Why don't (man made) generators of heat from internal sources in earth's system cause climate change?












15












$begingroup$


So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs, etc, contribute to climate change, or even things like the accelerated decay of radioactive materials -- human caused factors. I'm fairly sure it's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space, but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way: If every human had 100x 100W fluorescent lightbulbs (5% efficiency) each and were to leave them on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. How much energy do we get from the Sun compared to how much energy we "produce locally"? Hint: the area of solar panels required to supply all of current humanity energy needs (ignoring transmission etc., that's not my point) is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area, despite their still pretty low efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would." -> Well in the long run, it's pretty much exact...
    $endgroup$
    – drjpizzle
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    One thing you don't take into account is that the air isn't isolated from the much greater thermal mass of the rest of the planet. The oceans in particluar absorb most of the excess heat (figure at wikipedia says 93%, unfortunately the data citation leads to a broken link)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    11 hours ago
















15












$begingroup$


So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs, etc, contribute to climate change, or even things like the accelerated decay of radioactive materials -- human caused factors. I'm fairly sure it's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space, but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way: If every human had 100x 100W fluorescent lightbulbs (5% efficiency) each and were to leave them on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. How much energy do we get from the Sun compared to how much energy we "produce locally"? Hint: the area of solar panels required to supply all of current humanity energy needs (ignoring transmission etc., that's not my point) is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area, despite their still pretty low efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would." -> Well in the long run, it's pretty much exact...
    $endgroup$
    – drjpizzle
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    One thing you don't take into account is that the air isn't isolated from the much greater thermal mass of the rest of the planet. The oceans in particluar absorb most of the excess heat (figure at wikipedia says 93%, unfortunately the data citation leads to a broken link)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    11 hours ago














15












15








15


4



$begingroup$


So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs, etc, contribute to climate change, or even things like the accelerated decay of radioactive materials -- human caused factors. I'm fairly sure it's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space, but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way: If every human had 100x 100W fluorescent lightbulbs (5% efficiency) each and were to leave them on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs, etc, contribute to climate change, or even things like the accelerated decay of radioactive materials -- human caused factors. I'm fairly sure it's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space, but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way: If every human had 100x 100W fluorescent lightbulbs (5% efficiency) each and were to leave them on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.







atmospheric-science climate-science






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









IconDaemon

1195




1195










asked yesterday









SkidusheSkidushe

7915




7915








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. How much energy do we get from the Sun compared to how much energy we "produce locally"? Hint: the area of solar panels required to supply all of current humanity energy needs (ignoring transmission etc., that's not my point) is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area, despite their still pretty low efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would." -> Well in the long run, it's pretty much exact...
    $endgroup$
    – drjpizzle
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    One thing you don't take into account is that the air isn't isolated from the much greater thermal mass of the rest of the planet. The oceans in particluar absorb most of the excess heat (figure at wikipedia says 93%, unfortunately the data citation leads to a broken link)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    11 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. How much energy do we get from the Sun compared to how much energy we "produce locally"? Hint: the area of solar panels required to supply all of current humanity energy needs (ignoring transmission etc., that's not my point) is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area, despite their still pretty low efficiency.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would." -> Well in the long run, it's pretty much exact...
    $endgroup$
    – drjpizzle
    11 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    One thing you don't take into account is that the air isn't isolated from the much greater thermal mass of the rest of the planet. The oceans in particluar absorb most of the excess heat (figure at wikipedia says 93%, unfortunately the data citation leads to a broken link)
    $endgroup$
    – Chris H
    11 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
yesterday




$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
yesterday




3




3




$begingroup$
Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. How much energy do we get from the Sun compared to how much energy we "produce locally"? Hint: the area of solar panels required to supply all of current humanity energy needs (ignoring transmission etc., that's not my point) is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area, despite their still pretty low efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. How much energy do we get from the Sun compared to how much energy we "produce locally"? Hint: the area of solar panels required to supply all of current humanity energy needs (ignoring transmission etc., that's not my point) is a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface area, despite their still pretty low efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
14 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
"I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would." -> Well in the long run, it's pretty much exact...
$endgroup$
– drjpizzle
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
"I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would." -> Well in the long run, it's pretty much exact...
$endgroup$
– drjpizzle
11 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
One thing you don't take into account is that the air isn't isolated from the much greater thermal mass of the rest of the planet. The oceans in particluar absorb most of the excess heat (figure at wikipedia says 93%, unfortunately the data citation leads to a broken link)
$endgroup$
– Chris H
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
One thing you don't take into account is that the air isn't isolated from the much greater thermal mass of the rest of the planet. The oceans in particluar absorb most of the excess heat (figure at wikipedia says 93%, unfortunately the data citation leads to a broken link)
$endgroup$
– Chris H
11 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















23












$begingroup$

The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 6




    $begingroup$
    And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    19 hours ago








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    4 hours ago



















8












$begingroup$

The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    19 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    4 hours ago



















5












$begingroup$

Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising $text{CO}_2$ is not obvious. We can compare the two effects by comparing their contribution to net energy dumped into atmosphere in the form of heat.



For radiation, increasing $text{CO}_2$ at current rate is reported to provide around 3 W (2016$^*$) of power per squared meter of Earth's surface more than in balanced radiative equilibrium state, thus $4.8text{e}22~text{J}$ per year (this number increases in time as concentration of $text{CO}_2$ increases). On the other hand, the net energy production per year (2015) is estimated to $5.5text{e}20~text{J}$ and this energy eventually ends up heating the planet too.



Comparing the two powers, human energy production has around 1% of effect of the greenhouse gases emissions, not substantial, but still a noticeable effect. In time, the importance of energy production will probably somewhat increase (if $text{CO}_2$ emissions are lower than today).



Decreasing impact of energy consumption is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.



$^*$ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    21 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    21 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    20 hours ago








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    20 hours ago



















0












$begingroup$


Power output as heat:
Eheat=0.95∗100∗100∗(60∗60∗24∗365)∗(7.5∗109)=2.2∗1021Jyear−1




Presumably, that 0.95 refers to the lightbulb being 5% efficient. However, that is incorrect reasoning. Efficiency does not refer to how much is turned into useful work instead of turning into heat, it's how much is turned into useful work before turning into heat. If a lightbuld produces 95W of heat and 5W of light, that light is eventually absorbed by something, and that something will then be heated up. So all of the energy of the lightbulb eventually turns into heat. Pretty much every use of energy eventually turns into heat, with only a few exceptions (an example of an exception would be that any energy used to build a skyscraper that goes into lifting building materials doesn't turn into heat ... at least not unless the skyscraper is demolished), and those exceptions are a tiny percentage of energy usage.




The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg (Wikipedia)

specific heat capacity of air:

SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




Both the mass, and heat capacity, of land/water is much larger than that of air, and for air to remain at a high temperature, the ground and water below it has to be brought up to that temperature. You can have a region with cold ground and warm air, but for that situation to persist, that warm air has to be coming from someplace else that does have warm ground/water.




Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry?




Besides this being a tiny proportion of the total heat, it's not permanent. The main concern over CO2 is not that emitting CO2 in 2019 will make the Earth hotter in 2019, or even 2020 or 2021, but that all the CO2 emissions are cumulative, and thirty years from now we'll still be dealing with the effects of CO2 emissions from today. The urgency of anti-warming activists is based on the premise that global warming has a lot of momentum, and it will take a lot of time to turn around warming trends. Simply adding heat to the system, on the other hand, doesn't have the same long-term effects. Heat causes objects to radiate heat. Without the greenhouse effect, raising the Earth's temperature means that it radiates more heat, and so without a constant influx of new heat, it will cool back down. So even if we were to raise the Earth's temperature by turning all our heaters on full blast, this wouldn't be a threat to later generations the way that CO2 emissions are asserted to be. CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the Earth emits, and so can permanently increase the equilibrium temperature.




Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would.




If you stick a heater next to wind turbine, all of its energy is coming from the energy being taken from the wind, and all of that energy would have turned into heat anyway (see my first paragraph). For the heater to result in a net increase of heat would be a violation of conservation of energy. Same with renewal energy in general, such as solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, or wave.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459462%2fwhy-dont-man-made-generators-of-heat-from-internal-sources-in-earths-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    23












    $begingroup$

    The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



    There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



    The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      19 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      13 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – llama
      4 hours ago
















    23












    $begingroup$

    The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



    There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



    The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      19 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      13 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – llama
      4 hours ago














    23












    23








    23





    $begingroup$

    The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



    There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



    The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



    There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



    The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 22 hours ago









    BowlOfRedBowlOfRed

    16.3k22441




    16.3k22441








    • 6




      $begingroup$
      And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      19 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      13 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – llama
      4 hours ago














    • 6




      $begingroup$
      And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      19 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      13 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
      $endgroup$
      – David White
      7 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Duminil
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – llama
      4 hours ago








    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    19 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    And the energy balance in the picture gets very uncertain if a small amount of warming increases the total amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is both a strong greenhouse gas AND an excellent convective heat transfer medium. In addition, more water vapor in principle leads to more clouds, higher albedo, possibly more snow fall in high latitudes, and a host of competing positive and negative feedbacks that are very difficult to quantify. The conclusion that more CO2 leads to "x" amount of warming based solely on its IR absorbance is simple minded at best.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    19 hours ago






    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    13 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite Isn't something missing in your comment? You first talk about water vapor and mention all its positive and negative feedbacks. And then you conclude about CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    13 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @EricDuminil, the missing part of my comment: water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on earth, but the main stream media keeps trying to frighten people regarding CO2. Alarmism by media is not science.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite: Nobody's denying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas on Earth. It's just that humans don't have much influence on the water cycle. CO2 is by far the biggest anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That's why it makes sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions, and that's also why media concentrate more on CO2 than on H2O. If you don't agree with conclusions from IPCC, you're welcome to write a peer-reviewed paper. Right now, it looks like you're rejecting the whole idea of man-made climate change simply because it isn't well reported in mainstream media.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Duminil
    6 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @DavidWhite yes, basing it solely on CO2's IR absorbance is simpleminded, which is why there are many different complex climate simulations running on supercomputers to constrain the uncertainty of the other feedback mechanisms, along with the extremely well-established observational data showing that global average temperature rise over the past century correlates strongly with increased atmospheric CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – llama
    4 hours ago











    8












    $begingroup$

    The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



    With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      19 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      4 hours ago
















    8












    $begingroup$

    The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



    With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      19 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      4 hours ago














    8












    8








    8





    $begingroup$

    The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



    With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



    With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 23 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    PieterPieter

    8,29131432




    8,29131432












    • $begingroup$
      Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      19 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      4 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      19 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      14 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      4 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    19 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    Current radiative forcing due to increasing CO$_2$ and other gases is reported as around 3 W/m$^2$, not 8.5 W/m$^2$. If we are to compare effects, let us compare them at the same time. By the time the forcing will be 8.5 W/m$^2$, global energy consumption will increase as well. The comparison now says energy production has around 1% of radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases emissions.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    19 hours ago














    $begingroup$
    @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @JánLalinský Not to mention that the forcing is highly sub-linear with respect to carbon dioxide proportion. Mind you, not enough to avoid the climate change we're facing right now; doubling carbon dioxide will still retain huge amounts of heat - doubling it again, not so much; but by that point, we're already in serious trouble.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    14 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan I am not sure what do you mean - do you mean the effect of CO2 emissions will decrease in importance and effect of energy production will increase in importance?
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    4 hours ago











    5












    $begingroup$

    Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



    Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



    Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising $text{CO}_2$ is not obvious. We can compare the two effects by comparing their contribution to net energy dumped into atmosphere in the form of heat.



    For radiation, increasing $text{CO}_2$ at current rate is reported to provide around 3 W (2016$^*$) of power per squared meter of Earth's surface more than in balanced radiative equilibrium state, thus $4.8text{e}22~text{J}$ per year (this number increases in time as concentration of $text{CO}_2$ increases). On the other hand, the net energy production per year (2015) is estimated to $5.5text{e}20~text{J}$ and this energy eventually ends up heating the planet too.



    Comparing the two powers, human energy production has around 1% of effect of the greenhouse gases emissions, not substantial, but still a noticeable effect. In time, the importance of energy production will probably somewhat increase (if $text{CO}_2$ emissions are lower than today).



    Decreasing impact of energy consumption is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.



    $^*$ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      20 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      20 hours ago
















    5












    $begingroup$

    Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



    Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



    Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising $text{CO}_2$ is not obvious. We can compare the two effects by comparing their contribution to net energy dumped into atmosphere in the form of heat.



    For radiation, increasing $text{CO}_2$ at current rate is reported to provide around 3 W (2016$^*$) of power per squared meter of Earth's surface more than in balanced radiative equilibrium state, thus $4.8text{e}22~text{J}$ per year (this number increases in time as concentration of $text{CO}_2$ increases). On the other hand, the net energy production per year (2015) is estimated to $5.5text{e}20~text{J}$ and this energy eventually ends up heating the planet too.



    Comparing the two powers, human energy production has around 1% of effect of the greenhouse gases emissions, not substantial, but still a noticeable effect. In time, the importance of energy production will probably somewhat increase (if $text{CO}_2$ emissions are lower than today).



    Decreasing impact of energy consumption is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.



    $^*$ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      20 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      20 hours ago














    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



    Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



    Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising $text{CO}_2$ is not obvious. We can compare the two effects by comparing their contribution to net energy dumped into atmosphere in the form of heat.



    For radiation, increasing $text{CO}_2$ at current rate is reported to provide around 3 W (2016$^*$) of power per squared meter of Earth's surface more than in balanced radiative equilibrium state, thus $4.8text{e}22~text{J}$ per year (this number increases in time as concentration of $text{CO}_2$ increases). On the other hand, the net energy production per year (2015) is estimated to $5.5text{e}20~text{J}$ and this energy eventually ends up heating the planet too.



    Comparing the two powers, human energy production has around 1% of effect of the greenhouse gases emissions, not substantial, but still a noticeable effect. In time, the importance of energy production will probably somewhat increase (if $text{CO}_2$ emissions are lower than today).



    Decreasing impact of energy consumption is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.



    $^*$ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



    Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



    Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising $text{CO}_2$ is not obvious. We can compare the two effects by comparing their contribution to net energy dumped into atmosphere in the form of heat.



    For radiation, increasing $text{CO}_2$ at current rate is reported to provide around 3 W (2016$^*$) of power per squared meter of Earth's surface more than in balanced radiative equilibrium state, thus $4.8text{e}22~text{J}$ per year (this number increases in time as concentration of $text{CO}_2$ increases). On the other hand, the net energy production per year (2015) is estimated to $5.5text{e}20~text{J}$ and this energy eventually ends up heating the planet too.



    Comparing the two powers, human energy production has around 1% of effect of the greenhouse gases emissions, not substantial, but still a noticeable effect. In time, the importance of energy production will probably somewhat increase (if $text{CO}_2$ emissions are lower than today).



    Decreasing impact of energy consumption is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.



    $^*$ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 18 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský

    14.9k1334




    14.9k1334








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      20 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      20 hours ago














    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      21 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      21 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      20 hours ago








    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
      $endgroup$
      – craq
      20 hours ago








    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    21 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    21 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    21 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @craq that is quite possible, I did not claim I am sure. Do you have some reference to support your claim?
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    21 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    21 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    BowlOfRed provides nice links to Wikipedia showing that Solar energy is 3x10^24 and human energy consumption is 6x10^20 Joules per year. That's a factor of 5000 difference.
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    21 hours ago






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    20 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    Most of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back to space, it makes no sense to compare this large energy to energy consumption considered by OP. It would make more sense to find net solar energy yearly surplus dumped into atmosphere due continuing emissions of CO$_2$ and compare that to energy consumption.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    20 hours ago






    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    20 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Actually effectively ALL of the absorbed solar energy is reradiated back into space. If it didn't, then the temperature would continually increase... The way CO2 works is by changing the radiated energy by a small amount. Pieter estimates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere now compared to pre-industrial times causes 2% less energy to be radiated. (As he says, that's a rough estimate, but good enough for now.) Human energy use is 0.02% (1/5000).
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    20 hours ago











    0












    $begingroup$


    Power output as heat:
    Eheat=0.95∗100∗100∗(60∗60∗24∗365)∗(7.5∗109)=2.2∗1021Jyear−1




    Presumably, that 0.95 refers to the lightbulb being 5% efficient. However, that is incorrect reasoning. Efficiency does not refer to how much is turned into useful work instead of turning into heat, it's how much is turned into useful work before turning into heat. If a lightbuld produces 95W of heat and 5W of light, that light is eventually absorbed by something, and that something will then be heated up. So all of the energy of the lightbulb eventually turns into heat. Pretty much every use of energy eventually turns into heat, with only a few exceptions (an example of an exception would be that any energy used to build a skyscraper that goes into lifting building materials doesn't turn into heat ... at least not unless the skyscraper is demolished), and those exceptions are a tiny percentage of energy usage.




    The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg (Wikipedia)

    specific heat capacity of air:

    SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




    Both the mass, and heat capacity, of land/water is much larger than that of air, and for air to remain at a high temperature, the ground and water below it has to be brought up to that temperature. You can have a region with cold ground and warm air, but for that situation to persist, that warm air has to be coming from someplace else that does have warm ground/water.




    Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry?




    Besides this being a tiny proportion of the total heat, it's not permanent. The main concern over CO2 is not that emitting CO2 in 2019 will make the Earth hotter in 2019, or even 2020 or 2021, but that all the CO2 emissions are cumulative, and thirty years from now we'll still be dealing with the effects of CO2 emissions from today. The urgency of anti-warming activists is based on the premise that global warming has a lot of momentum, and it will take a lot of time to turn around warming trends. Simply adding heat to the system, on the other hand, doesn't have the same long-term effects. Heat causes objects to radiate heat. Without the greenhouse effect, raising the Earth's temperature means that it radiates more heat, and so without a constant influx of new heat, it will cool back down. So even if we were to raise the Earth's temperature by turning all our heaters on full blast, this wouldn't be a threat to later generations the way that CO2 emissions are asserted to be. CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the Earth emits, and so can permanently increase the equilibrium temperature.




    Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would.




    If you stick a heater next to wind turbine, all of its energy is coming from the energy being taken from the wind, and all of that energy would have turned into heat anyway (see my first paragraph). For the heater to result in a net increase of heat would be a violation of conservation of energy. Same with renewal energy in general, such as solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, or wave.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$


      Power output as heat:
      Eheat=0.95∗100∗100∗(60∗60∗24∗365)∗(7.5∗109)=2.2∗1021Jyear−1




      Presumably, that 0.95 refers to the lightbulb being 5% efficient. However, that is incorrect reasoning. Efficiency does not refer to how much is turned into useful work instead of turning into heat, it's how much is turned into useful work before turning into heat. If a lightbuld produces 95W of heat and 5W of light, that light is eventually absorbed by something, and that something will then be heated up. So all of the energy of the lightbulb eventually turns into heat. Pretty much every use of energy eventually turns into heat, with only a few exceptions (an example of an exception would be that any energy used to build a skyscraper that goes into lifting building materials doesn't turn into heat ... at least not unless the skyscraper is demolished), and those exceptions are a tiny percentage of energy usage.




      The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg (Wikipedia)

      specific heat capacity of air:

      SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




      Both the mass, and heat capacity, of land/water is much larger than that of air, and for air to remain at a high temperature, the ground and water below it has to be brought up to that temperature. You can have a region with cold ground and warm air, but for that situation to persist, that warm air has to be coming from someplace else that does have warm ground/water.




      Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry?




      Besides this being a tiny proportion of the total heat, it's not permanent. The main concern over CO2 is not that emitting CO2 in 2019 will make the Earth hotter in 2019, or even 2020 or 2021, but that all the CO2 emissions are cumulative, and thirty years from now we'll still be dealing with the effects of CO2 emissions from today. The urgency of anti-warming activists is based on the premise that global warming has a lot of momentum, and it will take a lot of time to turn around warming trends. Simply adding heat to the system, on the other hand, doesn't have the same long-term effects. Heat causes objects to radiate heat. Without the greenhouse effect, raising the Earth's temperature means that it radiates more heat, and so without a constant influx of new heat, it will cool back down. So even if we were to raise the Earth's temperature by turning all our heaters on full blast, this wouldn't be a threat to later generations the way that CO2 emissions are asserted to be. CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the Earth emits, and so can permanently increase the equilibrium temperature.




      Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would.




      If you stick a heater next to wind turbine, all of its energy is coming from the energy being taken from the wind, and all of that energy would have turned into heat anyway (see my first paragraph). For the heater to result in a net increase of heat would be a violation of conservation of energy. Same with renewal energy in general, such as solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, or wave.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$


        Power output as heat:
        Eheat=0.95∗100∗100∗(60∗60∗24∗365)∗(7.5∗109)=2.2∗1021Jyear−1




        Presumably, that 0.95 refers to the lightbulb being 5% efficient. However, that is incorrect reasoning. Efficiency does not refer to how much is turned into useful work instead of turning into heat, it's how much is turned into useful work before turning into heat. If a lightbuld produces 95W of heat and 5W of light, that light is eventually absorbed by something, and that something will then be heated up. So all of the energy of the lightbulb eventually turns into heat. Pretty much every use of energy eventually turns into heat, with only a few exceptions (an example of an exception would be that any energy used to build a skyscraper that goes into lifting building materials doesn't turn into heat ... at least not unless the skyscraper is demolished), and those exceptions are a tiny percentage of energy usage.




        The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg (Wikipedia)

        specific heat capacity of air:

        SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




        Both the mass, and heat capacity, of land/water is much larger than that of air, and for air to remain at a high temperature, the ground and water below it has to be brought up to that temperature. You can have a region with cold ground and warm air, but for that situation to persist, that warm air has to be coming from someplace else that does have warm ground/water.




        Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry?




        Besides this being a tiny proportion of the total heat, it's not permanent. The main concern over CO2 is not that emitting CO2 in 2019 will make the Earth hotter in 2019, or even 2020 or 2021, but that all the CO2 emissions are cumulative, and thirty years from now we'll still be dealing with the effects of CO2 emissions from today. The urgency of anti-warming activists is based on the premise that global warming has a lot of momentum, and it will take a lot of time to turn around warming trends. Simply adding heat to the system, on the other hand, doesn't have the same long-term effects. Heat causes objects to radiate heat. Without the greenhouse effect, raising the Earth's temperature means that it radiates more heat, and so without a constant influx of new heat, it will cool back down. So even if we were to raise the Earth's temperature by turning all our heaters on full blast, this wouldn't be a threat to later generations the way that CO2 emissions are asserted to be. CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the Earth emits, and so can permanently increase the equilibrium temperature.




        Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would.




        If you stick a heater next to wind turbine, all of its energy is coming from the energy being taken from the wind, and all of that energy would have turned into heat anyway (see my first paragraph). For the heater to result in a net increase of heat would be a violation of conservation of energy. Same with renewal energy in general, such as solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, or wave.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




        Power output as heat:
        Eheat=0.95∗100∗100∗(60∗60∗24∗365)∗(7.5∗109)=2.2∗1021Jyear−1




        Presumably, that 0.95 refers to the lightbulb being 5% efficient. However, that is incorrect reasoning. Efficiency does not refer to how much is turned into useful work instead of turning into heat, it's how much is turned into useful work before turning into heat. If a lightbuld produces 95W of heat and 5W of light, that light is eventually absorbed by something, and that something will then be heated up. So all of the energy of the lightbulb eventually turns into heat. Pretty much every use of energy eventually turns into heat, with only a few exceptions (an example of an exception would be that any energy used to build a skyscraper that goes into lifting building materials doesn't turn into heat ... at least not unless the skyscraper is demolished), and those exceptions are a tiny percentage of energy usage.




        The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg (Wikipedia)

        specific heat capacity of air:

        SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




        Both the mass, and heat capacity, of land/water is much larger than that of air, and for air to remain at a high temperature, the ground and water below it has to be brought up to that temperature. You can have a region with cold ground and warm air, but for that situation to persist, that warm air has to be coming from someplace else that does have warm ground/water.




        Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry?




        Besides this being a tiny proportion of the total heat, it's not permanent. The main concern over CO2 is not that emitting CO2 in 2019 will make the Earth hotter in 2019, or even 2020 or 2021, but that all the CO2 emissions are cumulative, and thirty years from now we'll still be dealing with the effects of CO2 emissions from today. The urgency of anti-warming activists is based on the premise that global warming has a lot of momentum, and it will take a lot of time to turn around warming trends. Simply adding heat to the system, on the other hand, doesn't have the same long-term effects. Heat causes objects to radiate heat. Without the greenhouse effect, raising the Earth's temperature means that it radiates more heat, and so without a constant influx of new heat, it will cool back down. So even if we were to raise the Earth's temperature by turning all our heaters on full blast, this wouldn't be a threat to later generations the way that CO2 emissions are asserted to be. CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the Earth emits, and so can permanently increase the equilibrium temperature.




        Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would.




        If you stick a heater next to wind turbine, all of its energy is coming from the energy being taken from the wind, and all of that energy would have turned into heat anyway (see my first paragraph). For the heater to result in a net increase of heat would be a violation of conservation of energy. Same with renewal energy in general, such as solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, or wave.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 3 hours ago









        AcccumulationAcccumulation

        2,456312




        2,456312






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459462%2fwhy-dont-man-made-generators-of-heat-from-internal-sources-in-earths-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Magento 2 controller redirect on button click in phtml file

            Polycentropodidae