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

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

[Paul Ward]

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.

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

[Paul Ward]

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.

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