Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Energy and global warming Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Energy and global warming

    From Webmaster:
    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."

    Paul Ward



    Original thread starts here:

    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
    Last edited by Paul Ward; 1st October 2006, 18:12.

  • #2
    Re: Energy and global warming

    Energy and global warming

    Continuing from above comments


    For a full account of my hypothesis, including quantitative comparisons with practical observed effects, please visit

    www.open2.net/forum/index.jspa and go to Science and Technology and then Energy and global warming

    Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Energy and global warming

      I'm sorry, but I just can't beleive this at all.

      The energy arriving from the sun is vast. It is called the "Solar Constant" and falls on the entire surface of the earth.

      http://www.amtsgym-sdbg.dk/as/solarconstant/

      On the other hand, the amount of energy released by mankind from fossil fuels and nuclear energy is negligable by comparison. Most is released into space apart from that which is retained by an increase in greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases retain heat wherever it comes from.

      The end conclusion is however the same in that the energy sources you state as preferable are not CO2 releasers.

      It's the CO2 duvet that makes the difference, not the tiny amount of extra energy in producing this duvet.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Energy and global warming

        Reply to Paul Ward

        Thank you for your comments.

        The amount of energy produced by mankind is indeed small by comparison with the amount we receive from the Sun, but this is not the comparison that should be made. The incoming solar energy is largely balanced by the outgoing infra-red radiation from the Earth’s surface and from the GHG layer. Net effect, zero. On this basis, anthropogenic energy is indeed important and is sufficient to cause the ice melting and atmosphere warming we are observing.

        Please refer to the results of my calculations in my paper. Link given previously. My results are in good quantitative agreement with five practical observations.

        Clearly, more work, probably involving computer modelling, is needed to sort out all the details.

        If you do not accept my hypothesis, please explain what happens to the energy generated by mankind.

        Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Energy and global warming

          OK I did a few sums of my own.

          The Solar Constant is about 1367 W/M2. The area of the earth is 150 000 000 km2. So in a year:

          1367 x 150 000 000 x 1000 x 1000 = 2.05 exp 17 W falls on the earth.

          This is 3.6 exp 3 x this amount in Joules or 7.38 exp 20 J.

          IF the earth was a equally illuminated sphere from a perpendicular light source - which of course it isn't.

          In your calculations, you claim that the world energy generation for 2005 is 4.40 exp 20 J. I have followed your source, but cannot find this figure.

          Your figures therefore give an anthropogenic energy release approaching or exceeding the solar constant.

          "please explain what happens to the energy generated by mankind."

          It is ultimately radiated out into space. Why do you assume that it is perfectly preserved on earth and used to melt ice?

          Fossil fuels came from solar energy in the first place, so if your hypothesis is correct, a time of fossil fuel formation - the Carboniferous - should be followed by a a time of cold and ice formation ( energy arriving is locked away instead of being used to heat the earth). In fact it should happen immediately (say 150 years in the terms of man's release of energy in substantial amounts) and not in geological time frames. In fact the Carboniferous lasted for 60 million years.

          As originator of this hypothesis (or at least publiciser in this forum) it falls to you to explain why anthropgenic energy production should NOT escape the atmosphere and be used to melt ice.

          Your figures for melting of the Arctic ice sheet seem to assume that it is a constant entity that is melting. It is not. It forms and melts and re-forms. The decrease is less to do with melting as to do with non-formation compared to previous years.

          You seem to assume that somehow external energy from the sun enters a dynamic open system and can readily leave, but anthropogenic energy is at the same part of a closed system and cannot leave.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Energy and global warming

            Reply to Paul Ward

            Thank you for your comments, but my calculations show that the total world energy for 2003, primary and energy from the population, is only 0.0084% of the received solar energy. As follows.

            Solar constant = 1.367?10^3 W/m^2.
            Area of cross section of Earth = 1.27?10^8 Km^2
            = 1.27?10^14 m^2
            Therefore, solar power on Earth = 1.367?10^3?1.27?10^14 Watts
            = 1.736?10^17 Watts
            No. of seconds in 1 year = 3.1536?10^7
            Therefore, solar energy received on Earth = 1.736?10^17?3.1536?10^7 Joules in 1 year
            = 5.47?10^24 Joules in 1 year


            The source www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1101.html I used in my paper
            (www.open2.net/forum/index.jspa and go to Science and Technology and then Energy and global warming ) gives the world total primary energy as 417.12 Quad BTU for 2003.

            ie. World primary energy = 417.12?10^15 BTU for 2003
            But 1 BTU = 1055 Joules
            Therefore, world primary energy = 4.1712?10^17?1.055?10^3 Joules
            = 4.40?10^20 Joules for 2003
            Also, energy from population = 0.19?10^20 J
            Therefore, total world energy = 4.59?10^20 Joules for 2003

            Therefore, total anthropogenic energy = (4.59?10^20) / (5.47?10^24) of solar energy
            = 0.0084 % of solar energy



            With the Earth at a stable equilibrium temperature, the incoming solar energy, less the energy given up to the biosphere (see below) for photosynthesis and to make things grow (that is storing chemical energy), is balanced by the outgoing infra-red radiation. Net effect, zero. Therefore, although small by comparison with the incoming solar energy, nevertheless the anthropogenic energy is important and, as I demonstrated in my paper, it is more than sufficient to explain the observed effects. The anthropogenic energy calculated above, 4.59?10^20 Joules in 1year, is enough to melt about twice the observed annual ice melting, and the remainder stays in the atmosphere.

            The anthropogenic energy, after use by mankind, enters the Earth?s atmospheric system as heat,ie. as increased kinetic energy of the air molecules. This, of course, does not cause internal molecular excitation, and so no radiation can occur, even from the GHG components. Energy obviously cannot escape into space by conduction or convection, and so the anthropogenic energy is retained within the Earth?s system, and builds up over time and so causes global warming.

            The extra energy in the atmosphere is circulated by the normal currents towards the poles in the usual way, where it causes extra ice to melt, as calculated. Naturally, some ice reforms during the winter, so releasing its latent heat into the system again, but a greater amount is melted during the following summer because the latent heat just liberated is still available in the system and yet more anthropogenic energy has also been injected during the intervening months.

            Solar energy entering the Earth?s surface, less that deducted by the biosphere and stored as chemical energy, is re-radiated again to outer space as infra-red, but the used anthropogenic energy is largely in the form of kinetic energy which cannot escape, as demonstrated above.

            The only figure I have been able to find for the energy taken by the biosphere is a gross amount of 40 Terrawatts, which is only 0.023% of the incoming solar energy. This figure does indeed have to be compared with the solar energy, because it is this proportion which determines the equilibrium temperature attained by the Earth. So the reduction of Earth?s temperature is small, particularly as it is governed by fourth power dependency of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

            I trust I have answered all the points you raised, but I should be pleased to receive any further comments.

            Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Energy and global warming

              Thank you for taking the time for further explanation.

              It still doesn't seem right for many reasons which I don't really have the time to pursue, my training is in another direction, so I would need to get up to speed to do this.

              My main objections are firstly that you assume perfect retention of energy from heat generation on the earth, I find this very hard to believe and do not consider it proven. Far more energy gets to the earth during times of high sunspot activity, during low sunspot activity the earth has expereienced mini ice-ages.

              The other objection is that you assume this energy is used to melt ice at the poles - why should this be so? You say twice as much heat is liberated as is needed to melt the ice, but this seems only to be for 2003. With perfect retention of heat generated since the industrial revolution began, surely all the ice would have melted by now?

              To be taken seriously, you need to submit this hypothesis to a suitable journal for peer review by specialists. I have a feeling that there are basic flaws in the underlying science.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Energy and global warming

                Reply to Paul Ward

                Many thanks again for helping to get my ideas sorted out.

                The anthropogenic energy, after use by mankind, enters the Earth?s atmospheric system as heat, ie. as increased kinetic energy of the air molecules. This, of course, does not cause internal molecular excitation, and so no radiation can occur, even from the GHG components. Since the Earth is isolated in space, no energy can escape into space by conduction or convection, and so the anthropogenic energy is retained within the Earth?s system, and builds up over time and so causes global warming. (See below).

                This extra energy in the atmosphere is circulated by the normal currents towards the poles in the usual way, where it causes extra ice to melt, as calculated. Naturally, some ice reforms during the winter, so releasing its latent heat into the system again, but a greater amount is melted during the following summer because the latent heat just liberated is still available in the system and yet more anthropogenic energy has also been injected during the intervening months.

                If no energy entered the actual surface of the Earth, land or sea, after leaving the polar region in the Northern hemisphere in the usual way, there would be sufficient remaining energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere in the Northern hemisphere by 1.8 degC. However, let us assume that enough energy enters the surface to make the actual temperature rise of the atmosphere only 0.6 degC, in line with the practical observation over the last 150 years. Then the amount that enters the surface can indeed be radiated away (apart from the effect of the ?pre-industrial? GHG effect), but the increase in temperature of the surface required to achieve this is less than 0.1 degC owing to the fourth power temperature dependency of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Such a small rise would be virtually impossible to detect with present techniques.

                The factor of 2 figure I gave for melting of the ice comes from the latest energy information I could find and applies to 2003. This amount can melt over 1300 Gt of ice in one year, whereas the best practical figure I have is less than 600 Gt, where 1 Gt is 1 thousand million metric tons, which leaves a lot of energy over to warm the atmosphere.

                However, the comparison I made in my paper for the Arctic sea ice was for a 25 year period from 1978 to 2003, for which energy production data was available and for which practical observations happened to have been made.

                Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Energy and global warming

                  OK I'm beginning to see the flaw.

                  You state that all erath generated energy cannot escape into space (which I don't believe, I just don't have the facts to hand to dispute it and you have not yet proven it).

                  You state that 4% of "anthropogenic" energy is released by human metabolism. That is 4% of the energy in 2003 which was released and was twice the amount needed to melt the polar ice in your scenario.

                  People make up a tiny amount of the metabolic energy released by the earth - and that's been going on for millions of years. For instance, Antarctic Krill accounts for 2-5 the biomass of humans, and all species of both squid and termites exceed human biomass. Even allowing for the fact that these are cold blooded, results in total metabolic energy release of a very significant amount per annum.

                  Unlike fossil fuel energy release, this amount will have been fairly constant from when life on earth arose. When there were no or fewer humans, there were more of everything else, so the overall metabolic output of the earth will not have varied much bar ice-ages for literally hundreds of millions of years.

                  You claim that any heat energy cannot escape, therefore the earth by now should have reached temperatures where life any where would be impossible for all but extremophile bacteria.

                  You error is is in seeing a short snapshot and extrapolating without real basis.

                  Your 2003 figure of 417.12?10^15 BTU gives a figure of twice the energy needed (as per your calculations) to melt the ice. Taking the 25 years worth in your reference (25 out of 150 - not including millions of years of metabolic input that would dwarf this enormously) gives a total of over 10,836 (I didn't bother with the decimals) against the 417.12. In other words 26 times greater, giving 52 times the energy to melt your ice.

                  Patently global warming has not happened on a scale any where near that required by your hypothesis.

                  By the way 4% of the amount (human metabolism) over 1 million years gives a figure of 20,000 times the energy. As I said humans, whales, bison, ants - it doesn't matter metabolic output is metabolic output. So since the dinosaurs disappeared, we get a figure of 1.3 million and that's just for the "human equivalent" output. Assuming a standard 10% transfer rate between trophic levels and that everyone is vegetarian, 9 x this is released in botanical respirtion. At this rate the world would be have been vapourized long ago!

                  Unless you can provide some proper hard science, this thread will be closed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Energy and global warming

                    Reply to Paul Ward

                    Energy cannot escape from Earth either by conduction or convection, because the Earth is isolated in space. Do you agree? Presumably, you do.

                    So this only leaves radiation to be considered.
                    Anthropogenic energy, after use, enters the atmosphere as heat, ie. as increased kinetic energy of the air molecules and not as increased internal molecular excitation. Therefore, no radiation can be emitted at this stage. However, some of this energy can be transferred to the ice by kinetic energy collisional transfer, where it is conveyed by the usual atmospheric circulation, and melting occurs as previously calculated.

                    The circulation continues and some of the remaining energy can be transferred to the Earth’s surface by kinetic energy transfer by collision of the molecules. This warms the surface a little and so radiation to outer space can now occur, but the temperature of the surface needs to rise by less than 0.1 degC to dispose of the incoming energy because of the fourth power temperature dependency of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

                    The temperature rise of the low level atmosphere during the industrial period is generally accepted to be 0.6 deg C, and after allowing enough energy to achieve this rise, and the observed ice melting, the remaining “spare” energy in the Northern hemisphere amounts to about 38% of the anthropogenic energy input. Some of this can be lost by radiation to outer space and some may enter the oceans, but the relative proportions still need to be determined.

                    So please let us be clear on this matter. As just explained, I am not claiming that energy cannot escape to outer space, but I maintain that the only method is by radiation.

                    I trust that this has satisfied your first, and main objection to my hypothesis.

                    OK. You are making a big deal about the metabolic energy, and you say it has been proceeding steadily for millions of years. This will have put energy into the Earth’s system, and it will have entered the surface, and so can cause radiation. Now go to my explanation above, and you will see that the temperature increase is, in fact, minimised by Stefan’ law, and this is the equilibrium temperature the Earth has attained for millions of years.

                    The reason I took a period of only 25 years was simply because the EIA data I found only went back to 1970, and practical observations were available for the period 1978 to 2003. If you want to extrapolate further back, and have the data, I should be pleased to see it, but it can only add more energy into the system and so strengthen my position. But it would also mean finding practical data for comparison.

                    Now with regard to hard science
                    My hypothesis has achieved excellent quantitative agreement with three practical observations in the Arctic, and two recent practical observations in the Antarctic.
                    The amount of anthropogenic energy which can be lost to outer space and/or allocated to the oceans is about 38% of the anthropogenic energy over a recent 25 year period.
                    What more do you expect?

                    As for closing this thread, I consider that to be very premature. It has been open for only a few days, and has already received a large number of visitors. Why would you want to deny others the opportunity to learn of a new idea even if they do not agree with it?

                    Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire, UK

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Energy and global warming

                      Originally posted by AEBanner
                      Energy cannot escape from Earth either by conduction or convection, because the Earth is isolated in space. Do you agree? Presumably, you do.

                      So please let us be clear on this matter. As just explained, I am not claiming that energy cannot escape to outer space, but I maintain that the only method is by radiation.

                      I trust that this has satisfied your first, and main objection to my hypothesis
                      Irrelevant - the fact is it escapes, how it does so does not matter, your hypothesis requires it does not escape.

                      OK. You are making a big deal about the metabolic energy
                      Metabolic energy IS a big deal - a HUGE deal and is a gigantic spanner in the works of your hypothesis.

                      ... and you say it has been proceeding steadily for millions of years. This will have put energy into the Earth?s system, and it will have entered the surface, and so can cause radiation. Now go to my explanation above, and you will see that the temperature increase is, in fact, minimised by Stefan? law, and this is the equilibrium temperature the Earth has attained for millions of years.
                      Stefan' law? You're obfuscating again in the way you originally with a lot of statistics that the vast majority won't or didn't check. You're now arguing against your basic tenet.

                      The reason I took a period of only 25 years was simply because the EIA data I found only went back to 1970, and practical observations were available for the period 1978 to 2003. If you want to extrapolate further back, and have the data, I should be pleased to see it, but it can only add more energy into the system and so strengthen my position.
                      You didn't take a period of 25 years - you took a period of 1 year - 2003. I extrapolated the full 25 years and the figures started to get silly.

                      Now with regard to hard science
                      My hypothesis has achieved excellent quantitative agreement with three practical observations in the Arctic, and two recent practical observations in the Antarctic.
                      The amount of anthropogenic energy which can be lost to outer space and/or allocated to the oceans is about 38% of the anthropogenic energy over a recent 25 year period.
                      What more do you expect?
                      It has achieved coincidental agreement when a selected 1 year period has been coarsely examined.

                      I expect that before you start touting such information about the web as "science", that you complete the work to a much higher degree of rigour. No scientist would operate like this unless after a period of peer assessment as I said earlier. I am a biologist and I now find it obvious to pick huge holes in the idea to the point where it is totally disproven. I doubt a physicist would spend more than a few sentences to do the same.

                      I am sure you a sincere individual, I have enjoyed reading your ideas, but it's just not the way things are. You have been polite, interesting and pleasant to talk to.

                      As for closing this thread, I consider that to be very premature. It has been open for only a few days, and has already received a large number of visitors. Why would you want to deny others the opportunity to learn of a new idea even if they do not agree with it?

                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X