Carbon Neutral vs Heat Neutral atmosphere.

MX7

Member
Location
cotswolds
How can being carbon neutral cool down the atmosphere. Surely while mankind is using internal combustion engines/jet engines, electricity from power stations those power sources are/will be heating up the atmosphere, “ how does being carbon neutral actually cool down the hot air emitted from power sources”?
I never hear of creating a “HEAT NEUTRAL” atmosphere which is surely what is required to reduce global warming,is it because it is impossible?? ;)
True scenario,as I drive along the M4 today in our petrol engine car along with all the other thousands of vehicles, creating all that heat from our engines how would carbon neutral farms either side the motorway, be able to cool down the heat in the atmosphere emitted from us lot driving onthe M4?
 
Last edited:

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
How can being carbon neutral cool down the atmosphere. Surely while mankind is using internal combustion engines/jet engines, electricity from power stations those power sources are/will be heating up the atmosphere, “ how does being carbon neutral actually cool down the hot air emitted from power sources”?
I never hear of creating a “HEAT NEUTRAL” atmosphere which is surely what is required to reduce global warming,is it because it is impossible?? ;)
True scenario,as I drive along the M4 today in our petrol engine car along with all the other thousands of vehicles, creating all that heat from our engines how would carbon neutral farms either side the motorway, be able to cool down the heat in the atmosphere emitted from us lot driving onthe M4?
Well, different things involved with that. Heat can easily leave the planet. It also comes in from the sun. Twas ever thus.

But the whole area of "carbon footprint" and "carbon neutral" uses calculations that don’t actually equal warming impact. The bulls**t industry would try to convince you it does but that’s exactly where the problem lies. When companies say they are "carbon neutral" it doesn’t remotely mean that they aren’t warming the planet, it’s just a madeup construct. Some of them understand they’re talking crap but others genuinely believe they understand these things and so claim it in all innocence. Mankind is basically fekked.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
It's not the heat from our homes and cars etc that's heating the planet up its the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is allowing more heat from the sun to get through.
That isn’t actually how it works. The best way to think of it is the CO2 increasing is like a thicker duvet. How big an effect depends on where you stand on the whole "man made" warming aspect of it all. Personally, I don’t think mankind is anywhere near as clever as we think we are.
 

colhonk

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Darlington
a con pushed by big business to make money,
As above, the world has about the lowest carbon floating about for the last 250 million years, the Sahara used to be a green place then, Hmm, these desserts are expanding these days. the Earths orbit is the nub of the matter, it has a 40,000 years wobble and within that a 10,000 years wobble, also the sun is expanding as the hydrogen burns off and it will eventually grow that large it will gobble us up. All very easy to find actual facts,BUT these do not sell news stories as not doom and gloom.
Yes, the world is going to pott but only because there are too many people living on it today.
Think it has been said there is as many people alive on the earth today, as all of those that have died since man began, or something like that.

I pride myself on not being a sheep or a lemming (y)
 
Last edited:

puppet

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
sw scotland
I never hear of creating a “HEAT NEUTRAL” atmosphere which is surely what is required to reduce global warming,is it because it is impossible?? ;)
True scenario,as I drive along the M4 today in our petrol engine car along with all the other thousands of vehicles, creating all that heat from our engines how would carbon neutral farms either side the motorway, be able to cool down the heat in the atmosphere emitted from us lot driving onthe M4?
At last I have found a like-minded hypothesis on global warming.
On Thursday the forecaster said it would be down to 1°c in the towns but -3° in rural areas. As long as we are creating heat from all our stored fuels the world will get warmer. We have released millions of years of stored energy in 100 years and that will continue as we get more affluent
 

HatsOff

Member
Mixed Farmer
I'm not sure the heat from fossil fuels is much compared to the global warming effect.

Sun imparts 1.3kW per square metre, so 15.6kWh per day per square metre on average. .

UK area is 240 billion square metres, so 3744 billion kWh per day (3 744 000 000 000)

A litre of petrol contains about 10kWh of energy. About 80k litres of petrol is used in the UK daily, so about 800 000 kWh per day.

Even adding in all the other fossil fuel heat energy, its a miniscule fraction of a fraction of the solar energy. But while the earth absorbs huge amount of energy in the day time, it can emit huge amounts too. What co2 does is slowly decrease the amount being lost.
 

MX7

Member
Location
cotswolds
Well, different things involved with that. Heat can easily leave the planet. It also comes in from the sun. Twas ever thus.

But the whole area of "carbon footprint" and "carbon neutral" uses calculations that don’t actually equal warming impact. The bulls**t industry would try to convince you it does but that’s exactly where the problem lies. When companies say they are "carbon neutral" it doesn’t remotely mean that they aren’t warming the planet, it’s just a madeup construct. Some of them understand they’re talking crap but others genuinely believe they understand these things and so claim it in all innocence. Mankind is basically fekked.
That isn’t actually how it works. The best way to think of it is the CO2 increasing is like a thicker duvet. How big an effect depends on where you stand on the whole "man made" warming aspect of it all. Personally, I don’t think mankind is anywhere near as clever as we think we are..
Many thanks for your posts but as I am a bit thick on the subject of "physics" or whatever scientific department global warming comes under I need a very abbreviated guide called the "DUMMIES GUIDE TO WHY CARBON CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING" so I can TRY and understand why hot fumes from exhaust emissions are not the cause of a significant amount of global warming , if not the main cause.
 

ski

Member
Posted before.

A new study by 3 leading physicists casting yet more doubt on anthropogenic global warming.

Two important papers have recently been published that question the extent to which humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuel and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The works will of course be ignored by mainstream media outlets, but they represent further evidence that a more nuanced view of human-caused or anthropogenic warming is gaining traction among scientists, tired of working within the political constraints of ‘settled’ science.

In a paper to be published next month in the journal Health Physics, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts examine the atmospheric trail left by CO2isotopes and conclude that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was “much too low to be the cause of global warming”.

Is it be to much to hope that ministers and DEFRA might take a look at the growing number of academics questioning this 'settled science' and check their environmental lunacy

journals.lww.com

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity,... : Health Physics

1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information...
journals.lww.com
journals.lww.com
 

MX7

Member
Location
cotswolds
I'm not sure the heat from fossil fuels is much compared to the global warming effect.

Sun imparts 1.3kW per square metre, so 15.6kWh per day per square metre on average. .

UK area is 240 billion square metres, so 3744 billion kWh per day (3 744 000 000 000)

A litre of petrol contains about 10kWh of energy. About 80k litres of petrol is used in the UK daily, so about 800 000 kWh per day.

Even adding in all the other fossil fuel heat energy, its a miniscule fraction of a fraction of the solar energy. But while the earth absorbs huge amount of energy in the day time, it can emit huge amounts too. What co2 does is slowly decrease the amount being lost.
What happens to the above calculations during uk autumn and winter seasons when uk gets very little sunshine?
 

HatsOff

Member
Mixed Farmer
What happens to the above calculations during uk autumn and winter seasons when uk gets very little sunshine?
I just assumed 12hrs sunlight so it's an average over a year.

It's a rough and ready order of magnitude calculation only. And it's... 6 orders of magnitude different I think.

Edit - just to expand on that, think about the millions of hectares of ocean, all absorbing the sun's energy as well. My calculation was just indicative of how huge solar gain is compared to chemical energy.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
NFFN Member
Posted before.

A new study by 3 leading physicists casting yet more doubt on anthropogenic global warming.

Two important papers have recently been published that question the extent to which humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuel and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The works will of course be ignored by mainstream media outlets, but they represent further evidence that a more nuanced view of human-caused or anthropogenic warming is gaining traction among scientists, tired of working within the political constraints of ‘settled’ science.

In a paper to be published next month in the journal Health Physics, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts examine the atmospheric trail left by CO2isotopes and conclude that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was “much too low to be the cause of global warming”.

Is it be to much to hope that ministers and DEFRA might take a look at the growing number of academics questioning this 'settled science' and check their environmental lunacy

journals.lww.com

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity,... : Health Physics

1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information...
journals.lww.com
journals.lww.com
Looking at your chart: yes, it has been been as warm before and CO2 has been as high. However, back then Homo Sapiens didn't exist and Neanderthals may or may not have (estimates range from 130,000 years ago to 800,000 years ago).

F38DC88D-13E7-46BA-A717-1EE082BA266C.jpeg


Our modern lifestyle and human population is incompatible with those conditions.
 
Wheres @ollie989898 to put his thoughts on this thread.

As I mentioned earlier on another thread- heat energy is lost to the 'background' if you like- it does no useful work and can't really be measured. The entire universe is just a massive heatsink, as it remains so cold that any energy lost from a system by atoms gently settling back to the background level.

Put it this way, stars, planets, asteroids, the lot are just little islands floating along in an expanse of ever sucking darkness and cold.

The sun warms the Earth- mind boggling amounts of solar energy hit the Earth every day, as it does on many other planets, but the difference is the level of atmospheric gases- the greater the concentration of these, the more energy is retained rather than being reflected back into space.

Planets with no atmosphere, conversely, are frozen solid.
 

MX7

Member
Location
cotswolds
Posted before.

A new study by 3 leading physicists casting yet more doubt on anthropogenic global warming.

Two important papers have recently been published that question the extent to which humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuel and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The works will of course be ignored by mainstream media outlets, but they represent further evidence that a more nuanced view of human-caused or anthropogenic warming is gaining traction among scientists, tired of working within the political constraints of ‘settled’ science.

In a paper to be published next month in the journal Health Physics, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts examine the atmospheric trail left by CO2isotopes and conclude that the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning between 1750 and 2018 was “much too low to be the cause of global warming”.

Is it be to much to hope that ministers and DEFRA might take a look at the growing number of academics questioning this 'settled science' and check their environmental lunacy

journals.lww.com

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity,... : Health Physics

1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information...
journals.lww.com
journals.lww.com
Interesting graphs.
A serious question, how do scientists get the data from up to 350,000 years ago etc to enable them to draw up the above graphs?
As said a serious question and I am not being sarcastic.
 

MX7

Member
Location
cotswolds
As I mentioned earlier on another thread- heat energy is lost to the 'background' if you like- it does no useful work and can't really be measured. The entire universe is just a massive heatsink, as it remains so cold that any energy lost from a system by atoms gently settling back to the background level.

Put it this way, stars, planets, asteroids, the lot are just little islands floating along in an expanse of ever sucking darkness and cold.

The sun warms the Earth- mind boggling amounts of solar energy hit the Earth every day, as it does on many other planets, but the difference is the level of atmospheric gases- the greater the concentration of these, the more energy is retained rather than being reflected back into space.

Planets with no atmosphere, conversely, are frozen solid.
So “Carbon Dioxide” is one of those atmospheric gases helping to retain energy within our atmosphere, which is increasing the temperature of the atmosphere.?
I am not the the most useful tool in the toolbox, but I still like to try and educate my mind ;)
 
So “Carbon Dioxide” is one of those atmospheric gases helping to retain energy within our atmosphere, which is increasing the temperature of the atmosphere.?
I am not the the most useful tool in the toolbox, but I still like to try and educate my mind ;)

It's not so much the temperature of the atmosphere that is rising (the atmosphere is very cold at altitude), it is mean temperatures surface on Earth itself.
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 25 17.9%
  • Sage

    Votes: 12 8.6%
  • Xero

    Votes: 61 43.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 42 30.0%

Five nature-recovery projects spanning 100,000ha launched

  • 15
  • 0
Written by Michelle Martin from Agriland

Image-source-Savills-field-640x360.jpg
Five nature-recovery projects spanning nearly 100,000ha across the West Midlands, Cambridgeshire, the Peak District, Norfolk and Somerset have been announced by the government and Natural England today (Thursday, May 26).

This is the equivalent in size to all 219 current National Reserves.

The aim of the projects is to deliver nature recovery at a landscape scale, helping to tackle biodiversity loss, climate change and improve public health and well-being.

All five projects will make a significant contribution towards the national delivery of the international commitment to protect at least 30% of land and...
Top