Thread: Another Cause for Global Warming

Physics teaches that energy is not created or destroyed. All that it does is change from one form to another. The chemical potential energy that is bound up in fossil fuels, changes to heat, electrical energy and kinetic energy when it is burned to turn electrical generators or run internal combustion engines in automobiles. The electrial energy is then changed to heat and kinetic energy in the electrical divices that are operated. The Kinetic energy in the automobiles and electrical devices is changed to heat by friction with the air and road (for the automobiles) and friction when using the electical devices. All of this energy eventually is changed to heat.
Heat is disordered energy, and according the the law of entropy, disorder increases in all physical processes. All of the energy produced by the burning of fossil fuels eventually becomes heat. Where does all this heat go? It warms up the air. As your automobile cools or your electrical device cools, it is giving off its heat energy to warm the air. This is causing global warming of the atmosphere directly.
Mankind has become technological and uses much more energy than it used to. There is also many more people in the world as the population increases, using more energy. I believe that this is the prime cause of global warming and not the greenhouse effect, as others claim.
The idea of global warming and the greenhouse effect came about when a chart was ploted showing the rise in temperature that went along with the rise in carbon dioxide every winter do to less photosynthesis and the burning of more fossil fuel to keep warm. The guy plotting this graff noticed a yearly rise in temperature associated with increased carbon dioxide in the air. So the idea of the greenhouse effect causing global warming was started. But, increases in energy use by mankind goes up directly proportional to the increase in carbon dioxide. The more fuel you burn, the more energy and carbon dioxide are produced. I think the graff was misinterpreted. It is the use of more energy by mankind, that is directly heating up the atmosphere. If there is a green house effect because of carbon dioxide, it is only a contributing factor to global warming and not the main cause.
Solution to global warming:
Blow the tops off of volcanoes, using hydrogen bombs, that are known to produce much ash and sulphur dioxide and block out the sun with clouds of ash causing cooling.
However this would interfere with crop production, and kill alot of people.
Second solution: Decrease the Earth's population by a billion people or more.
This would greatly decrease the amount of energy that men are using and decrease the warming effect.

You are right on energy laws, but you are wforgetting that we are using energies that is already on this planet, without us they would anyhow became heat. But you re forgetting hot objects give away light of different frequenses according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%...body_radiation

or a older law, wich shows the total effect
P=kT^4
k=5,6710^-8

as temperature increase on earth it will begin radiate more energy into space as electromagnetic waves. Until a equiribium is reached with what comes in and what comes out. This is where greenhouse gases comes into the picture. They absorbs the lower frequens of the light (wich is more abunded at this temperatures) and thereby decreasing earth output energy. and with a less output earth becomes hotter until a new equribium is reached under the new circumstances.

Thats why the gases are so important and not our energy usage. If we launch of 500 terrejoule of energy into heat it will turn to heat, then spread, increase our output for a short time, then leave earth and we are back to square one. Notice that this is the standard temperature of the entire planet.

Solution to global warming:
Blow the tops off of volcanoes, using hydrogen bombs, that are known to produce much ash and sulphur dioxide and block out the sun with clouds of ash causing cooling.

And with that, this thread finds itself a new home.

By the way, I think you meant "graph" not "graff."

The greenhouse effect was found by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century. He was the first to figure out the connection between the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earth's temperatue. Arrhenius welcomed the increased consumption of fossil fuels, mostly coal at the time, because this would warm up the planet, a comforting idea just after the little Ice Age that had plagued the northern hemisphere for several centuries.

Radiation from the sun striking the earth is around 4*10^16 Watts
(pi r^2 * p) where p is around 1KW per square metre divide by 6Bn (number of people on the earth) gives 6.8Megawatts per person continious. I don't know what the average power used per person is but since half the world do NOT use electricity, and 40% of the world is (or should be asleep) at any one time I would be surpised if average continuous consumption per person is above 1KW - At that figure we would be generating 6*10^12 Watts. This being the case it would only add 0.015% to the energy received from the sun. OK that's just electric, so say it's 10 times that when you add the fossil fuels and it's still ony 0.15%.

This is assuming every man woman and child in the world is using 10KJ of energy per second continuously!

So I reckon it has only a very small impact, whereas greenhouse gases
I would imagine would be far greater.

EDIT: The 1KW per SQ M was derived from a physics text book.

If I use the figure of 4.0 million Metric tons/second mass loss from the sun and crank it into e=mc^2 I get 3.59*10^26 Joules/second released at the sun's surface. At 93Mmiles (150,000,000,000Metres) this energy is divided among 4pi*r*r metres = 2.82*10^23 resulting in 1,269.70 joules/sq Metre. The difference (I think) could be attributed to the reflection coefficient of the earth at different frequencies.

Can anybody confirm I have correctly calculated this?

Originally Posted by Zelos

You are right on energy laws, but you are wforgetting that we are using energies that is already on this planet, without us they would anyhow became heat. But you re forgetting hot objects give away light of different frequenses according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%...body_radiation

or a older law, wich shows the total effect
P=kT^4
k=5,6710^-8

as temperature increase on earth it will begin radiate more energy into space as electromagnetic waves. Until a equiribium is reached with what comes in and what comes out. This is where greenhouse gases comes into the picture. They absorbs the lower frequens of the light (wich is more abunded at this temperatures) and thereby decreasing earth output energy. and with a less output earth becomes hotter until a new equribium is reached under the new circumstances.

Thats why the gases are so important and not our energy usage. If we launch of 500 terrejoule of energy into heat it will turn to heat, then spread, increase our output for a short time, then leave earth and we are back to square one. Notice that this is the standard temperature of the entire planet.

The reason why the gases are not as important is that even though hotter objects radiate heat as infrared energy, the energy radiated by electromagnetic waves represents only a small percentage of the total energy of the hot objects. The greenhouse effect is therefore only a contributing factor to global warming and not the main cause. It is mankind's usage of burning the large amount of fossil fuel, each day, that is releasing the main heat causing global warming. It is almost as if you took the total amount of oil, gasoline and coal burned each day and burned them right under the polar ice caps and glaciers to cause them to melt.

Originally Posted by billco

Radiation from the sun striking the earth is around 4*10^16 Watts
(pi r^2 * p) where p is around 1KW per square metre divide by 6Bn (number of people on the earth) gives 6.8Megawatts per person continious. I don't know what the average power used per person is but since half the world do NOT use electricity, and 40% of the world is (or should be asleep) at any one time I would be surpised if average continuous consumption per person is above 1KW - At that figure we would be generating 6*10^12 Watts. This being the case it would only add 0.015% to the energy received from the sun. OK that's just electric, so say it's 10 times that when you add the fossil fuels and it's still ony 0.15%.

This is assuming every man woman and child in the world is using 10KJ of energy per second continuously!

So I reckon it has only a very small impact, whereas greenhouse gases
I would imagine would be far greater.

What you are saying is probably true, but consider this. The Earth receiving it's energy from the sun and traveling through very cold space in its orbit was finely balanced before the dawn of technology to keep the temperatures in balance. Mankind's use of the burning of the fossil fuels by millions of barrels of oil per day and tons of coal is adding the EXTRA heat that is causing the global warming, and the temperature to rise and be out of balance.
In the past century the earth's human population has quadrupled, growing from 1.5 billion in 1900 to about 6 billion today. By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 9 billion. In 1968, a young biologist named Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-selling book called The Population Bomb, which sparked an ongoing debate about the dangers of overpopulation. He argued that population growth was destroying the ecological systems necessary to sustain life. So just how worried should we be? Is population growth a problem or not? And if so, what should we do about it?

I thought of another possible solution to global warming. Find an oil that when dumped into the sea, it would cause a reflective surface on the sea that would reflect sunlight back into space, and decrease the amount of heat from the sun that is being deposited on the Earth.
This should also be a bio-degradable oil that would only last for a few days or a week, or so, to prevent it from harming the environment. This oil could be poured into the middle of the oceans, by ships at sea, in large quantities every month or so. This would make large parts of the oceans like temporary mirrors, reflecting sunlight and heat back into space, causing a cooling of the planet. It should also prevent things like hurricanes from happening.

ghost, you clearly do not understand the physics involved here. Please revisit your calculations and comprehension, then post your correction. You will appear less foolish if you correct yourself, than if you have it done by others.
With the best of intentions, but certain of being misunderstood,
Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

ghost, you clearly do not understand the physics involved here. Please revisit your calculations and comprehension, then post your correction. You will appear less foolish if you correct yourself, than if you have it done by others.
With the best of intentions, but certain of being misunderstood,
Ophiolite

The Earth receiving it's energy from the sun and traveling through very cold space in its orbit was finely balanced before the dawn of technology to keep the temperatures in balance. Mankind's use of the burning of the fossil fuels by millions of barrels of oil per day and tons of coal is adding the EXTRA heat that is causing the global warming, and the temperature to rise and be out of balance.

If you took the total amount of fossil fuel used everyday and burned it under the polar ice caps and glaciers in a hypothetical grill, you would probably get about the same amount of melting per day of the ice caps and glaciers that we are observing to happen. The extra heat from the fossil fuels causing the melting.
You could get data on how much is melting per day and compare that to how much heat man is generating per day with the fossil fuels, and see if there is a close enough correlation.

Fine. Present the calculations. No scientist on the planet, that I am aware of, would support this notion. Offer citations to peer reviewed journals, that support this contention, or show us the calculations.

Alternatively accept that you are talking bollocks.

NS Comment

One very important factor that is overlooked as a contributer to the 'global warming' is the destruction of trees and forests.

The trees are Natures 'air purifiers'. They not only absorb carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, they also may absorb some of the toxic chemicals in the air.
But the most important benefit from the trees is that they also 'cool' the planet, because they absorb a tremendous amount of 'heat energy' that is converted to growth, rather than having it reradiated into the air like the deserts do.

So the 'conservation' of the forests and trees is important. SAVE OUR TREES.

good idea mike. Now go to africa and tell the poor people down there they can't cut down the trees becuase of global waming. I bet they won't give a crap about it.

Industrial countries aren't responsible for the harvesting of trees. it's the poor people of poor countries

Originally Posted by Zelos

good idea mike. Now go to africa and tell the poor people down there they can't cut down the trees becuase of global waming. I bet they won't give a crap about it.

Industrial countries aren't responsible for the harvesting of trees. it's the poor people of poor countries

Zelos,

It really is a pleasure to see you CAN write well when you put your mind to it, although not perfect it is light years ahead of anything else I have seen you write!. WELL DONE, Keep it up. Or did you just drop your guard there for a moment....

Ophiolite, would you care to comment upon what I see as a miracle?

It really is a pleasure to see you CAN write well when you put your mind to it, although not perfect it is light years ahead of anything else I have seen you write!. WELL DONE, Keep it up. Or did you just drop your guard there for a moment....

I say like a old philosopher(right?) said with a few modifications
"I can, therefor i am" :wink:

Originally Posted by Zelos

It really is a pleasure to see you CAN write well when you put your mind to it, although not perfect it is light years ahead of anything else I have seen you write!. WELL DONE, Keep it up. Or did you just drop your guard there for a moment....

I say like a old philosopher(right?) said with a few modifications
"I can, therefor i am" :wink:

Cogito ergo sum

methinks and so are!

Originally Posted by Mike NS

NS Comment

One very important factor that is overlooked as a contributer to the 'global warming' is the destruction of trees and forests.

The trees are Natures 'air purifiers'. They not only absorb carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, they also may absorb some of the toxic chemicals in the air.
But the most important benefit from the trees is that they also 'cool' the planet, because they absorb a tremendous amount of 'heat energy' that is converted to growth, rather than having it reradiated into the air like the deserts do.

So the 'conservation' of the forests and trees is important. SAVE OUR TREES.

OK I guess that means it was alright for us to chop down our trees but nobody else should now.

Sounds like It's ok for us to have WMD but nobody else should.

Try changing "save our trees" to something like "Let's replace all the millions of acres of trees our ancestors chopped down".

P.S you are right about them absorbing toxic chemicals, pity you failed to add 'just before they fall over and die' - Case study English OAK, or Scandinavian pine forests.

Originally Posted by Zelos

Industrial countries aren't responsible for the harvesting of trees. it's the poor people of poor countries

Nonsense. Are you telling me that a machete is a greater cause of cutting down trees that a power saw?
I believe that about 50% of the forests in the US has been destroyed because of building houses, furniture and expanding agricultural land for farming.
Population explosions like in Europe and the US could also be a reason for destroying forests.
In South America, forests are also being destroyed to increase land for cattle grazing.

As far as houses and furniture is concerned, we can build both from other sources like steel, aluminum, plaster, cement and plastics from agricultural byproducts.

NS

you are forgetting one tiny detail. Trees cut down before industrial revolution isnt counted for global warming, no indication showed any increase of temperature then.
Secondly industrial countries cut down trees, but is also planting a equally amount of trees. Trees stop growing after a while and just is. thereby not taking of anymnore from the atmosphere. While cutting those down and plant new ones makes it possible to remove more CO2.
If i cut down 5 trees and 5 trees is planted i have lost 0 trees. WOHO. so industrual countries isnt a factor
In the poor countries it happen like this
They cut down, plant stuff, give water. The soil get salted. It isn't possible to use. They move on. Cut down new trees to get soil. But the last place with trees they cut down isnt replaced with new trees, neither by humans or nature.
They cut down 5 trees and then dont replace it. WOW, a loss of 5 trees in just that. So one corner plant new trees. the other one dont. Who is toblame? Poor one. Want a ticket to africa? i can even give those poor people a gun to shoot you with so you die in a way more like execusion in the west.

America have about as much forest now as they did 200 years ago. West have a long tradition of replacing trees

Zelos

Boy, you have a vivid imagination.

The replanting of trees is just a recent program. These trees are 'fast' growing trees that can be harvested more quickly.

Did you ever see the denuded mountain tops of forests after a lumber corporation got through with them?
I saw pictures of these areas because I donated to the forest preserving organizartions.
You would never see these pictures in the mainstream papers or news magazines.

As the population grew, the trees on the plains had to go.

NS

The replanting of trees is just a recent program. These trees are 'fast' growing trees that can be harvested more quickly.

lost money

instant of wasting money to orginizations like that use your money to buy the tree, you then encaurage them to plant new trees