The US generates about 40,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs of heat energy from burning gasoline every year, most of it in urban areas. Climate experts tell us that this has little or no impact on local temperatures.
However, an increase of 0.0001 mole fraction CO2 will blow temperatures through the roof.
How many W/m^2 is that?
40,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs = 4.22022341e19 joules
Seconds per year = 31557600 seconds
Watts = 1.3373081e12
Area of USA = 9,826,630 sq km = 9.82663e12 m^2
Watts/m^2= 0.136090206
Yeah, probably not much.
Urban area % of total: About 80% of the people live in 3% of the area. Assume fuel is used the same way. Watts/m^2= 0.136090206 * 0.8/0.03= 3.62W/m^2 urban.
This is the same as the 3.7W/m^2 claimed from a doubling of CO2.
Hmmm.
Lol, you’re logic is a bit skewed there. Steve referenced the U.S. alone. And, while his 40 quadrillion was specific, I don’t believe he was inferring that gasoline burning was the only source of heat put out by humans.
Additionally, Steve specifically reference local temperatures.
I won’t even bother with the inane manner in which we arrived at 3.7w/m^2.
Did I calculate something other than power by gasoline in W/m^2 in the USA, urban and average? Did I say anything about other heat sources? Did I say it would raise or lower temperatures? I didn’t but I will… Burning gasoline heats by a different method from radiation, and affects a much smaller volume than the entire volume of air above a square meter. So it should cause much more local heating than the same change claimed by a doubling of CO2. I’m simply pointing out that what the IPCC claims in watts/m^2 is very close to the gasoline power level in urban areas, which we know are warmer. And we also know rural areas aren’t changing… Simple.
Just yesterday I was on route 80. It was 98 degrees outside on the motorway. I got stuck in 2 miles of traffic caused by an accident. The temperature went to 106°F, and my thermometer is accurate even in slow traffic (it is in a clean airstream). It went back to 98, and slowly as I got to my house in a valley, in semi rural parkland, within 15 minutes, the temperature was 82°F. So yes, high traffic causes huge local heating, and good old UHI didn’t help either. So a peak of about 8°F was caused simply by a high density of motor vehicles in one place, which was 98°F before and after the slow traffic. Once I got off the highway, it dropped in seconds, and when I finally was into the woods and fields, 84, and finally, at my house in the shade by a lake, 82°F. A total of 24°F difference between a traffic jam and the woods!!! Most personal stations at Wunderground were at about 82 to 86°F, so it was mostly a highway phenomenon, but lots of stations were warmer than my house.
Nope, no local impact at all.
Michael, it’s been a rough week for me, so I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not.
When you ask, “Did I say….”….. of course the answer would be no, but, that was one of my points. You can dwell on that if you wish. Or ignore it, it won’t change it.
If I came off abrasive, sorry, that wasn’t my intent.
” I’m simply pointing out that what the IPCC claims in watts/m^2 is very close to the gasoline power level in urban areas, which we know are warmer. And we also know rural areas aren’t changing… Simple.” <——— I agree.
I'll leave it at that.
Cheers.
Sen. John Kerry on Iranian nukes and climate change:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kerry-climate-change-dangerous-iran-s-nukes-and-possibility-war
Not true. AGW is as serious as 400,000 nuclear bomb explosions per day, and Iran doesn’t have that many.
Real nukes are dangerous in the hands of religious zealots. Silly comparisons are dangerous in the hands of religious zealots.
Ask a roofer about heat islands. 😉