Good job Bab. I have been attempting to improve my guess as well. The data is
available, but fairly well hidden and at the moment, you seem to have a better
WAG. Here is how my thoughts line up at this time:
Carbon in Earth's total atmosphere: .8286 x 10 ^ 15 kilograms. Derived from
Wikipedia data
Total area of Earth: 510,072,000 square kilometers. Again from Wiki.
Radiative Forcing due to Carbon Dioxide in atmosphere: 1.46 Watts per square
meter. From Wiki.
Total Watts of forcing due to Carbon Dioxide: 510,072,000 square kilometers x
(1000 meters/kilometer) ^ 2 x 1.46 watts/square meter = 7.141 x 10 ^ 14 watts
for CO2 forcing.
Watts per Kilogram of Carbon as forcing agent: 7.141 x 10 ^ 14 watts/ .8286 x
10 ^ 15 Kilograms = .8618 watts/kilogram.
Burn anthracite coal and the energy content is: 35,300 kilo joules/kilogram.
Wiki data.
Number of seconds required to reach one X factor according to my proposal:
35,300,000 joules/kilogram / .8618 joules/second-kilogram = 4.096 x 10 ^ 7
seconds.
Number of years for X joules: 4.096 x 10 ^ 7 seconds x 1 min/ 60 seconds x 1
hour/60 min x 1 day/24 hours x 1 year/365 days = 1.2988 years.
So, if I assume that the carbon dioxide half life is 60 years, then the X
factor becomes: 60 years / 1.2988 years = 46.2. Fairly close to your estimate
of 60! Wiki rough time choice.
It is amazing to think that burning coal results in the effective burning of an
equal amount every 1.3 years into the future for many years. Sounds like a new
definition of life after death.
These numbers are preliminary and might be corrected as I give the concept
further consideration.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1
Dave:
Went back to Wikipedia, got you this URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
I think the data is all there, just needs the calculation of the
ratio. I remember calculating the number of square yards of the earth that
faced the Sun, and I remember being 2x off the first time around, and then
finding that I didn't need to know that. This was on July 18th. I plead
fatigue. The article had a LOT of references, can't be off much. (a rule,
right? reliability of data proportional to number of references.)
But the WAG... I had a vague idea that the time required for the
earth to stabilize at a new T after a step change in heat input... hmm.
And the slope of change is, er, hmm. Well. Some sort of intuitive leap
occurred, and I grasped at 1%. Maybe because it's a nice simple number.
Have not looked further. Kinda' hoping some one else would. It's got
to be out there.
Regarding the pound of coal trapping more heat than it held
originally, think of a pound of gold, rolled to foil, spread to reflect
sunlight. Big amount of heat intercepted, yet the gold can't burn at all.
Sort of an apples and oranges thing.
Ol' Bab, who used to be an engineer. No, not that kind, electronic.
On 8/5/2012 5:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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
