CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:53 am
 


Wait a minute. You're looking at heat emitted. All that heat first came here as insolation, so it doesn't matter who's emitting it, or if there's more of one species or what have you. The energy in the food we eat was sunshine at one time. It pales compared to the total insolation the planet receives. So yes, we emit more heat burning fuels, but the calculation was about the heat humans emit directly.

The issue I thought was with carbon keeping reradiating some of this solar heat back to the planet instead of allowing it to radiate to space. Guess we're preventing universal warming by burning fossil fuels.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:56 am
 


andyt wrote:
Wait a minute. You're looking at heat emitted. All that heat first came here as insolation, so it doesn't matter who's emitting it, or if there's more of one species or what have you. The energy in the food we eat was sunshine at one time. It pales compared to the total insolation the planet receives. So yes, we emit more heat burning fuels, but the calculation was about the heat humans emit directly.

The issue I thought was with carbon keeping reradiating some of this solar heat back to the planet instead of allowing it to radiate to space. Guess we're preventing universal warming by burning fossil fuels.


Burning fossil fuels also releases solar energy if you stop and think about it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:58 am
 


peck420 wrote:
Ah, gracias!

Let's plug that directly in:
10.5 x 10^6 Joules...times 7 billion persons.
7,350,000,000,000,0000 J

1 Barrel of Oil = 5,861,520,000 J
1,253,941 barrels.

Damn it Zip! Let me use my 100 watts/day, it makes me feel better :D.


I get 12 million barrels. Even worse!

Crude oil consumption globally is about 90 million barrels/day.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:58 am
 


Yes. Just in a more concetrated form. But nobody is talking about AGW due to the heat emitted by fossil fuels, but because the GHGs that prevent solar radiation from being radiated back out to space. Compared to that, I think, actual heat from oxidation from various sources is insignificant.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2553
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:11 am
 


Zipperfish,

And that's what I get when I try to type in all the zeros instead of using the EXP function!

12.5 million would be correct.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:44 am
 


andyt wrote:
Yes. Just in a more concetrated form. But nobody is talking about AGW due to the heat emitted by fossil fuels, but because the GHGs that prevent solar radiation from being radiated back out to space. Compared to that, I think, actual heat from oxidation from various sources is insignificant.


Yes, also the CO2 is much more long lasting.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:47 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
andyt wrote:
Yes. Just in a more concetrated form. But nobody is talking about AGW due to the heat emitted by fossil fuels, but because the GHGs that prevent solar radiation from being radiated back out to space. Compared to that, I think, actual heat from oxidation from various sources is insignificant.


Yes, also the CO2 is much more long lasting.


At least until the plants start using it up.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:12 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
andyt wrote:
Yes. Just in a more concetrated form. But nobody is talking about AGW due to the heat emitted by fossil fuels, but because the GHGs that prevent solar radiation from being radiated back out to space. Compared to that, I think, actual heat from oxidation from various sources is insignificant.


Yes, also the CO2 is much more long lasting.


At least until the plants start using it up.


When will that be? We've had rising levels of CO2 and temp for some time now - so far the plants don't seem to be catching up.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:09 pm
 


andyt wrote:
When will that be? We've had rising levels of CO2 and temp for some time now - so far the plants don't seem to be catching up.


Well, if you'd stop cutting down all your pot plants before maturity they'd have a chance. PDT_Armataz_01_25


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33120
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:37 pm
 


Attachment:
A better world.jpg
A better world.jpg [ 53.36 KiB | Viewed 116 times ]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12434
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:48 pm
 


R=UP


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:27 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Attachment:
A better world.jpg


Awesome.

Image


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:10 am
 


So they're fudging data again.

In the eagerness of the authors to prove something that's not there, we have yet another example of why "climate deniers" have good reason to be skeptical...

Quote:
11,000-year study’s 20th-century claim is groundless

On March 8, a paper appeared in the prestigious journal Science under the title A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Temperature reconstructions are nothing new, but papers claiming to be able to go back so far in time are rare, especially ones that promise global and regional coverage.

The new study, by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix, was based on an analysis of 73 long-term proxies, and offered a few interesting results: one familiar (and unremarkable), one odd but probably unimportant, and one new and stunning. The latter was an apparent discovery that 20th-century warming was a wild departure from anything seen in over 11,000 years. News of this finding flew around the world and the authors suddenly became the latest in a long line of celebrity climate scientists.

The trouble is, as they quietly admitted over the weekend, their new and stunning claim is groundless. The real story is only just emerging, and it isn’t pretty.


Full article @

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/0 ... t-screwed/


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:48 am
 


They've been studying climate for 11,000 years, eh? Can't wait to hear exactly that claim being repeated sooner or later.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24046
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:25 am
 


Speaking of data manipulation, did you hear the master manipulator of NASA/GISS climate data has quit so he can devote his time to activism?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/scien ... d=all&_r=0

It's too much to hope that they'll go back and fix the cooling of old temps, and heating of new, manipulated data fantasies Hansen created, but maybe they'll at least be less of that now. One can hope.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.