The contribution of metabolic heat to climate change.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Shapedoctor

In other words, would a solitary human being living as an animal in the wild contribute to global warming to some degree? Again, I'm not looking to quantify that degree at this point and I don't want people saying it's not significant. Some amount of contribution either exists or doesn't.

I'm confused now...Does a butterfly flapping its wings affect weather on the other side of the world?

"Some amount of contribution exists" is correct.

As Craig pointed out quantifiably, the amount of contribution is not significant.
(just teasing you, Shape)

[Shapedoctor]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Not too mention all the cows and chickens we take out of the equation daily. (I know, I know...they're replaced)


Indeed.


@Shapedoctor
If you don't want to quantify significance, then you might find this more to your liking, a quantification of heat:
Human Heat Balance

Using an average from the variables and multiplying by estimated population size, one could figure out the total heat generated by humans worldwide.

But of course, there are other factors to consider...

Could it contribute significantly to global warming? Not imo. We're probaby doing much more harm by exhaling.
It would be interesting to see a comparison with, say, geothermal radiation, though.

Thanks for the link. It sounds interesting and I'll be checking it out.

I think we're probably doing more harm with our CO2 as well, but the debates I see about global warming in forum arguments tend to fly all over the place. The skeptics tend to pollute the issue with endless links and distractions. I'm attempting to make an ultra-simplified proof that we do in fact contribute to the heating of our environment.

[Shapedoctor]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Human beings produce no more heat than is contained in the food they consume. For an average human, this is about 2000 kcal/day, or about 100 Watts. The current world population is about 6.5 billion, so the total rate of heat output for all of the human beings on Earth is about 660 GW ().

The total energy input of the Sun is . It varies by about 0.1% roughly every 11 years. (sources: wikipedia articles “Earth's energy budget” and “Solar variation”).

So the total heat output of all the human beings on Earth is about 0.04% that of the normal 11-year cycle of solar variation. In other words, for human beings to have the same impact on climate as the Sun’s slight 11-year cycle of variation, the population would have to be 2500 times greater, or about 16 trillion.

Based on this, I think “The contribution of [human] metabolic heat to climate change” is negligible.

Thanks Craig. Sorry I skipped your post, but I often end up reading threads upside down for some reason. This looks interesting and I will definitely reply to it again after I've studied it some more.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Shapedoctor

the debates I see about global warming in forum arguments tend to fly all over the place. The skeptics tend to pollute the issue with endless links and distractions.

Have you checked out the threads here? I'm assuming you have, but I don't recall any of your posts there. I hope you're not speaking of the threads here? Occasional distractions are a given, but I find the global warming threads here to be very engaging. It's kind of like Joe Friday, "Just the facts Ma'am". (although it doesn't always pan out that way)

I'm attempting to make an ultra-simplified proof that we do in fact contribute to the heating of our environment.

This is a good idea in theory, but will not hold much clout because more significant sources of heat, or heat 'retention', exist and are much more of a threat (especially considering that lobbying human genocide for global cooling is not going to attract many fans...aye, I would hope zero).

[Shapedoctor]

Originally Posted by CraigD

From the links in post #6, The Earth’s geothermal output is 23 TW (), about 35 times the heat output of all humans.

The math in my head is mostly asleep, but this information you're posting looks very useful. I might like to quote you on another forum if it would be ok. I'm not sure what the etiquette is for things like that.

[Shapedoctor]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'm confused now...Does a butterfly flapping its wings affect weather on the other side of the world?

"Some amount of contribution exists" is correct.

As Craig pointed out quantifiably, the amount of contribution is not significant.
(just teasing you, Shape)

It does in my universe. I don't believe in insignificance.

[Shapedoctor]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Have you checked out the threads here? I'm assuming you have, but I don't recall any of your posts there. I hope you're not speaking of the threads here? Occasional distractions are a given, but I find the global warming threads here to be very engaging. It's kind of like Joe Friday, "Just the facts Ma'am". (although it doesn't always pan out that way)



This is a good idea in theory, but will not hold much clout because more significant sources of heat, or heat 'retention', exist and are much more of a threat (especially considering that lobbying human genocide for global cooling is not going to attract many fans...aye, I would hope zero).

Since I'm actually engaging in some conversation here I'll probably start poking around in some other threads. The forum I frequent the most is big, very fast, and somewhat hostile towards intelligent life forms. It's mostly foul and kind of like a sewer, but every so often I find a treasure in it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Shapedoctor

The math in my head is mostly asleep, but this information you're posting looks very useful. I might like to quote you on another forum if it would be ok. I'm not sure what the etiquette is for things like that.

Thanks for asking!

The etiquette is you may freely use any matterial from posts at hypography, so long as that material is not marked "Copyrighted" (which it almost never is, except for the occasional original graphic), in which case you must ask the copyright holder’s permission before using it.

Please feel free to quote my posts however and wherever you like. Better, provided it doesn’t violate the other forum’s rules, provide a link back to the post or thread – the more links are made to hypography, the higher it ranks in search engines and advertiser's statistics, which helps hypography pay its bills.

Note, however, that I’ve mostly just interpreted data provided at wikipedia, so any credit should be shared with them.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Shapedoctor

I think we're probably doing more harm with our CO2 as well, but the debates I see about global warming in forum arguments tend to fly all over the place. The skeptics tend to pollute the issue with endless links and distractions. I'm attempting to make an ultra-simplified proof that we do in fact contribute to the heating of our environment.

Yes, we humans belch out x amount of CO2 per q time period at a measurable rate that I recall ol' Uncle Al calculated quite specifically. I was sure it was here in an old thread but haven't turned it up the last couple times I looked. Nonetheless, said Uncle Al had it a significant contribution to the mix, and I recall no one found fault with his numbers, only his solution. Oh, and then there's the methane we emit. Pardon me...stepped on a barking spider.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Yes, we humans belch out x amount of CO2 per q time period at a measurable rate that I recall ol' Uncle Al calculated quite specifically. I was sure it was here in an old thread but haven't turned it up the last couple times I looked. Nonetheless, said Uncle Al had it a significant contribution to the mix, and I recall no one found fault with his numbers, only his solution. Oh, and then there's the methane we emit. Pardon me...stepped on a barking spider.

Here's a source (of information, not carbon dioxide ): They say no worries about the breathing, and it's a government source so go ahead and exhale.

Originally Posted by cdiac

Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?

A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels. [RMC]

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

So for 6.5 billion people that's 1 kilo * 6,500,000,000 = 6.5 billion kilos per day CO2 added to atmosphere daily by humans exhaling, 6.5 billion * 365 days = 23,725,000,000,000 kilos per year, or 6.5 billion * 2.2 lb per kilo / 2,000 lbs per ton = 26,097,500,000 tons per year.