FACT – Humans Cause of Global Warming

Recent studies by the Spring Mountain Science Association, in conjunction with previous studies completed by Arizona State University, have proven, once and for all, that man is the root cause of global warming. Here are the facts:

1. The human body must maintain heat to survive. It generates more heat than it needs. The body has adaptations for releasing that excess heat, such as convection, radiant loss, dry respiration, latent respiration, water diffusion, and evaporation.

2. The rate of heat production in the body is known as the metabolic rate, or met, where one unit is 360 Btu/hour. The typical person, awake and seated, generates 1 met. A fast game of tennis or a quick bike ride will generate 4 mets.

3. The excess heat has to leave the body or the person will overheat and die.

4. That excess heat is released into the environment wherein the person resides.

With these facts so plainly stated even the physics tyro will be able to conclude that people, each and every one of us, are releasing excess heat at prodigious rates.

Now, a look at the math. The current world population is 6,707,035,000. Assuming each is simply standing around, there are 6,707,035,000 mets being generated each and every hour of every day. Now, assume each person only needs to shed 25% of their generated heat as excess (a conservative number, by the way). The result is that we have 603,633,150,000 Btu’s of heat being released into the environment every hour.

To give you an idea of how much heat that is, the required Btu’s to melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours is 12,000 Btu/hour. The people of this planet, then, generate enough excess heat to melt 50,302,762 tons of ice every 24 hours. That is a lot of heat no matter how you look at it. It works out that each person, at rest, is shedding enough heat to melt 15 pounds of ice each day!

And remember, this excess heat is being released in the environment right where the people reside, so the heat is essentially trapped in the atmosphere and surrounding areas, with no place to go.

So, the next time you hear gloom and doom about global warming, ask why curbing the population boom is not being discussed as one of the solutions. How convenient to dismiss one of the major factors responsible for the increase in temperature around the world — PEOPLE!

Posted by at 11:24 | Posted in Measure 37 | 52 Comments | Email This Post | Print This Post
• jim karlocik

*Jerry Dawson:* Now, a look at the math. The current world population is 6,707,035,000. Assuming each is simply standing around, there are 6,707,035,000 mets being generated each and every hour of every day. Now, assume each person only needs to shed 25% of their generated heat as excess (a conservative number, by the way). The result is that we have 603,633,150,000 Btuâ€™s of heat being released into the environment every hour.

To give you an idea of how much heat that is, the required Btuâ€™s to melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours is 12,000 Btu/hour. The people of this planet, then, generate enough excess heat to melt 50,302,762 tons of ice every 24 hours. That is a lot of heat no matter how you look at it. It works out that each person, at rest, is shedding enough heat to melt 15 pounds of ice each day!

*JK:* The warmers like to use watts/sq. meter. How about you convert this for us and compare it with the alleged warming due to CO2. Otherwise, you sound like Blue Oregon.

*Jerry Dawson:* ask why curbing the population boom is not being discussed as one of the solutions.
*JK:* A number of people have claimed that the Earth is way above carrying capacity and are hoping for a natural disaster to cut population.

Thanks
JK

• Jerry

Jim – watts per square meter measures thermal conductivity. I am not discussing conductivity here – rather creation of heat, which is universally understood in the units I used.

• jim karlocik

You still need to relate your numbers to the earth’s dimensions to put them in perspective, otherwise they are just big numbers. So is the Earth’s surfave area (1,2 e11 acres, 6e14 m2 – approx). watts/sg meter would be a good choice as it is used by the warmers (as I said above.) How much is 50e6 toms of ice? (90,000 cubic yards – not very much)

Thanks
JK

• John in Oregon

Actually

Watts per square meter is a measurement of surface area energy density. Watts per unit area.

Watts per cubic meter is a measurement of volumetric energy density. Watts per unit volume.

Just a knit pick detail

• jon kay

In about ten years, AGW will be forgotten/disproved.. And we will all be onto another subject

• Crawdude

I believe we should have a MET tax, that way the rotund can pay their fair share for the unproven Global Warming hypothesis. AlGore could be the first to step to the plate on this……wait a minute, that’s how he got to the size he is. AlGore could be the first to step away from the plate on this…..

He could make another mockumentary titled ” An Inconvient Salad “. 😉

• David Appell

This column demonstrates why you should never trust a columnist about science.

Worldwide energy production is about 10^21 Joules/yr.

That’s about 10^18 BTU/yr. Even if only a few percent of that escapes to the atmosphere, it completely overwhelms the 10^12 BTU/yr supposedly radiated by humans.

Next question?

• Jerry

Of course it overwhelms – but you are missing the whole point. Many things contribute to warming on this planet. Big and small alike – they ALL contribute. Some things contribute to cooling, too.

To discount something because it only contributes a little is not sound science. Human excess heat DOES contribute, so it MUST be considered.

I never said human generated excess warmth was a MAJOR factor. I only contend, and correctly so, that it is a factor, nonetheless. And a factor overlooked by almost all so-called global warming experts. And it contributes enough that it should not be overlooked.

Case closed.

• Jerry

Root doesn’t mean major. A root cause is an initiating cause of a causal chain which leads to an outcome or effect of interest – that is all.

• Jerry

I guess I did say major there at the end. I will admit to getting just a tad carried away.

My apologies.

• jim karlocik

*David Appell:* This column demonstrates why you should never trust a columnist about science.
*JK:* Or a newspaper, or TV, or a politician.

*David Appell:* Worldwide energy production is about 10^21 Joules/yr.

That’s about 10^18 BTU/yr. Even if only a few percent of that escapes to the atmosphere, it completely overwhelms the 10^12 BTU/yr supposedly radiated by humans.
*JK:* Lets follow this a bit:

10 e 18 / 10 e 12 = 10 e 6. That is a 10 million to one ratio, or 0.000,001 %

Of course the claim that man is causing significant global warming by contributing about 3% of the CO2, while all CO2 is, at most 30% of warming, is almost as laughable. But you can claim that has an effect on climate – it is just too small to matter. (Assuming that CO2 even causes warming at all in the real world – another subject.)

Next question?

Thanks
JK

• David Appell

>: And remember, this excess heat is being released in
> the environment right where the people reside, so the heat
> is essentially trapped in the atmosphere and surrounding areas,
> with no place to go.

Just curious: did you ever study thermodynamics or statistical mechanics?

This heat, like all heat, mixes with the atmosphere and most of it escapes to space.

• Jerry

If all the heat just escapes in the atmosphere, as you contend, then how do we stay warm? We would be at approximately -127F if all the heat just went away, as you wrongly assert.

Regardelss, you are wrong. People do contribute to the warmth on the planet. That is fact. Simple conversion of matter to energy. The heat doesn’t all magically leave every night when it gets dark out or when the moon tugs at the heat or when Saturn’s rings align with the equatorial plane.

• Crawdude

I found this one humorous since the argument in it, makes the same amount of sense to me as the other hypothesis’ about global warming being man made.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe the earth’s climate is changing but I believe its causes are natural, not man made.

• jim karlocik

The problem is that so many people believe doom so easily and are so un-prepared scientifically.

Thanks
JK

• Crawdude

Hopefully all those people still have the food they stockpiled for Y2K sitting around somewhere. It will help them get through the Global Warming phenom.

• David

Crawdude wrote:
> Don’t get me wrong, I believe the earth’s climate is changing
> but I believe its causes are natural, not man made.

What proof do you have of this assertion? It is a scientific assertion, so I assume you have some specific reason that points to natural causes rather than manmade causes. How do natural causes explain the climate of the last ~100 yrs?

• Jerry

Craw has a valid point. You don’t have to be a scientist to look at alternatives to AlGore’s rants.

Aside from the warmth caused by humans, animals, and other naturally occurring things here on planet earth you might also consider the sun and its highly variable output as a MAJOR contributing factor to changes in our temperature over time.

Then again, if you believe man, cars, corporations, profit, heaters, air conditioners, running water, and other similar things to be EVIL, then you most likely discount the variablity of the sun’s output.

Hubris is a word that comes to mind when people try to attribute global warming to man-made causes. There are other words, too, but I leave those to your imagination.

PS – I got an A in both physics 101 and 102 at the Ohio State University, so I think that should count for something. And the TA I had was studing cryogenics. And there you have it.

What would really interest me would be for someone, such as yourself, to prove my contention is wrong about humans contributing to global warming just by being alive.

The irony in this whole thing is that people riding bikes and walking and jogging could actually be heating the earth more than if they took the bus or the light rail. 55 people hitting 4 mets each is a lot of heat!

• David Appell

Jerry, climatologists certainly don’t discount the role of the sun in climate change. They factor it into all their calculations. Indeed, it was the *first* factor they considered. It’s just that they find its luminosity variation (~0.1%) and its effect on climate relatively small — about 10x less than that of manmade GHGs.

They discount the Sun’s output as an explanation of the anomalous climate of the last 30-100 years because because calculations of its effect do not explain it.

So why do you cling to the Sun as an explanation of current climate. What explanations/calculations show it to be the driving force?

• Jerry

I guess this is one thing that made me think of it…

Durham, N.C. — At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

Nicola Scafetta, an associate research scientistworking at Duke’s physics department, and Bruce West, a Duke adjunct physics professor, published their findings online Sept. 28, 2005, in the research journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Applying their analytical method to the solar output estimates by the Columbia group, Scafetta’s and West’s paper concludes that “the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming.”

This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, they stressed. “Those gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought,” Scafetta said.

• jim karlocik

*Jerry:* I guess this is one thing that made me think of it…

Durham, N.C. — At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.
*JK:* Gee, that can neatly replace the speculated effect of CO2 (CO2, at most, causes 20-30% of the climate warming effect) in the climate equations.

In other words, with a properly accounted for solar factor, the need to blame CO2 disappears and man can quit feeling guilty, (Too bad about Alâ€™s hoped for profit.)

Thanks
JK

• jim karlocik

*JK:* Hey, David, Iâ€™m still waiting for all those peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 increases from the present can cause dangerous warming.

*David Appell:* Jerry, climatologists certainly don’t discount the role of the sun in climate change. They factor it into all their calculations. Indeed, it was the first factor they considered. It’s just that they find its luminosity variation (~0.1%) and its effect on climate relatively small — about 10x less than that of manmade GHGs.
*JK:* Its more than luminosity and you know that David.

*David Appell:* They discount the Sun’s output as an explanation of the anomalous climate of the last 30-100 years because because calculations of its effect do not explain it.
JK: They do when you include the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. They also match the mid century dip in temperature which YOUR CO2 postulate DOES NOT. They also match previous centuriesâ€™ ups and downs, which CO2 does not. BTW, where are all those peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 increases from the present can cause dangerous warming.

*David Appell:* So why do you cling to the Sun as an explanation of current climate. What explanations/calculations show it to be the driving force?
*JK:* Because is more likely to be correct than the CO2 postulate. In fact we have proof that CO2 responds to temperature, just backwards of you religious belief:
NATURE . VOLâ€”343 ‘7 22 FEBRUARY 1990, pg 709
NATURE â€¢ VOL 375, 666
Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 583 -589

Thanks
JK

• David

> They do when you include the effects of cosmic
> rays on cloud formation.

Svenmark’s theory is hardly settled science — it is still a hypothesis undergoing testing and debate. Lockwood and Frohlich did considerable damage to solar theories of GW (including Svensmark) in Proc Roy Soc A 2007 (“Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”), and a follow-up paper this year.

• jim karlocik

*David:* Svenmark’s theory is hardly settled science
*JK:* You use of the term “settled science” shows you ignorance of science.

Science is never settled — it is a process to discover the truth.

Remember all that â€œsettled scienceâ€ about the laws of motion? Eienstein unsetteled them.

Please start acting like you really do have a few degrees, instead of a Gorite.

Thanks
JK

• Crawdude

The fact that science have proven that the earth’s temperature has risen and fallen over long and short periods, throughout the history of the planet, is proof enough for me.

The proof that this has happened numerous times in the past is indisputable. Proving that “this time” its man-made is highly disputable, citing the above “known facts”. Reading the above posts, more than shows that there is a huge amount of debatable information on both sides.

Now , we both can go out and find reports and studies that support our views on this and pollute this thread with them. Or we can agree to disagree.

• David

Jerry wrote:
> What would really interest me would be for someone, such as
> yourself, to prove my contention is wrong about humans contributing
> to global warming just by being alive.

I *DID* disprove your contention, above.

Machines produce at least a million times the energy that humans do. And so, release heat into the atmosphere at a much higher rate than humans do. (It still isn’t as large as the greenhouse effect, though.)

What more proof do you want?

• Jerry

But who made those machines? Dogs? Dolphins? Cats?

So I am right about humans causing global warming, which is what I clearly stated in the article.

• Rupert in Springfield

The nice thing about Jerry’s article is that is does, satirically, illustrate one thing very nicely. If we are to get all worked up about AGW, through what I think everyone agrees is a small input by man into a very large system, then maybe we should get worked up about every small thing man contributes.

The not so great thing Jerry’s article does is continue a rather flawed logical path. Namely, AGW believers have come up with a theory, now somehow it is incumbent upon everyone else to provide alternative theories or accept there’s. That’s not really the way things work, especially in a non anomalously trending system such as the current climate period. Since even a cursory look at temperature variation over a long enough data set shows there is nothing remarkable about this period, why is it incumbent upon anyone to supply alternative theories to AGW? Sure, if you look at a data set of 200 years, it will show a warming trend, big deal. If I look at a data set of my income, it will look like I am on a trend to bankruptcy with every withdrawal, and a trend to wealth with every deposit. The best explanation for AGW is quite simple, there will always be someone making a good living predicting the end of the world (Rupert truth of life number one). This explains quite a few things. For one it explains Al Gore’s fervor over the issue, while doing nothing into curtail his own personal actions that would reflect this purported concern. It also explains the same actions by the UN and there famed IPCC report. Supposedly substantive, yet clearly UN leaders pay it no mind in regard to their own actions, jet setting around, holding conference in Bali etc. They are making a buck, and stand a good chance to make even more through weird tax schemes in the future. They are behaving in a manner completely consistent with Truth number 1, and completely inconsistent with people concerned about AGW. Thus it is reasonable to assume, given the non anomalous nature temperature change, and the actions of the AGW leadership, that it is simply about making money. Absent some astonishing evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t it be illogical to conclude differently?

• Anonymous

David Appell and other flat earhters never digest the reality of our CO2 contribuition.

“Of course the claim that man is causing significant global warming by contributing about 3% of the CO2, while all CO2 is, at most 30% of warming, is almost as laughable.”

It’s absolutely laughable, but the IPCC modeling doesn’t even rely upon Human CO2 to make their bogus claims. No, they had to theorize that our CO2 triggers an increase in Water Vapor.

Our CO2 couldn’t be shown to warm the planet without adding in increased water vapor.
Of course it’s all complete bullsh t.

• David

> CO2 triggers an increase in Water Vapor.

CO2 does trigger an increase in water vapor. CO2 causes higher global temperatures, which causes more evaporation (=more water vapor), which in turn means higher temperatures. A positive feedback.

• jim karlocik

*David:* CO2 does trigger an increase in water vapor. CO2 causes higher global temperatures, which causes more evaporation (=more water vapor), which in turn means higher temperatures. A positive feedback.
*JK:* Show us the peer reviewed paper that proves this wild speculation of the playstation, climate scenario (not prediction) set. BTW if you choose the IPCC, please prove that the IPCC is peer reviewed.

Thanks
JK

• dean

Jim…the IPCC ARE the peers. They don’t do direct research as a group. They synthesize the peer reviewed research published in all reputable journals. To the extent their findings and recommendations are endorsed by every major science organization in the world that deals in climate and related research, I would say they have been reviewed plenty enough.

• jim karlocik

*JK:* Hey, David, Iâ€™m still waiting for all those peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 increases from the present can cause dangerous warming.

• John in Oregon

As I read Jerry’s article I was roaring with laughter. Excellent satirical piece!

In my native language of American Farm, a language distantly related to English, we would say Jerry did a good job of pulling our leg.

And then I noticed something. All the AGW skeptics here immediately caught on. In the very first post JK even offered the comment > *How about you convert this for us and compare it with the alleged warming due to CO2. Otherwise, you sound like Blue Oregon.*

😉

But then I noticed more. The AGW true believers here did not, they took it for real, and poked away at the “technical defects” not realizing it was a spoof. The true believers were pulled by the leg as in a spaghetti western, foot caught in the stirrup of a runaway horse.

*Impact of Weather & Climate Change on Asthma*
By Kathleen MacNaughton, R.N., About, June 4, 2008

“Recently, there has been a focus on the relationship between climate change â€“ what is known as “the greenhouse effect” â€“ and asthma. The gradual warming of our climates worldwide are also believed to be a factor in the explosion of asthma.”

Got that? Global Warming causes Asthma. Well actually Global Warming causes everything. Not much different than Jerry’s article

Is there some research this RN might have done. Well yes there is.

*H. pylori Protects Kids from Asthma*
EndoNurse 07/15/2008

“A long-time microbial inhabitant of the human stomach may protect children from developing asthma, according to a new study among more than 7,000 subjects led by NYU Langone Medical Center researchers. Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium that has co-existed with humans for at least 50,000 years, may lead to peptic ulcers and stomach cancer. Yet kids between the ages of three and 13 are nearly 59 percent less likely to have asthma if they carry the bug, the researchers report. The study appears in the July 15, 2008, online issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases.”â€¦

“”Thereâ€™s a growing body of data that says that early life use of antibiotics increases risk of asthma, and parents and doctors are using antibiotics like water,” Blaser says. “The reality is that Helicobacter is disappearing extremely rapidly. In the NHANES IV study, less than six percent of U.S. children had Helicobacter, and probably two generations ago it was 70 percent. So, this is a huge change in human micro-ecology.”

So there you have it.

Global Warming causes
Frogs to flourish
Frogs to die
And probably also
Frogs to fall from the sky

• Jerry

Thanks John – it is not easy being me – and your compliments are much appreciated.

• David

I don’t think Jerry’s piece was originally intended as satire, nor were some of the first responses to it. You’re just saying that now to try and save face. The first few responses took the numbers quite seriously and attempted to use them in further serious arguments.

• John in Oregon

Of course it was satire.

And JK Jerry and others did a fine job playing out the line prior to setting the hook.

If the line *How convenient to dismiss one of the major factors responsible for the increase in temperature around the world â€“ PEOPLE!* wasnâ€™t a tip off then look up the Spring Mountain Science Association.

Like I said, its hard to tell the difference between AGW alarm and satire.

Too bad Crawdude let the cat out.

I was suprised David, I expected you to say something like this is just silly. Which satire often is.

• Jerry

Just because an organization isn’t on the web doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Some like to stay under the radar, so to speak. Way under.

• David

Jerry’s question/theory is certainly no dumber than many of the theories offered by skeptics — that we haven’t considered the exhalations of man, that CO2 must be benign because we exhale it, that “CO2 is life,” etc.

If it was satire, it wasn’t very clever satire, because the case against AGW long ago went far past any satire you could imagine.

• jim karlocik

Don’t forget the studies of cow farts.

Thanks
JK

• Max

*This column demonstrates why you should never trust a columnist about science.*

But…but…David, unless I misremember, you consider yourself to be a freelance columnist!

So you are not to be trusted on the subject, either?

• dean

Jerry, for what it is worth, I am a human caused global warming theory supporter who did not bother responding to your satirically lame post. Don’t assume absence of response means it was funny, at least in the way you intended. In point of fact, without knowing it your were satirizing your own side by revealing how lame the alternative theories are, and how they all fail to have any science behind them.

But wait! Maybe that is your real role here! You are a mole for the left who makes outlandish statements in the guise of a right-wing nut case in order to discredit them, even while they think you are poking fun at the other side. If that is true…then I say well done you! You had us all going there for a while, but now we are finally onto you, you sneaky devil.

• Anonymous

“Jerry, for what it is worth, I am a human caused global warming theory supporter who did not bother responding to your satirically lame post. Don’t assume absence of response means it was funny, at least in the way you intended. In point of fact, without knowing it your were satirizing your own side by revealing how lame the alternative theories are, and how they all fail to have any science behind them.”

dean, the absence of a comment from you is like a breath of fresh air. The true impact, like that of the comments you do make, is negligible. BTW, when you become the acknowledged arbiter of what’s funny, what’s satire and the validity of science, we’ll let you know. That idea, itself, is funny.

Until then, keep up that “satire” of your own – as an example of true lameness*

*Using the word “lame” twice within three sentences reveals a certain paranoid stridency that’s so unlike you.

*snort*

• dean

My editor was temporarily unavailable, leaving my lame writing skills at their lamest.

• Jerry

Well, I guess you have all figured it out.
However, the point remains, people are warming the planet. Period.
End of report.
No wonder they are worried about the ice caps. There’s too much meltin’ goin’ on out there!

• dean

Not all Jerry…just you. I had not realized you were on my side all along. Amazing.

• Gullyborg

Now that I know how the human population is making Gaia hotter, I completey understand how critical it is that President Obama appoint living-constitutionalists who will affirm Roe v Wade and protect a woman’s right to choose to save the planet!

• CSPIRIT

Let’s keep aborting one million liberal babies a year and hopefully the people who kill their young will die off as well then there will less global commie footprints.

• Anonymous

David: CO2 does trigger an increase in water vapor. CO2 causes higher global temperatures, which causes more evaporation (=more water vapor), which in turn means higher temperatures. A positive feedback.

David, You need to do some major homework on this. You’ll discover what a total crock that is.
Human CO2 does not trigger an increase in water vapor. The IPCC theorized that it must and added the effect to their modeling which produced the alarmist predictions.

The problem is the IPCC could NOT show our CO2 increasing the temperature enough which means more water vapor would not be created.

You see this is more chicken and the egg just like Historical CO2 following warming.

You want to believe the IPCC warming predictions happen with help from water vapor yet the water vapor increase relies upon additonal CO2 warming they cannot demonstrate.
Not enough CO2 warming= not enough additoinal water vapor = no alarmist warming.

• Victoria Taft 5-8pm Monday-Friday KPAM 860

“How convenient to dismiss one of the major factors responsible for the increase in temperature around the world â€“ PEOPLE!”

I thought soylent green was people.

• Anonymous

oh. i thought this was a joke.

seriously?

• Ruvita02

can you be more specific and to discuss also wind, water present on earth?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates: