Computation of direct warming of atmosphere by burning oil

AI Thread Summary
The computation incorrectly assumes that all energy released from burning fossil fuels directly contributes to warming the Earth's atmosphere without accounting for energy losses. It overlooks the fact that a significant portion of the energy is used for mechanical work and other processes, which reduces the effective heating impact. Additionally, the estimate of fossil fuel consumption per person may not accurately reflect global usage patterns, as many individuals do not rely on fossil fuels. The calculation's conclusion of a 1-degree K increase in temperature over ten years is overly simplistic and fails to consider the complexities of energy transfer and atmospheric dynamics. Overall, the analysis lacks a comprehensive view of energy inputs and outputs in real-world scenarios.
PatentLawyer
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
What is wrong with this computation ?

(1) Mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5 x 10^18 Kg.

(2) The heat capacity of dry air, Cp, is 1 KJ/Kg-K

(3) BP states that the amount of fossil fuels burned worldwide in year 2008 was 11,295 million tons. Round that to 11 billion tons. (This may be wrong. It is 2 tons per person. That seems high.)

(4) The energy per ton of that fuel is 42 GJ per ton, ie, 42 billion J per ton.

(5) Items (3) and (4) indicate that the total energy liberated by burning that fuel is 11 x 10^9 tons x 42 x 10^9 J/ton = about 500 x 10^18 J.

(6) If you apply that result to items (1) and (2), you can conclude that the liberated energy could raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1/10 degree K. Of course, in theory, some of the energy went into mechanical work.

Thus, by this reasoning, the mere heat released by burning fossil fuel, over 10 years, can by itself warm the atmosphere by 1 degree.

What is wrong with this computation ?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PatentLawyer said:
What is wrong with this computation ?

If you only consider the heating from fossil fuels as the sole input and no outputs, certainly it would raise the temperature.

In a real life calculation you can't ignore the losses.

2 tons per person doesn't seem that much. Consider how many people don't use fossil fuels and then how much coal we burn through only producing something like steel.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top