Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone disproved the 250 trillion Joules per second figure?
Stay on topic and address the main question.
You ask a lot, considering that your source offers NO peer reviewed studies indicating what that left wing AGW propaganda site Skeptical Science (the authors of this 4hiroshimas site) is all about.
Make up some number then pass it off as truth. Then let AGW bots spread the lie far and wide.
The average human (according to my Coke® can's Nutrition Facts label) consumes approximately 2000 Calories per day (it's actually usually somewhere between 2200 and 4000, but 2000 is a nice number). Using a simple conversion (1000 calories = 1 Calorie, 1 calorie = 4.1868 J), this amounts to 8.37 x 106 joules ingested per day.
Human energy equivalent This means that the average person expends ~8.37 x 106 joules of energy per day, since most of us are in some sort of equilibrium with our surroundings. Assuming most of this energy leaves us in the form of heat, I calculate that on average we radiate ~350,000 J of energy per hour. Since Watt is just Joules per second, this is roughly equal to energy given off by a 100 Watt light bulb!
Last edited by chuckmann; 08-13-2014 at 12:01 AM..
The average human (according to my Coke® can's Nutrition Facts label) consumes approximately 2000 Calories per day (it's actually usually somewhere between 2200 and 4000, but 2000 is a nice number). Using a simple conversion (1000 calories = 1 Calorie, 1 calorie = 4.1868 J), this amounts to 8.37 x 106 joules ingested per day.
Human energy equivalent This means that the average person expends ~8.37 x 106 joules of energy per day, since most of us are in some sort of equilibrium with our surroundings. Assuming most of this energy leaves us in the form of heat, I calculate that on average we radiate ~350,000 J of energy per hour. Since Watt is just Joules per second, this is roughly equal to energy given off by a 100 Watt light bulb!
The figure I gave was sensible heat only. About 225 btu/hr per person. If you include latent heat that's another 105 btu/hr and that's simply sitting at rest in a movie theater. It varies by male or female but they average it for M/F calculations. Anyways, the scale goes all the way up to 1800 btu/hr for "athletics" or 710 btu for the sensible load and 1090 btu for the latent load.
It's funny how these doomsayers never actually provide anything but links to someone else, pretending that they are "authorities".
I'm sorry, there are NO authorities on AGW, since being an authority means you have objective, concrete knowledge, derived from either irrefutable proof via the scientific method, or by being the creator of what you claim to be an authority for.
Here's a challenge to you people who think AGW is real;
Provide the actual data and the range of error for it, that is used to determine temperatures older than about 200 years.
Provide for us all the known cycles that exist in temperature, what their standard amplitude and frequency are, what the margin of error is for all of them...
And then an explanation of how you can ascertain any serious warming, when both the amplitude and range of error vastly exceed the claimed present change and predicted change. I just want to know how you determine man's impact on the climate when the range of error is larger than any claim of AGW.
If you are this sensitive about this topic why not start preaching about ending the human race as we are supposedly the largest contributor to global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it these days.
This site popularizes the calculation that man-made emissions and loss of forest cover are adding a net gain of 250 trillion Joules per second of heat energy to the oceans and atmosphere, which dispels the notion that CO2 is "just a trace gas" (a claim purely based on casual assumptions; net effect, not volume, is what matters with any substance).
Enduring four 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes per second
Being struck by 500,000 lightning bolts per second
Exploding more than eight Big Ben towers, with every inch packed full of dynamite, per second
About 90% of that heat is being stored in the oceans, which partly accounts for the so-called pause in surface warming, which never was much of a pause (cherry-picked 1998 El Nino spike used as graph starting point).
When you hear anti-conservation conservatives talk about "global cooling for the past 16 years," that's the flawed source of their claim.
If someone is really hoping to debunk the CO2/heat connection, you'd think they'd go after those figures, right? That's a lot of energy to just sweep under the rug and cry "hoax" about. Has anyone disproved the 250 trillion Joules per second figure?
If this gets lengthy replies, I ask that the usual copying & pasting of echo-chamber rhetoric be replaced with actual proof that "250 trillion Joules per second" is wrong, and if so, by what significant amount. Even half of that heat buildup would be a big deal. Don't nitpick a few million Joules, etc.
Stay on topic and address the main question.
Do we really need another thread on the HOAX of AGW?
This site popularizes the calculation that man-made emissions and loss of forest cover are adding a net gain of 250 trillion Joules per second of heat energy to the oceans and atmosphere, which dispels the notion that CO2 is "just a trace gas" (a claim purely based on casual assumptions; net effect, not volume, is what matters with any substance).
Enduring four 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes per second
Being struck by 500,000 lightning bolts per second
Exploding more than eight Big Ben towers, with every inch packed full of dynamite, per second
About 90% of that heat is being stored in the oceans, which partly accounts for the so-called pause in surface warming, which never was much of a pause (cherry-picked 1998 El Nino spike used as graph starting point).
When you hear anti-conservation conservatives talk about "global cooling for the past 16 years," that's the flawed source of their claim.
If someone is really hoping to debunk the CO2/heat connection, you'd think they'd go after those figures, right? That's a lot of energy to just sweep under the rug and cry "hoax" about. Has anyone disproved the 250 trillion Joules per second figure?
If this gets lengthy replies, I ask that the usual copying & pasting of echo-chamber rhetoric be replaced with actual proof that "250 trillion Joules per second" is wrong, and if so, by what significant amount. Even half of that heat buildup would be a big deal. Don't nitpick a few million Joules, etc.
Stay on topic and address the main question.
The problem with you telling people to stay on topic is that you didn't stay on topic. If the topic is science, then why does "Republican" appear anywhere in your post much less the thread title? Telling people to stay on topic after you already brought left wing partisanship into it is what we call intellectual dishonesty. It's like the old question "when did you stop beating your wife". It's the loaded question fallacy. You've already made your political point and preemptively denied others permission to make any counterpoints to it.
And yet here you are using a computer and electricity. Do you have any idea what kind of environmental damage occurs to create your computer? Obviously, not, because otherwise you'd know that your convenience has taken a front seat to the environment.
If we audited your life right now, we'd be able to show you how destructive YOUR behavior is to this planet. But that really isn't your concern is it?
Why do you enjoy destroying this planet so much?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
