[Bored chemist]

without some experimentation done by a reputablle source.

The experiments have been done.
That's why Kryptid was able to cite evidence and data like this.

let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/

To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).

The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so

Did you not realise that?

Did you imagine that he might have made it up?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

without some experimentation done by a reputablle source.

The experiments have been done.
That's why Kryptid was able to cite evidence and data like this.

let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/

To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).

The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so

Did you not realise that?

Did you imagine that he might have made it up?

oh hoho you make me laugh

[Kryptid]

What's funny about it?

Do you have any evidence that heat emissions by humans are the cause of climate change?

[paul cotter]

Kryptid, off topic but I sure admire your patience.

[Bored chemist]

oh hoho you make me laugh

Then one of us is achieving something useful.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

What's funny about it?

Do you have any evidence that heat emissions by humans are the cause of climate change?

Yes I believe I have a few arguements that go along with yours. For example, heat, can't cause warming, it causes cooling, like hot water freezes faster then cold, so heat burning INSIDE of something like a box is how we can look at it.

[Kryptid]

For example, heat, can't cause warming, it causes cooling

So if you stick your finger tip onto a lit match, it gets cooler? Besides, that would be against your argument that heat from powerplants is causing the world to warm up.

like hot water freezes faster then cold

That's not because heat makes things cooler (which it doesn't).

so heat burning INSIDE of something like a box is how we can look at it.

If I light a match inside of a grocery store (which is basically a really big box), it's not going to have any appreciable impact on the temperature of the air inside the store. That's a rough analogy for man-made heat in the Earth's atmosphere. I have calculations to back up my claim that man-made heating is an insignificant contributor to climate change. Could you provide calculations which show that I'm wrong?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

That's a good analogy so lets say your grocery store is turned into a city of houses, each burning a match, of electricty, plumbing, HVAC, all these things and how hot is your 24 hr match? and your grocery store is full of matches burning continuously? it would be more like a store full of welding guns. In which case I imagine it would warm up more then a 10 second match.

[Bored chemist]

For example, heat, can't cause warming,

It very clearly can.

[Bored chemist]

I imagine it would warm up more

You can imagine what you like.
But the maths says the global warming is due to the greenhouse effect.

[Kryptid]

In which case I imagine it would warm up more then a 10 second match.

Yes, but not enough to explain global warming,

[Origin]

For example, heat, can't cause warming

It is very difficult to have a rational discussion about science with someone who believes something that most 10 year old children know to be false.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/14/record-warm-ocean-temperatures/

Huh maybe they're trying out this idea? It is 8 months old since I posted it. Wouldn't be that hard to spray water up a smokestack. Most of the people I've talked bring up a carbon scrubber. You guys are the first to team up and bully me on it. kudos to you! haha.

On a more interesting note a geothermal plant that boils water deep underground at a certain rate in ratio to its storage size, and spinning a generator as you lower the weight of the water, would be a use of how waterr and steam. As the steam rises it provides more room for water that operates a turbine.

[Bored chemist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/14/record-warm-ocean-temperatures/

Huh maybe they're trying out this idea? It is 8 months old since I posted it. Wouldn't be that hard to spray water up a smokestack. Most of the people I've talked bring up a carbon scrubber. You guys are the first to team up and bully me on it. kudos to you! haha.

On a more interesting note a geothermal plant that boils water deep underground at a certain rate in ratio to its storage size, and spinning a generator as you lower the weight of the water, would be a use of how waterr and steam. As the steam rises it provides more room for water that operates a turbine.

Can you show us what part of the page you linked to is the part which you think means you might not be wrong?

(Or even what part you think is relevant)

[Kryptid]

Telling someone that they are wrong is not bullying.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.

Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.

Lasers? What are you talking about?

I suppose manufacturing explosives is so expensive because of safety making the patent useless. But what if we manufactured the explosives differently, manufacture small amounts at a time by robots, and also the energy used to manufacture the explosives to lift the cannonball and generate electricity isn't what causes the price to be so high and might actually be less then that of refining gasoline from crude oil.

[paul cotter]

Explosive manufacturing is not expensive. The most common blasting agent used today is ammonium nitrate emulsion which is almost completely inert unless initiated by a very powerful booster charge, with little safety requirements.

[Bored chemist]

If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.

Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.

Lasers? What are you talking about?

I suppose manufacturing explosives is so expensive because of safety making the patent useless. But what if we manufactured the explosives differently, manufacture small amounts at a time by robots, and also the energy used to manufacture the explosives to lift the cannonball and generate electricity isn't what causes the price to be so high and might actually be less then that of refining gasoline from crude oil.

You seem to be ignoring teh conservation of energy.
Adding more steps doesn't make it more efficient.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/

[Kryptid]

Forget 'settled' science or 'consensus' - that is a political construct designed to quash debate in the interests of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda.

Conspiracy theory alert.