparison with the solar energy, nevertheless the anthropogenic energy is important and it is more than sufficient to explain the observed effects, as will now be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4 × 10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89 × 10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59 × 10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35 × 10^5 Joules/Kg, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.36 × 10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5 × 10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8 × 10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7 × 10^6 Km^2, and 6.2 × 10^6 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0 × 10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15 × 10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0 × 10^6 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3 × 10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0 × 10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4 × 10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092 × 10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394 × 10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 9.49 × 10^21 Joules in this 25 year period.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 8.25 × 10^21 Joules.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3) × 8.25 × 10^21 Joules, that is
2.57 × 10^21 J, and this can melt 7.6 × 10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is almost 3% greater than the estimated practical figure of 7.4 × 10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 54.0 Gt, which is 15% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km^3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2 , and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 19.4 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which is a factor of about 4 in error. However, this may be due to the relatively small area of the glaciers compared with the amount of air circulating around them.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered was 8.25 × 10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.57 × 10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.38 × 10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58 × 10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.53 × 10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.72 × 10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 2.55 × 10^18 Kg for the mass of the Northern atmosphere, and 1.015 × 10^3 J/KgoC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the Northern atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 1.8 degC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6 degC over the last 150 years. This excess will probably be reduced by an associated increase in radiation from the Earth’s surface.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67 × 10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.59 × 10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 6.0 × 10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 1.33 × 10^19 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27 × 10^21 Joules. After applying the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 5.55 × 10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade. Since recent reports have shown a slight increase in the amount of Antarctic sea ice, it has been assumed that no net energy is entering the sea ice on average throughout the year, and so all this energy has been assigned in the calculations to the Antarctic ice sheet.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67 × 10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (5.55 – 4.67) × 10^20 Joules. That is 8.8 × 10^19 J for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14 × 10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16 × 10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.75 degC in one decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, but it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because much of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK
As a result of a number of helpful comments I have revised my ideas to some extent, and have re-worked the numbers. I give my modified paper below, and it shows even better agreement with practical observations than previously.
Please can we have more helpful comments?
Introduction
The current climate change/global warming debate has become highly political, with some people maintaining that the warming over the last 150 years is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels. However, there is some scientific opinion that the claimed increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is based on flawed data obtained from ice core measurements in samples from the Antarctic, with some alleged preferential selection of values having occurred, although this has been strongly disputed.
The principal argument for the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be that climate models can be made to reproduce the observed warming only if the expected effects of the extra carbon dioxide are included in the models. If the carbon dioxide is removed, the models fail.
However, amid these claims and counter-claims, one fundamental consideration seems to have been omitted, and this is the effect of the vast amount of energy currently being generated by mankind. It is this energy itself which is causing the global warming. It is derived mainly from the chemical energy of fossil fuels, but whatever the source, the energy eventually ends up in the form of heat and as a change of state in melting some of the world’s ice.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
A simple new hypothesis is now proposed which depends only upon the most fundamental basis of Physics, namely the Law of Conservation of Energy, and in no way invokes the ideas of anthropogenic gas emissions.
Hypothesis
It is suggested that the total energy generated by mankind eventually after use enters the atmosphere in the form of heat, as increased kinetic energy of the air molecules. Since oxygen and nitrogen have diatomic molecules and cannot absorb or emit radiation at the wavelengths concerned, this added energy cannot escape from the Earth’s system, and is transported as usual to the ice and snow covered regions of the world by the well-known mechanisms of atmospheric and ocean currents. Transport times taken to reach the poles are of no significance because no losses are incurred. Each individual area within those regions receives an amount of energy, by kinetic energy transfer by collision, in direct proportion to its surface area in relation to the total ice and snow covered area.
The energy builds up over time, and this constitutes global warming, some heat energy remaining in the atmosphere while some is passed into the ice by the normal method of circulating air currents and kinetic energy transfer.
With the Earth at a stable equilibrium temperature, the incoming solar energy, less the energy given up for photosynthesis and to make things grow (that is, storing chemical energy), is balanced by the outgoing infra-red radiation. Therefore, although small by comparison with the solar energy, nevertheless the anthropogenic energy is important and it is more than sufficient to explain the observed effects, as will now be shown.
The values for world primary energy production are taken from the data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States government(1). The latest figure available is for 2003, and so it has been provisionally assumed that the figures for 2004 and 2005 are similar. This gives a value for current annual total world primary energy production of 417.12 × 10^15 BTU. This is equivalent to 4.4 × 10^20 Joules, in 1 year.
Considering the world population, taken to be 6 billion, each rated at 100W, this gives a further 1.89 × 10^19 Joules in 1 year, and so the annual world total energy production for 2005 is 4.59 × 10^20 Joules.
Taking the latent heat of fusion of ice to be 3.35 × 10^5 Joules/Kg, the mass of ice which currently can be melted in one year is 1.36 × 10^3 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) = 10^9 metric tons.
Comparison of hypothesis with estimated observations
This “total energy” hypothesis will now be supported by comparisons of mass of ice melted according to energy calculations with that estimated from practical observations.
The Arctic
From the NSIDC website(2) we find that the snow areas in the north have been very consistent from 1979 to 2001, and give a year round average of 22.5 × 10^6 Km^2.
The area of the Greenland ice cap(3) is 1.8 × 10^6 Km^2.
Arctic sea ice
Estimates of the area of arctic sea ice by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado(4) show that at the end of the summer in 1978 the area was
7.7 × 10^6 Km^2, and 6.2 × 10^6 Km^2 in 2003. Thus, the average end of summer figure for this 25 year period was 7.0 × 10^6 Km^2. With the average winter area (5) of 15 × 10^6 Km^2, the corresponding yearly average area for this period has been taken to be 11.0 × 10^6 Km^2.
Thus, the year average total ice and snow area for the North is 35.3 × 10^6 Km^2, over the 25 year period.
Practical estimates of the ice draft(6) show that it has reduced from 3.1 m by about 40% in the last 30 years. Assuming linear rates of reduction for both the area and the thickness, this gives an estimated loss in volume of 8.0 × 10^3 Km^3 in this period from 1978 to 2003. The mass of ice melted is, therefore, estimated to be approximately 7.4 × 10^3 Gt in this period.
From the EIA data, we find that the world primary energy produced from 1978 to 2003 is 9.092 × 10^21 Joules. The energy from the human population of 5 billion, each rated at 100W, is 0.394 × 10^21 Joules in the same period, and so the total world energy is 9.49 × 10^21 Joules in this 25 year period.
The energy generated in the Northern hemisphere is assumed to be carried only towards the North, and similarly for the Southern hemisphere. Then the Northern primary energy is approximately 0.87 of the world total primary energy, based on data for 2000 taken from the EIA(7). Therefore, in the 25 year period being considered, 1978 to 2003, the total energy in the Northern hemisphere is 8.25 × 10^21 Joules.
The total energy entering the sea ice is then (11.0/35.3) × 8.25 × 10^21 Joules, that is
2.57 × 10^21 J, and this can melt 7.6 × 10^3 Gt of sea ice. This is almost 3% greater than the estimated practical figure of 7.4 × 10^3 Gt.
Greenland ice cap
A study by W. Krabill et al(8) of the changes in the Greenland ice cap between two series of measurements, one from 1993 to 1994, and the other from 1998 to 1999, gave a conservative estimate of 51 Km^3 for the average annual amount of ice lost during that period, which is equivalent to a mass of 46.8 Gt per year.
Calculations following the hypothesis show that the average mass of the Greenland ice cap which could be melted in one year during the same period is 54.0 Gt, which is 15% greater than the practical figure.
Clearly, the accuracy of the agreement between the hypothesis and practical figures cannot be taken too literally because of the difficulty of field measurement, particularly that of the thickness of the sea ice. This depends upon upward-looking sonar measurements by submarines under the ice, and there is a limit to the number of readings reasonably possible. Also, with respect to the Greenland practical estimate, it is not clear how much of the 51 Km^3 loss was due to melting and how much was due to calving, and escape of glaciers into the sea.
Small glaciers
The total global area covered by the so-called “small glaciers”, that is glaciers which are not in Greenland or the Antarctic, is estimated to be 6.8×10^5 Km^2, of which the Northern hemisphere has 5.77×10^5 Km^2 , and the Southern hemisphere has 1.03×10^5 Km^2. The current practical estimate of the amount of ice lost is 90 Km^3, or 82.5 Gt per year.
Calculations following the hypothesis give a figure of only 19.4 Gt of ice melted in 2003, which is a factor of about 4 in error. However, this may be due to the relatively small area of the glaciers compared with the amount of air circulating around them.
The temperature of the atmosphere
From the EIA data and calculations following the hypothesis, it is estimated that the total energy in the Northern hemisphere summed over the 25 year period previously considered was 8.25 × 10^21 Joules, with the distribution as follows.
Arctic sea ice 2.57 × 10^21 Joules.
Greenland ice cap 0.38 × 10^21 Joules.
Small glaciers 0.58 × 10^21 Joules, taking the “practical” figure for melted ice.
Total energy into ice in North = 3.53 × 10^21 Joules
Therefore, this leaves a 25 year “spare” energy balance in the North of 4.72 × 10^21 Joules.
Assuming that all this energy is taken up by the atmosphere, the temperature rise can now be calculated.
Taking figures of 2.55 × 10^18 Kg for the mass of the Northern atmosphere, and 1.015 × 10^3 J/KgoC for the specific heat of air, the temperature rise of the Northern atmosphere over the 25 year period is found to be 1.8 degC, compared with the observed figure of about 0.6 degC over the last 150 years. This excess will probably be reduced by an associated increase in radiation from the Earth’s surface.
The Antarctic
The Antarctic ice sheet
Recently reported observations from the GRACE experiment give a figure of 152 Km^3 (or 139 Gt ) for the amount of ice which is currently being melted annually from the ice sheet. This requires 4.67 × 10^19 Joules per year.
From the EIA data for 2003, and allowing for a population of 6 billion, the total available energy in that year is estimated to be 4.59 × 10^20 Joules.
We have previously taken the “geographic energy factor” to be 0.87 for the North, and so the proportion of the total energy going to the South is taken to be 0.13. This gives 6.0 × 10^19 J for the South in 2003. This is sufficient energy to melt the observed amount of ice, and leave a “spare” amount of energy of 1.33 × 10^19 Joules for that year.
The Antarctic troposphere
Recent work by BAS has shown that the temperature of the Antarctic troposphere has been increasing at the rate of between 0.5 degC and 0.7 degC per decade over the last 30 years.
Again from the EIA data, the total world energy (primary and population) for the decade 1994 to 2003 inclusive was 4.27 × 10^21 Joules. After applying the geographic factor of 0.13, this leaves 5.55 × 10^20 Joules in the South, for the decade. Since recent reports have shown a slight increase in the amount of Antarctic sea ice, it has been assumed that no net energy is entering the sea ice on average throughout the year, and so all this energy has been assigned in the calculations to the Antarctic ice sheet.
Assuming for the moment that the rate of melting of the ice is uniform at 139 Gt per year as in the previous section, the amount of energy required for the decade is 4.67 × 10^20 Joules. Hence, the “spare” energy for the Antarctic is (5.55 – 4.67) × 10^20 Joules. That is 8.8 × 10^19 J for the decade.
Taking the area of the continent to be 14 × 10^6 Km^2, then the mass of its troposphere has been calculated to be 1.16 × 10^17 Kg, and so the spare energy above can produce a temperature rise of 0.75 degC in one decade.
Conclusions
The amount of energy being generated by mankind has been found to be in good agreement with that required to produce the effects being observed both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The energy is being obtained mainly from fossil fuels; it cannot be destroyed, but it can be taken up by the ice and snow by changing the state into water.
The concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels may well correlate with the ice melting observations, but that is only to be expected since they arise from the energy production process, and it is simply no more than a secondary effect, a correlation but not a cause. Were this otherwise, the world’s energy budget would be exceeded by whatever amount came from the anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect, because sufficient energy is already available, as shown in this paper.
The suggested “total energy” hypothesis has not involved any consideration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but simply an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, no reduction of these anthropogenic gases will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the ice. The warming is not yet particularly evident in other regions because much of the energy is being taken up in the ice melting process, and this will continue while sufficient ice remains.
It also follows that no benefit can be gained by switching to nuclear or geothermal energy, because the problem is simply one of the very energy being produced.
Therefore, the only way to solve the global warming problem is by changing completely to the use of “renewables”, solar energy, wind energy and possibly energy from the waves. Since this energy already exists, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
References
(1) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html
(2) www.nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
(3) www.greenland-guide.gl/icecap/default.htm
(4) www.nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
(5) www.nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
(6) Rothrock, D.A., et al. Geophysical Research Letters 26(23): 3469-3472
(7) www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1102.html
(8) Krabill, W., et al, Science 289(5478): 428-430
Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK
QUOTE
Since oxygen and nitrogen have diatomic molecules and cannot absorb or emit radiation at the wavelengths concerned, this added energy cannot escape from the Earth’s system,
Your BASIC premise is FALSE.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 17 2006, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE (overlookedinfo+Apr 19 2006, 02:25 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 19 2006, 02:27 AM)
I certainly encourage you to continue to research and to question what you read and their sources and their motivations.
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive
As to your theory.
Consider this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3_s.gif
It comes from NASA and it supposedly shows the warming over the last 50 years.
Now what it shows is MOST of the warming is during the Winter and MOST of it is in Northern Alaska and Siberia.
How would you mesh this data with your theory?
I don't think you are going to find a lot of waste heat producers in Siberia or the Northern Arctic.
Arthur
Well I would say that Heat,that is the energy of radom molecular motion,,ie. entropy,,dissipates more rapidly and perfectly than anyone has heretofore imagined. In "air" which of course is the next thing to a vacuum,,energy quickly dissipates [ that is moves in waves,with the more energetic particles imparting
their energy to the lessor until all are equalized.
And that simply,,as I mentioned in my article,,is what the early engineers assumed,,that is. that the Earth is an infinite heat sink. Now of course that 'assumption for the sake of practicality' held true for more than a hundred years.
If the Earth was a 'closed system' then noone would imagine this for a moment.
If the Earth was an 'open system' then it would not matter at all.
But the Earth has characteristics of both.
And so then it becomes extremely important that we know what is the
Earth's 'energy budget'. How much of the light spectrum from the Sun is actually
converted into heat?-----How much of mankinds waste heat is heat? And the answer to the latter is 'All of it'. Most everything that we do,has a byproduct in the infrared range of the spectrum. On the other hand,much of the light spectrum
reaching the Earth's surface is in other wave lengths that may or may not be
applicable to discussions of 'heat'. So the criteria that someone has used to arrive