Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum A global warming challenge

Here is a request for science:

[quote=Mike Kremer (not gayandright, but ...straightandhonest)

My challenges (no money involved, sorry)

"The first person who scientifically proves that mankinds presence upon this Earth, is responsible for the Oceans warming".
(Being one of the better methods to prove Man is causing Global Warming)

Secondly, the first person who works out, how many humans will be needed to populate this Earth, to ensure that everyone and everything dies due the runaway heat that our bodies produce?
Clue...Every human being emits approx 1000 watts of heat, every 24 hours! (thats a single bar fire)

This is getting so ridiculous it barely deserves a response.
The SUN hits every facing square meter of earth with 1.4kilowatts of heat ALL THE TIME. There are 260 trillion square meters facing the sun at any one moment. Why does every Global Warming acolyte insist on bringing up any mechanism to blame ourselves but never talks about the most obvious.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/planets/sun.htm

How many Watts of heat do endangered species emit? Seems like we replaced those animals with humans. I am wondering if the wattage is on par. Plus, 1000 Watts per human per day is 6.5 billion times 1000 Watts = 6500 billion Watts or 6.5 terawatts each day. That is the same as 4,513,889 Watts or 4.5 megawatts per minute for the entire globe. Now let's look at the figures from the Sun.

"On the side of Earth facing the Sun, a square kilometer at the outer edge of our atmosphere receives 1,400 megawatts of solar power every minute, which is about the capacity of the largest electric-generating plant in Nevada."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554832/Solar_Energy.html

I don't know how many square kilometers there are facing the sun that get this full blast of energy, but it is more than one. Let's loball it and use 1 % instead. If even only one percent of the 510,065,600 km² of the earth is getting that full blast while the other 49% get a lesser amount and the other 50% are on the dark side of the earth, that is still 5 million square kilometer. Just the "full blast" area gets 5,000,000 km² * 1,400,000,000 Watts/km² = 7,000,000,000,000,000 Watts per minute. Now, let's say that the average for the rest of the sun facing half of the globe averages to a quarter of the 1400 megawatts per minute. I think I am low balling this figure, but that is okay for this "back of the napkin" calculation. So 510 Mkm²/2 - 5 already calculated =250 Mkm². I suggested the average was a quarter of the 1440 = 360 MW/km². So, 250,000,000 * 360,000,000 = 90,000,000,000,000,000 or another 90 petawatts. The total then is 97 petawatts per minute.

People contribute 6.5 megawatts per minute while the sun contributes at least 97 petawatts per minute.

Your measly kilowatt per person per day is of no real importance.

This has to be a joke - please say it's a joke.

That depends. While my endangered species comment was a joke, I have seen others argue elsewhere that the heat form lightbulbs, UHI, ourselves, combustion engines, industry, etc. must be having an effect. I finally decided to look up some numbers and make a fairly quick calculation; although, it was not fast enough for me to see ImranCan's more concise reply. Perhaps, I went a bit too far to the extreme, but I would prefer to make it a bit laughable on the side of caution. I just wanted to quash this ridiculous argument by showing how far out of league it is.

Sorry John - I didn't mean to reply to your post, but rather Mike Kremer's post.
I wasn't hoping your post was a joke, I was hoping that Mike's orginal post was the joke.

Yes well I guess my thoughtful joke does deserve a response. I thought it up mainly to get everyone thinking.
Since I feel that man IS causing the World to get warmer.
I got to thinking about Man himself, as a source of heat. ie. his body heat.

However NOBODY actually read it correctly.
I did not mean to infer that mankind in his present numbers has any effect.
But I should have added the word EXTRA to make it much clearer. My fault, apologies. So again-

"The first person who works out, how many extra humans will be needed to populate this earth, to ensure that everyone and everything dies, due to the runaway heat that our bodies produce?"

To explain...Can we assume that if the Suns heat were to increase by just 1%, that all the sea ice and glaciers would melt?
If you do, then:-
What would be the (huge increase in) total world population in numbers be, to start approaching this theoretical extra 1% of heat?

That was the message in my madness, that mankind could warm the Earth, quite literally, given enough of us.

Ok, nevermind, I am now posting below a very interesting item showing World Births and Deaths ...in real time.
As well as heat inputs, and many other delicacies, to shock our brains

Please accept it, as my apology for my thought/full/less joke.

http://www.worldometers.info/

your joke just needed some different company mike, i am going ti ignore the rediculous opinions of the canuk for the same reason

Mike - indeed I should apologise .... for not reading your comments as a 'joke' .... as a metaphorical statement you have made a good point and indeed your info on population expansion are well noted and should of course be of concern to all of us ....

... in my view the focus should be on consumption, effiency, general pollution and trying to improve the quality of life of the third world against this population increase backdrop. That, in a nutshell, is why I believe the whole CO2 story is a red herring.

Rgds
Imran

This comparison is inappropriate in forum specifically set up for the exchange of ideas and posting of widely different opinions for the ultimate benefit of all ...

The perpetrators of the Holocaust were well known for such practices as the burning of books, instead of reading them ..... for the ridicle and ultimately persecution of anyone who had different OPINIONS from their own.

I hope you can see the perfect irony of your comment ....

I'm astounded that somebody would make this comment. I'll be reporting this to the moderators, and demanding an apology from you Benny.

G'day,

Obviously the main effect that man has as regards climate, is that (1) man removes carbon sinks (trees and so forth), and (2) man actively takes carbon in sinks (fossil fuels) and pumps it into the atmosphere.

The extra carbon in the atmosphere (250 ppm --> 380 ppm in 150 years) is almost exclusively from fossil fuels (as shown through stable isotope analysis) and is predicted to act as an insulating layer (radiative forcing.)

Changes in climate have nothing to do with the amount of heat generated on the planet (!!), and very little to do with heat reaching the planet, and has to do instead with changes in land use and atmospheric gases.

Historical changes in climate had to do with equally semi-intuitive factors. The rise of the Himilayas would not seem to be a cause for global cooling, but the weathering that accompanies such a change in surface area exposure, pulls carbon out of the atmosphere. Et cetera.