Global Warming UNDENIABLE SOLID PROOF

[Dionne]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... _silk.html

This just arrived this morning. Has anyone else seen this yet?

[x-y-no]

Excuse me, please, which one is bigger? Earth's energy budget from the Sun is about 1 kw per square meter. The energy budget of one Ford Focus is about 407 kw per square meter much of that is in the form of heat, you know that internal combustion engine thingie under the hood, friction from the tires, cabin greenhouse and all that.

OK ... now what fraction of the Earth's surface is covered by running cars at any given time?

[x-y-no]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html

This just arrived this morning. Has anyone else seen this yet?

Well, I don't know what adjustments caused that shift in slope in that particular station's data, but I'll note that skeptics have long made a point of demanding that raw data be adjusted to compensate for environmental changes at stations (for instance heat island effect) so it's a bit odd for them to complain about raw data being adjusted.

The homogenization methodology is published, so it seems to me if the author thinks there's actually something wrong with it he ought to explain exactly what he thinks is wrong, rather than cherry picking the change in one station like this and not explaining what part of the homogenization of that station's data that he thinks is illegitimate.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html

This just arrived this morning. Has anyone else seen this yet?

About that one set of data the author may be correct.

But about global warming as a whole:
I've put links to hundreds of melting glaciers in this thread, and
carbon dioxide is at its highest level in 650,000 years
and growing at an accelerating pace. When you set the forest on fire, it is going
to get hotter. Smoke won't block out enough sunlight to stop the heating.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

As a follow up, the amount of human heat may be tiny
compared to that of the sun's radiation processes, but
if that tiny amount is enough to heat earth by
a threshold amount, that may be significant for glaciers, etc.
That "threshold" is what worries me.

Anthropogenic heat is a small fraction of the total
heat, so it will not change temperatures by a huge
amount. But it will likely increase it by a slight amount,
just enough to bring about environmental problems
with glaciers.


So between the scientists that argue that anthropogenic
heating is taking place and those that argue it is not,
it is reasonable to conclude that anthropogenic global
warming is a small amount of extra heat added to the
atmosphere, as opposed to a very large amount of
extra heat, and that there will be some environmental
impacts, significant for glaciers and glacial climate,
but it won't be a catastrophic event.
Nevertheless, the melting of glaciers and other
environmental impacts does warrant some concern.
With this median argument, both anthropogenic global
warming proponents and dissidents are accurate to an
extent.

[x-y-no]

As a follow up, the amount of human heat may be tiny
compared to that of the sun's radiation processes, but
if that tiny amount is enough to heat earth by
a threshold amount, that may be significant for glaciers, etc.
That "threshold" is what worries me.

Well, that's kind of an odd way to put it. Essentially all of the "heat" (actually energy) comes from the sun. A relatively small fraction comes from nuclear decay processes in the Earth.

What human activity is doing is changing the radiative balance of the atmosphere.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

So meaning less heat gets radiated out of the atmosphere into space?

[Dionne]

Human activity is like growth in a petri dish....we will not be here very long. Our species is invasive. Actually, everything on this planet is in competition. And we are alone?

[gigabite]

Excuse me, please, which one is bigger? Earth's energy budget from the Sun is about 1 kw per square meter. The energy budget of one Ford Focus is about 407 kw per square meter much of that is in the form of heat, you know that internal combustion engine thingie under the hood, friction from the tires, cabin greenhouse and all that.

OK ... now what fraction of the Earth's surface is covered by running cars at any given time?

6,706,993,152 people in the world at about 200 cars per thousand would be about 5 percent of the earth sun energy budget per hour driven, if everyone drove small cars.

[x-y-no]

Excuse me, please, which one is bigger? Earth's energy budget from the Sun is about 1 kw per square meter. The energy budget of one Ford Focus is about 407 kw per square meter much of that is in the form of heat, you know that internal combustion engine thingie under the hood, friction from the tires, cabin greenhouse and all that.

OK ... now what fraction of the Earth's surface is covered by running cars at any given time?

6,706,993,152 people in the world at about 200 cars per thousand would be about 5 percent of the earth sun energy budget per hour driven, if everyone drove small cars.

WHAT?

Setting aside the fact that 1 car for every 5 humans on Earth is an absurdly high number, you're just way, way off regarding the total solar energy reaching the surface.

The total solar energy reaching the Earth's surface is about 3.2 million exajoules per year. Our total energy consumption worldwide (all energy consumption, not just fossil fuels) is approximately 470 exajoules per year, or about 0.014%.

[Dionne]

That word exajoules (I just looked it up)....with a multiplier of 3.2 million.....I didn't work the numbers ....but .014 seems rather large.

[gigabite]

surface area of earth 510,066,000,000,000 meter^2 * 1000 Watts per day = 510,066,000,000,000 kW per day.

http://www.unitconversion.org/power/kil ... rsion.html

China and India have maybe 12, but the average number of cars for the industrial world is about 437 per 1000. I cut that in half and made the output at 102 Kw per by the 137 horse power engin and divide it by 2, because no one drives at night.

http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_conv ... 0(electric)

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8820411

6,706,993,152 population
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 9rank.html

ok so it is .01 percent, but it is still added to the solar/earth budget, and that is just for small cars per hour.

[Skyhawk]

surface area of earth 510,066,000,000,000 meter^2 * 1000 Watts per day = 510,066,000,000,000 kW per day.

http://www.unitconversion.org/power/kil ... rsion.html

China and India have maybe 12, but the average number of cars for the industrial world is about 437 per 1000. I cut that in half and made the output at 102 Kw per by the 137 horse power engin and divide it by 2, because no one drives at night.

http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_conv ... 0(electric)

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8820411

6,706,993,152 population
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 9rank.html

ok so it is .01 percent, but it is still added to the solar/earth budget, and that is just for small cars per hour.
surface area of earth 510,066,000,000,000 meter^2 * 1000 Watts per day = 510,066,000,000,000 kW per day.

http://www.unitconversion.org/power/kil ... rsion.html

China and India have maybe 12, but the average number of cars for the industrial world is about 437 per 1000. I cut that in half and made the output at 102 Kw per by the 137 horse power engin and divide it by 2, because no one drives at night.

http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_conv ... 0(electric)

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8820411

6,706,993,152 population
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 9rank.html

ok so it is .01 percent, but it is still added to the solar/earth budget, and that is just for small cars per hour.

Aside from other issues there are units problems.

a watt = joule/sec, which is a unit of power. The MKS unit of energy is a joule.

KW per day = nonsense! I suppose you meant KW-day not KW/day.

When calculating energy received from the sun, one uses the earth's cross sectional area to calculate the energy intercepted by the earth not the total surface area.

There are pretty accurate figures available for total energy useage for the entire earth why not use these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_ener ... onsumption

Average rate of energy consumption for the entire earth = 1.6 x 10^13 W, while the rate at which energy is received from the sun = 1.740×10^17 W. Thus total energy consumption < .01% of incidendent solar energy. Since a black body radiates as T^4 the effect of burning fossil fuels (aside from the CO2 issue) on the earth's surface temperature is minimal.

[gigabite]

I can understand that the energy component of potential to kinetic conversion is small compared to solar flux. I am having a problem understanding the flux/heat relationship of the 1000 watts per meter +/- that strikes the Earth. Exactly how much of flux is heat?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

If China can control the weather- if we get advanced enough...
whoaaaa gonna be wild!!!!!!! Imagine that, control your weather,
that would be insane Out of this World BABY!!!!!!!!

[Skyhawk]

I can understand that the energy component of potential to kinetic conversion is small compared to solar flux.

I have no idea what that means.

I am having a problem understanding the flux/heat relationship of the 1000 watts per meter +/- that strikes the Earth. Exactly how much of flux is heat?

All of the flux is electromagnetic radiation from the sun. The frequency distribution of the radiation corresponds roughly to a black body with an effective temperature of aprroximately 5780 K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Since the flux is a flow of energy from a hot body (sun) to a cooler body (earth), it is all heat. Part of the incident energy is simply reflected by clouds, aerosols, or the earth's surface and part is adsorbed by the surface. The part that is absorbed is re-radiated at a rate and with a frequency distribution characteristic of the earth's black body temperature. The equillibrium between the absorbed and re-radiated energy determines the average effective temperature of the earth. The part of the energy that is reflected plays no part in determining the temperature of the earth. See the discussion at the above link.

[Sanibel]

While the Arctic has seen a rapid freezing and extent of sea ice this year the multi-decadal ice is still decreasing according to satellite images.

[gigabite]

I can understand that the energy component of potential to kinetic conversion is small compared to solar flux.

I have no idea what that means.

I am having a problem understanding the flux/heat relationship of the 1000 watts per meter +/- that strikes the Earth. Exactly how much of flux is heat?

All of the flux is electromagnetic radiation from the sun. The frequency distribution of the radiation corresponds roughly to a black body with an effective temperature of aprroximately 5780 K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Since the flux is a flow of energy from a hot body (sun) to a cooler body (earth), it is all heat. Part of the incident energy is simply reflected by clouds, aerosols, or the earth's surface and part is adsorbed by the surface. The part that is absorbed is re-radiated at a rate and with a frequency distribution characteristic of the earth's black body temperature. The equillibrium between the absorbed and re-radiated energy determines the average effective temperature of the earth. The part of the energy that is reflected plays no part in determining the temperature of the earth. See the discussion at the above link.

Sorry, I am still not getting it. I want to define heat as a measure of temperature not work. I am having trouble converting flux into Fahrenheit for 1 square meter at sea level.

[Skyhawk]

Sorry, I am still not getting it. I want to define heat as a measure of temperature not work. I am having trouble converting flux into Fahrenheit for 1 square meter at sea level

Sorry to say, but your concepts are wrong. A body does not contain heat, it contains energy. For substances that are nearly incompressible like liquids and solids the energy content is simply a function of temperature. The larger the energy content the higher the temperature. The temperature of an object cannot be determined from the energy flux by itself. The flux only tells you the rate at which energy is flowing into the system, but not the energy content of the system. If you assume radiative equillibrium, i.e. rate of energy in is equal to rate of energy out where the rate out is given by the Stefan-Boltzman Law, then you can calculate a temperature. This was done in the link I gave you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Read the discussion there. Their assumptions are:
1. The Sun and the Earth both radiate as spherical black bodies.
2. The Earth is in thermal equilibrium.

If these assumptions are not appropriate for what you want to do then there is no way to calculate a temperature from a flux alone.

[gigabite]

I understand the 1904 Stefan–Boltzmann equation to be a method used to interpolate the surface temperature of the Sun. I am thinking that going 2AU to figure the temperature of Earth is not as easy as reading a thermometer without regard to the level of precision of the equipment used is or can be, some accuracy is going to be lost over the 185 million miles that the guess is being made.