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