Causes of climate change

[venturs]

Hello !

The majority of scientists think that it is the greenhouse effect that contributes to global warming.

But maybe it's our energy consumption that's responsible for it.

For example, the energy we use to heat ourselves dissipates entirely as heat. This heat is released into the air and thus contributes to the warming of the atmosphere.

What do you think

[Christophe]

Good question, 2 remarks:

a) the energy consumed by humanity represents 1 / 40 000 of solar radiation. In other words: this contribution of energy is probably negligible on the eco-system earth!

b) on the other hand, all the fossil energies reject, in addition to the nasty bad CO2 (that one tends to demonize or rather to marketise a little too much for my taste now ...) important quantities of water! Example: 1 L fuel will release about 1 L of water. To burn oil or gas is to transform the oxygen of the atmosphere into CO2 AND H2O! In our usual media blindness, we tend to ignore this water. I think it's a mistake!

Indeed: vapor or water in suspension is a greenhouse gas and a much more important and influential "climate gas" than CO2. The only difference is that water condenses much more easily ... but its impact, at least local, should not be neglected!

I bet it snows more often within an X km radius of nuclear power plants (even if they don't "create" water they just evaporate it). When I still lived in Schiltigheim and there were still many breweries in operation (steam emission), it often snowed more often in the brewery district than elsewhere in Strasbourg! It was no accident!

[venturs]

Thank you for that answer.

However, I am not sure that our energy consumption is negligible.

I found a very interesting site that develops the subject:

climate change

[Christophe]

Uh, can you give the more specific page that deals with the subject?

[venturs]

Yes of course:

this is the page global warming

[Christophe]

I looked quickly: I do not understand ... starting with the 20% 1ere hypothesis ... it's more! Just under a car hood you have 60% that goes into heat ... the rest will go into heat in the brakes, in the tire and ... in the air! Yes, an object moving in the air increases the T ° of the air ...

A priori it tates the 100% although I have always wondered what was the performance of a PC for example: does 100% of the energy dissipates in thermal form?

It is obligatory to compare this energy with 2 other sizes:
a) losses (nocturnal)
b) intake (diurnal)

Then the conclusion is clear no:

Thus in 2000, the heat dissipation of the primary energy has increased the average temperature of the atmosphere by about 0,02 ° c.

0,02 ° C is not "much" compared to the 1 to 2 ° C that we have already reached with greenhouse gases ... and especially compared to the DAY / NIGHT delta thanks to the SUN!

Then the following curves are completely "wrong" I think ... the author draws the curve he wants and which does not even correspond to his own calculations (+0.4 instead of +0.02 ° C ????) ??? I'm not even talking about the conclusion:

Conclusion

I had assumed that global warming was mainly due to the heat dissipation of 20% of the primary energy we consume around the world. This hypothesis is verified. Indeed, physical calculations are confirmed by meteorological records.

So, the greenhouse effect caused by our CO2 emissions is not the main cause of global warming. Increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a consequence of our energy consumption.

The main cause of global warming is energy consumption and its heat dissipation in the atmosphere.

Regardless of its origin, a calorie, from nuclear energy, fossil or renewable, will always warm the atmosphere.

There is nothing! It's almost negationism there !!

If we follow the author: the main cause of the warming is all the calories that we put in the atmosphere ok so the sun is obviously the main cause of the warming since it brings 40 000 what one consumes in the form fossil ... But this warming is apparently linked to fossil consumption: where is the bug?

This kind of reasoning is wrong and dangerous!

[venturs]

First of all, global warming is a little weaker than what you say:

The elevation of the average temperature of the globe between 1906 and 2005 is estimated at 0,74 ° C (to plus or minus 0,18 ° C), including an elevation of 0,65 ° C during the period only 1956-2006 [wikipedia]

Then, in this site, it says:

Thus in 2000, the heat dissipation of the primary energy has increased the average temperature of the atmosphere by about 0,02 ° c.

It is only for the year 2000, it must be added to the warming of previous years.

When we add global warming year by year we find + 0.4 ° c, which corresponds to the observed warming.

There are also the details of the calculations here

On the other hand, it would be interesting to compare this contribution of energy with the contributions of the sun.

But unlike the greenhouse effect, this energy supply is done all the time, even at night.
In addition, the calculation takes into account the temperature of the atmosphere averaged over the year, that is, taking into account variations in temperature between day and night, but also between summer and winter. etc ...

So the calculation takes into account the losses (nocturnal) and contributions (diurnal).

Otherwise, for the assumption of 20% energy that goes into the atmosphere, it says in ocean level the rest of the energy (80%) melts the glaciers.

[Christophe]

1) Have you watched the average T ° of France since 30 years? We have the + 1 + 2 ° C maintaining 2008 and 30 YEARS ... It accelerates especially in recent years ... Surely because of the air conditioning you tell me?

2) For 20 and 80% it's anything! Before melting the glaciers, the calories would go through the atmosphere unless you have a glacier under your hood?

Your reasoning neglects losses "in space" ... assuming that the earth is isolated "perfectly". In short, there are plenty of errors ... and you arrive at erroneous and dangerous conclusions ...

If there were no losses in space at night, it would be millions of years since the ground melted under the effect of the accumulation of solar radiation!

3) Ah, I understand better this negationism of CO2:

About the Author

Christophe Coffy, final year student of engineering school at Arts & Métiers (Promotion Angers 206). The author of this site wishes to work in the research and development of automotive engines. During his free time, he is interested in the consequences of human activity on the climate.

By the way, it's not you, huh? Yes ? Gosh ! But what did your teachers think then? And what do you think of this little experience: https://www.econologie.com/forums/simulation ... t7552.html


ps: 206 or 2006?

[venturs]

It should be noted that this is not a negationism of CO2.


Indeed, almost all the energy we produce releases CO2.

I just think that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of global warming, but only a consequence.

[Christophe]

That's right, you're right: CO2 is not the main cause, the main cause is water vapor ... it also comes from fossil combustion. The greenhouse effect also increases natural emissions of CO2 (increased bacterial activity, soils, CO2 trapped in ice ...)

It's a vicious circle ... CO2 -> Greenhouse effect -> CO2 (+ other much worse methane style ...)

Ben shit so ... we do not know who does what then

Nevertheless, you neglect the spatial losses and the solar gains ... and thus if the thermal losses MAY affect the reheating, this influence will remain negligible ... not to say infinitesimal!

As JANCOVICI would say: 1 should not be confused with 1000 ...

Look at the experience I propose ... about the CO2 ... I have not done it yet but it will make you change your mind?