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.
Not only do the heat engines (internal combustion, turbines, steam) that Old Gringo mentioned release huge amounts of heat into the environment, but many other daily activities do, too.
Your refrigerator runs 24/7 and it releases heat into the environment.
Your furnace (obviously) releases heat into the environment.
Your air conditioner releases heat into the environment.
Most of your electrical appliances (TV, radio, stereo, etc) release heat into the environment.
The power plant that provides the electricity (even if it's nuclear) to run your appliances releases huge amounts of heat into the environment.
A couple of billion motor vehicles running every day release heat from their exhaust and cooling systems into the environment.
Add a few million planes, trains, and ships operating daily. All releasing heat into the environment.
It adds up. Those of you pretending that it has no effect are fooling yourselves or else you're unaware of the reality.
I'll eleborate a little more, going from my previous post I've come up with the following figures:
1,557,216,591,941,000,000 BTU's per hour is the mount of heat the sun delivers to earth.
41,160,000,000,000,000 BTU's per year from oil consumption in the US.
Since our two biggest produces of heat are oil and coal I'll add the figure in for coal, the US consumes about 1 billion tons per year and each ton is probably about 22 million BTU's per ton.
22,000,000,000,000,000 BTU's produced by coal within one year.
When we combine both figures the total BTU's for coal and oil comes out to 63,160,000,000,000,000 annually. To get a world total I'll throw out what I think is more than a fair figure. Do you think 20X what the US produces in year is fair? Using 20X we get 1,263,200,000,000,000,000 BTU's per year for worlds annual total.
When we divide that into the suns BTU's we come up with a figure of of 1.2.
Within 1.2 hours the sun delivers as many BTU's to the earths surface that us mere humans would produce in 1 year.
Are we beginning to grasp the magnitude of the sun vs, us? Let's suppose that for the last 100 years we produced the same amount of heat that we currently do so we'll get number of 126,320,000,000,000,000,000 for a centuries worth of heat produced by man. If we divide that by the suns BTU's per hour we get a number of 81, or 81 hours.
Even using modern amounts for the entire past century within 81 hours or a little over 3 days the sun delivers just as much heat to the earths surface as that produced by man over the last century.
Keep in mind I'm using some averages here, for example not all the oil we consume is burned and the BTU content number I used is probably way too high because I'm using numbers from a refined product. Obviously the total heat output per year is wrong but I'm pretty sure everything I've used is hugely biased towards more heat from man. I can do that because it's such a paltry amount compared to the sun.
The point of all of this is you might as well suggest a candle could heat up the Superdome.
Last edited by thecoalman; 02-16-2010 at 10:28 PM..
I'll eleborate a little more, going from my previous post I've come up with the following figures:
1,557,216,591,941,000,000 BTU's per hour is the mount of heat the sun delivers to earth.
41,160,000,000,000,000 BTU's per year from oil consumption in the US.
Since our two biggest produces of heat are oil and coal I'll add the figure in for coal, the US consumes about 1 billion tons per year and each ton is probably about 22 million BTU's per ton.
22,000,000,000,000,000 BTU's produced by coal within one year.
When we combine both figures the total BTU's for coal and oil comes out to 63,160,000,000,000,000 annually. To get a world total I'll throw out what I think is more than a fair figure. Do you think 20X what the US produces in year is fair? Using 20X we get 1,263,200,000,000,000,000 BTU's per year for worlds annual total.
When we divide that into the suns BTU's we come up with a figure of of 1.2.
Within 1.2 hours the sun delivers as many BTU's to the earths surface that us mere humans would produce in 1 year.
Are we beginning to grasp the magnitude of the sun vs, us? Let's suppose that for the last 100 years we produced the same amount of heat that we currently do so we'll get number of 126,320,000,000,000,000,000 for a centuries worth of heat produced by man. If we divide that by the suns BTU's per hour we get a number of 81, or 81 hours.
Even using modern amounts for the entire past century within 81 hours or a little over 3 days the sun delivers just as much heat to the earths surface as that produced by man over the last century.
Keep in mind I'm using some averages here, for example not all the oil we consume is burned and the BTU content number I used is probably way too high because I'm using numbers from a refined product. Obviously the total heat output per year is wrong but I'm pretty sure everything I've used is hugely biased towards more heat from man. I can do that because it's such a paltry amount compared to the sun.
The point of all of this is you might as well suggest a candle could heat up the Superdome.
Flat earthers again, they'll all be that way when the FundiMENTAList School boards in Texas get done. The earth is cycling warmer but look at DC, more snow than Buffalo. Vancouver where they are trucking Snow to the Winter Olympics
Although it does snow in Vancouver, it is not a snowbelt city, it has a temperate oceanic climate like Seattle.
Whistler, which is two hours NE of the city, has actually received 32 feet of snow this winter.
Interesting that you use the word proof.
Man-made global warming is based on circumstantial evidence and if it were put on trial for causing sea-level rise it would be acquitted.
There is simply no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is guilty. Couple this with the fact that earth's temperature has always fluctuated wildly and you have Man made global warming walking out the courthouse door a free man.
This is not to say that man-made global warming isn't happening, but that it is just not provable.
Interesting that you use the word proof.
Man-made global warming is based on circumstantial evidence and if it were put on trial for causing sea-level rise it would be acquitted.
There is simply no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is guilty. Couple this with the fact that earth's temperature has always fluctuated wildly and you have Man made global warming walking out the courthouse door a free man.
This is not to say that man-made global warming isn't happening, but that it is just not provable.
To someone who is stubborn enough, nothing is "provable." You speak as though you probably still think there's no link between cigarettes and cancer.
Not only do the heat engines (internal combustion, turbines, steam) that Old Gringo mentioned release huge amounts of heat into the environment, but many other daily activities do, too.
Your refrigerator runs 24/7 and it releases heat into the environment.
Your furnace (obviously) releases heat into the environment.
Your air conditioner releases heat into the environment.
Most of your electrical appliances (TV, radio, stereo, etc) release heat into the environment.
The power plant that provides the electricity (even if it's nuclear) to run your appliances releases huge amounts of heat into the environment.
A couple of billion motor vehicles running every day release heat from their exhaust and cooling systems into the environment.
Add a few million planes, trains, and ships operating daily. All releasing heat into the environment.
It adds up. Those of you pretending that it has no effect are fooling yourselves or else you're unaware of the reality.
Yet how does that conclude anything? Please, "add it up" for us and then properly link this total to the main contribution of climate change.
Using common sense conclusions as it concerns science is what is called a common sense fallacy. That is, your argument is invalid.
This is an incorrect statement relative to science.
Science is provable regardless of a person's stubbornness.
If you can provide an unequivocal explanation, no stubbornness can prevail.
Keep Faith for Church
...and Facts for Science
Please...
Stubborness doesn't need to prevail. Just persist. The special interests who want to discredit climate change don't have to prove a thing. Just keep that lingering doubt alive. And that's their tactic. Same as creationists. No amount of evidence is ever enough or valid or conclusive.
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.