The 6000:1 figure is close to correct.
The cross sectional area of the earth is 127.8 million km^2. Each km^2
receives a approximately a gigawatt of solar radiation. In one hour the earth
receives 127 thousand terawatt hours of energy. Which is approximately the
global consumption of energy in a year. This is a ratio of around 9000:1. Or
an extra 10 seconds of extra sunlight a day.
If one were to multiply this energy by the weight of the atmosphere + the
weight of the top meter of the earths surface, multiplied by the average heat
capacity of the total mass, it would be obvious that the heat contribution of
human activity to global warming attributable to direct heat release is
insignificant in comparison to the greenhouse effect.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:19:21 -0400
You have made an interesting WAG Bab. I intend to give it a lot of
consideration as I try to understand your derivation better. I had hoped that
the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that was wishful
thinking. Perhaps I can still find one of those tickets to Mars before they
all get sold out!
Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is
the accepted value? I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places.
I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at
the problem from another perspective. Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram
turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere. Since this gas
only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a
little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped
equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year. Off the cuff I would
guess 10% or so. If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be
about 6. Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by
further investigation.
Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
On
8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
It seems apparent that the
final global consideration is that extra heat is released into
the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us
burning fossil fuels.
In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in
the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay.
I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The
ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all
the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly
6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that
involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy).
Unknown to me is the added heat energy from "new" CO2
and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused
by (really wild guess) 1% more retention of
solar energy than "before", then that 1% is 60 times
more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If
you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it
won't be much different.
Hey, a wild guess is better than none.
So if, if, if, all
co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody
unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total
energy usage, exponential, year after year after year.
Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble.
Ol' Bab.
I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed
members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought
experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a
handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting?
Dave
