From Webmaster:Original thread starts here:
My own comments at the end of this thread - to save you the time and effort:
"It's not a case of agree or disagree - it's just wrong. It's pseudo-science, most people will just be baffled with the numbers and language and think it has some credence.
It does real science a dis-service and that matters to me.
I would no more give web-space to arguing about the earth being flat, that astology is real or creationism, no matter how many views it all received.
If you turn out to be proven right I will offer a full and open apology here. You will find an audience for your views on the web, but not here I'm afraid."
Energy and global warming
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. I believe that 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 ice into water.
Greenhouse gases are emitted, but this is simply a side effect which correlates with the amount of energy produced.
Energy consumption data was obtained from the website of the Energy Information Administration of the United States Department of Energy, which go back to 1970 and give figures for the whole world. From this data the quantity of ice which can currently be melted in one year is calculated to be 1200 Gigatons, where 1 Gigaton is one thousand million metric tons. This is about twice the amount estimated from practical observations for the whole world.
On the basis of a simple ?total energy? hypothesis, good agreement has been obtained with the reports of five sets of practical observations, namely the Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice cap, the rise in temperature of the atmosphere in the Northern hemisphere, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, and the rise in temperature of the Antarctic troposphere. Further details can be provided if generally required.
No consideration has been given in this hypothesis to anthropogenic greenhouse gases and so no reduction of these gas emissions will be able to solve the problem of global warming, which, indeed, must be occurring as evidenced by the melting of the world?s ice.
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 by mankind.
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 is not ?new energy?, its use does not add to the total world energy, and so has no net warming effect.
Aubrey E Banner, SALE, Cheshire, UK