0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
without some experimentation done by a reputablle source.
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
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 09/06/2023 03:52:47without 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.Quote from: Kryptid on 06/06/2023 00:11:26let'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 soDid you not realise that?Did you imagine that he might have made it up?
oh hoho you make me laugh
What's funny about it?Do you have any evidence that heat emissions by humans are the cause of climate change?
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.
For example, heat, can't cause warming,
I imagine it would warm up more
In which case I imagine it would warm up more then a 10 second match.
For example, heat, can't cause warming
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.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 04/06/2023 20:04:08Quote from: Kryptid on 04/06/2023 19:34:33If 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?
Quote from: Kryptid on 04/06/2023 19:34:33If 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.
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 05/06/2023 00:34:26Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 04/06/2023 20:04:08Quote from: Kryptid on 04/06/2023 19:34:33If 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.
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.