<p>Your premise that heat doesn't radiate away is false.  Furthermore, primary energy released from the surface of Earth is included in any basic Earth System Model.</p>
<p>Greenhouse gases are sustained for many years, and their lasting effect is what allows energy to get trapped near the surface and raise the temperature of the atmosphere.  The primary input to heat energy of the Earth's atmosphere is solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth's surface, and then radiating back infrared.  This greatly outweighs anything else like the Earth's own natural heat flux (e.g. volcanoes, thermal vents) and any primary heat generated by human activity.  Yes, the primary energy released from combustion is part of the Earth's heat budget, but it is not usually part of the &quot;global warming&quot; conversation.  &quot;Global Warming&quot; is more of a socially-acceptable term than a scientific term, but generally refers to the current warming trend caused by increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel combustion and other human activity.  The greenhouse effect is separate and distinct from the heat generation you are describing.  The transfer of energy is quantified in typical <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/#:%7E:text=In%20the%20simplest%20terms%20possible,Earth%20back%20out%20to%20space." rel="noreferrer">Earth energy budget diagrams</a>, showing that independent thermal energy from activity on Earth is 18 W/m2, while there is 398.2 W/m2 emitted from the surface due to absorbed sunlight.</p>
<p>Human-generated heat can increase the atmospheric temperature in the nearby area, and is often discussed in terms of the &quot;urban heat-island effect&quot;.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-10T15:47:21.593Z
Dr Thorpe, I am focusing upon the effects of the primary energy emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, but you have dealt only with carbon dioxide effects instead.  Please let me know your thoughts on this problem.

Do you not accept the equation from the Kinetic Theory which relates the energy in a gas and its temperature?   
Do you reject the BP Statistical Review of Energy.  
Do you not accept the Law of Conservation of Energy
Aubrey Banner, MInstP
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-11T00:01:42.320Z
Fundamental equations are not ignored in Earth System Models or Climate Models.  I think you might be underestimating the amount of heat generated by absorption of sunlight.  Think of a desert: no one is there generating heat, but it is still the hottest place on Earth.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-12T09:44:30.410Z
F.Thorpe.  So how do you explain the threatened "heat domes" forecast to affect the western regions in America?
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-13T14:06:07.670Z
F.Thorpe.  Thank you for replying with your edited version of your answer to my initial post.  Sadly, your problem seems to be shown in the first two lines.  You have confused the term "heat" with "radiation", but the physics meaning of "heat" is the kinetic energy of motion of the molecules of a gas,  which is sometimes known as "sensible energy". 
On the other hand, "radiation" refers to the "electromagnetic energy" of the photons emitted by hot bodies.  
The term "primary energy" means the sensible energy emitted (NOT radiated)
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-13T22:19:43.503Z
@EddieBanner "Primary energy" is a technical (or economical) but no physical term! After some or many transformations it's some sensible heat, latent heat, radiation in the atmosphere (as well as a steel bridge somewhere in China and some potential energy bound in a new mountain station in the Swiss Alps). On the long run it's only radiation at the TOA: either visible light or radio waves but quite predominantly IR-radiation and a really tiny bit of sensible heat in the atmosphere.
klanomath
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-14T09:24:02.757Z
klanomath, thank you, but here is a quote from Wikipedia.
"Primary energy (PE) is the energy found in nature that has not been subjected to any human engineered conversion process. It encompasses energy contained in raw fuels and other forms of energy, including waste, received as input to a system. Primary energy can be non-renewable or renewable."  

Incoming solar energy is certainly huge, but according to the mainstream GHG theory, the  outgoing energy to space must be equal to it, for energy balance.  So, primary energy is of vital importance in global warming.
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-09T15:12:29.260Z
2024-06-11T23:36:17.870Z
2024-06-11T23:36:17.870Z
f.thorpe
<p>Let's put your theory to the test by comparing it not just with two arbitrarily chosen points of time but with the development over the last decades.</p>
<p>Data sources:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/65wLrqcB.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/65wLrqcB.png" alt="Global primary energy consumption" /></a>
(source: <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption</a>)</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Arhome8J.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Arhome8J.png" alt="NASA global warming" /></a>
(source: <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121</a>)</p>
<p>I used this with the formula you have given and came up with this chart:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/oHOJnvA4.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/oHOJnvA4.png" alt="Comparison of warming based on prime energy and NASA" /></a></p>
<p>I wouldn't call that a good fit. Now you could argue that you're also missing a lot of prime energy consumption by nature - wildfires, coal-seam fires, oil-well fires.</p>
<p>Where is the energy going on those parts where it dips?</p>
<p>The energy will not just accumulate in the atmosphere and sit there, the atmosphere is not a closed system, there are energy flows in all directions and all have to be taken into account for the complete picture.</p>
<p>I know you are trying to challenge mainstream research, but I just don't see how your arguments hold up. A flux of 0.034 W/m² is quite small. Is it negligible? I don't know, but if we manage to change the atmosphere composition in such a way, that it changes the flux by 0.3 W/m² in a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_due_to_changes_in_atmospheric_gases" rel="nofollow noreferrer">decade alone</a> it sure sounds puny.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-14T18:41:27.660Z
Hi Arsenal
Thank you very much for your post.  I’m really pleased for the chance to have a serious discussion on global warming.  You have clearly been to some trouble to check what I have been trying to say, and it will take some time for me to give you a proper answer.  Watch this space.
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-14T15:12:31.417Z
2024-06-14T15:12:31.417Z
Arsenal
<p><strong>Atmosphere Energy</strong></p>
<p>Heat energy is continuously being added into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.<br />
It is in the form sometimes called “sensible energy”, and is just the kinetic energy of motion of all of the nitrogen, oxygen and other molecules in the atmosphere.  This is not electromagnetic energy, and so it cannot be radiated away. Therefore, it builds up year by year during the many years of the anthropogenic activities, forming an aggregate of energy in the atmosphere, and a corresponding rise in temperature.</p>
<p>The nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere are diatomic molecules, and so the relationship between the energy of the atmosphere and its temperature on the Absolute Scale is given by the Kinetic Theory of Gases as follows.</p>
<p>E = (5/2)<em>n</em>k<em>T  where E is the energy in Joules
n is the number of molecules
k is the Boltzmann Constant, 1.381</em>(10^-23)
T is the Absolute Temperature, in Kelvin</p>
<p><strong>So for changes,</strong>  dE and dT,  dE = (5/2)<em>n</em>k*dT</p>
<p>The BP Statistical Review of Energy provides data for the global annual energy consumption needs each year from all anthropogenic sources.  I have summed this annual data numerically from 1980 to 2019 to calculate the total global sum, the aggregate, of the energy put into the atmosphere in this period.  It is 1.783*(10^22) Joules.</p>
<p>However, both NASA and the IPCC maintain that 90.5% of this goes into the oceans, so from 1980 to 2019 the aggregate retained in the atmosphere by 2019 was <em><em>1.694</em>(10^21) Joules.</em>*</p>
<p>Now, the number of molecules in the global atmosphere is 1.04*(10^44), and so the equation from the Kinetic Theory becomes dT = dE / ( (5/2)<em>n</em>k ).</p>
<p>Therefore,
dT = 1.694(10^21) / ( (5/2)1.04(10^44)1.381(10^-23) )</p>
<p>dT = 1.694(10^21) /  3.5906(10^21)</p>
<p><strong>dT = 0.47 K</strong> (or degrees C) as at 2019,  relative to 1980</p>
<p><strong>This is in good agreement with measured temperature anomalies.</strong>
It is not entirely clear whether or not the full number of molecules in the atmosphere should be used, because the effective distribution has not been considered.  However, if only a smaller number are effective, then the resulting increase in temperature would be greater.</p>
<p><strong>The explanation for atmosphere energy and temperature given above is simply basic Physics, and so the energy put into the atmosphere must be taken into account.  It is often called the “primary energy”.</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-10T07:49:09.363Z
I think you are referring to human-generated heat only, correct? You may want to reflect that in the title. *Generally* spoken, the energy reservoir the atmosphere provides -- similarly to the oceans -- must of course be taken into account. How much of the warming is due to human inputs is another question.
Peter - Reinstate Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-10T08:48:36.393Z
You might want to learn about [thermal radiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation) - all matter with temperature will emit electromagnetic radiation. So your starting statement is false. There even is an [atmospheric window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window) which allows exactly that band of radiation to get to space.
Arsenal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-10T12:42:28.780Z
-1 because the question is based on a false premise as @Arsenal pointed out.  "This is not electromagnetic energy so it cannot be radiated away.  Therefore it builds up year by year..." is not true.  Energy is radiated from things that have temperature, regardless of how the heat was produced or transmitted.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-10T17:41:18.740Z
Arsenal, thank you for your comment.  It is true that all solid matter at temperatures above Absolute Zero cab radiate energy, but nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere are diatomic molecules, and so cannot absorb electromagnetic energy.  So they cannot radiate.    

The atmospheric window allows some infrared energy radiated from the Earth's surface to escape to space.
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-10T17:46:16.520Z
Thank you, Peter.  My post is concerned with anthropogenic activities, so the calculation gives the data which might interest you.
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-11T00:23:15.630Z
@Arsenal You are right with your first two sentences. But at standard conditions (~ 15 ° C/288 K and above) there is almost *no* atmospheric window which allows these (IR) bands of radiation to get (directly) to space. This is how the greenhouse effect (the CO₂/H₂O part of it) works!
klanomath
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-11T01:14:25.953Z
@EddieBanner Sun > Earth: 170,000 TW; geothermal energy "flow" through Earth's surface: 45 TW; primary energy "flow": 18 TW (which is 0.034 W/m², if I've done the math right). In other words: your calculations are probably right, but only valid for a closed (or isolated) system (i.e. no energy flow through the boundaries of this system). Planet Earth is no isolated system, "Law of Conservation of Energy" - mentioned in another of your comments – is not affected.
klanomath
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-11T01:24:45.710Z
@EddieBanner But the atmosphere contains CO2, H2O, and other gases which can radiate thermal energy.  Heat released into the atmosphere will add energy to those molecules and they will radiate energy in all directions, including into space, thus taking that energy out of the earth.
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-11T08:16:39.047Z
@klanomath true, but you still have around 80 to 100 W/m² leaving the earth through infrared radiation.
Arsenal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-11T18:12:11.133Z
klanomath, thank you for your helpful comment.  
The 0.034 W/m^2 you mention is, no doubt, the primary energy flow into the Earth's system, and of course this is far too small to have a significant effect if considered in the way the mainstream GHG theory is thought to work.    
Therein lies the problem.  
The whole point of my comments is that the primary energy cannot be ignored ( Law of Conservation), but the GHG theory cannot cope with it because it can only deal with the rate of flow of energy, that is in W/m^2.   
So, the GHG theory needs to be replaced by a theory accepting both.
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-12T09:35:44.317Z
Mark, many thanks.  You are, of course, correct according to the approach of the mainstream GHG theory.   But, it cannot accept the idea of energy stored in the atmosphere, and so that means it rejects the Law of Conservation of Energy.  So, a new theory is required which accepts BOTH the stored anthropogenic primary energy AND the energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide (and others).  
But, this absorbed energy is released into the atmosphere by  THERALIZATION, and this is entirely different from the mainstream thinking.  
My proposed new theory is on WordPress at  https://hotgas.club
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-13T17:14:20.103Z
@EddieBanner AFAIK CESM2 (and therein CLM) consider anthropogenic heat flux (as well as geothermic and ground heat flux). However, as others and I have already mentioned earlier, these terms are almost irrelevant compared to incoming solar radiation and, to a lesser extent, radiative forcings in a global context. The permanent AHF and GeoHF combined have the same effect as additional 1.5 years of GHG-emissions at the current scale.
klanomath
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-14T19:37:44.240Z
Arsenal (continuing)
I'm puzzled by your figure entitled "Temperature anomaly measured vs prime energy driven". It seems to show a NASA smoothed temperature anomaly against year from 1800, and another curve for "accumulated temperature" from 1880. You're right; there is NO FIT there. But, my work was dealing with the temperature anomalies since 1980 (which I took as the zero anomaly). Please read my paper "The Combined Energy Theory for Global Warming" on WordPress at https://hotgas.club for a full explanation. The primary energy emitted by the burning of fossil fuels goes into the atmosphere,
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-15T05:44:52.337Z
Just wrong, whilst "mainstream GHG theory" isn't. Warming isn't explained by waste heat. Climate science isn't shown to be wrong. this isn't the site for debating it.
Ken Fabian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-15T11:22:36.723Z
klinomath My work is concerned with the effect of the increase in atmosphere energy during the period of anthropogenic activities. I think you would agree that the CMB rate of radiation could reasonably considered to be constant throughout this period. Also, the effect of the Sun. So, any increase in the energy input to the atmosphere would be caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Much of this energy goes to the oceans, but about 9.5% is retained in the atmosphere, and builds up year by year. I have shown in my paper that this is the main cause of the increase in tem
Eddie Banner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-15T15:59:10.480Z
I'm very curious about what you are looking for here.  You've proposed a new hypothesis about the cause of global warming.  Numerous people have pointed out that your hypothesis is incorrect, and you respond by arguing that it's right - without even addressing the flaws that were pointed out.  You say you've written a paper, so why don't you submit it to Nature and get it peer reviewed and published?  What purpose is there in posting about it here if you're not going to accept feedback?
Mark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-18T10:48:16.280Z
Mark, you say that numerous people have pointed out that my  hypothesis is incorrect.  But, they have not provided any evidence or explanation for their claims.  They are just relying on the GHG theory, and I have never been able to find a reasoned, formal  statement of that theory.  
On the other hand, my own theory is fully explained in my paper "The Combined Energy Theory for Global Warming" on WordPress at https://hotgas.club
Eddie Banner
<climate-change><atmosphere><energy><anthropogenic>
Should the increasing energy retained in the atmosphere be considered in relation to global warming?
Eddie Banner
# Should the increasing energy retained in the atmosphere be considered in relation to global warming?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-06-09)

**Atmosphere Energy**

Heat energy is continuously being added into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.  
It is in the form sometimes called “sensible energy”, and is just the kinetic energy of motion of all of the nitrogen, oxygen and other molecules in the atmosphere. This is not electromagnetic energy, and so it cannot be radiated away. Therefore, it builds up year by year during the many years of the anthropogenic activities, forming an aggregate of energy in the atmosphere, and a corresponding rise in temperature.

The nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere are diatomic molecules, and so the relationship between the energy of the atmosphere and its temperature on the Absolute Scale is given by the Kinetic Theory of Gases as follows.

E = (5/2)*n*k*T where E is the energy in Joules
n is the number of molecules
k is the Boltzmann Constant, 1.381*(10^-23)
T is the Absolute Temperature, in Kelvin

**So for changes,** dE and dT, dE = (5/2)*n*k\*dT

The BP Statistical Review of Energy provides data for the global annual energy consumption needs each year from all anthropogenic sources. I have summed this annual data numerically from 1980 to 2019 to calculate the total global sum, the aggregate, of the energy put into the atmosphere in this period. It is 1.783\*(10^22) Joules.

However, both NASA and the IPCC maintain that 90.5% of this goes into the oceans, so from 1980 to 2019 the aggregate retained in the atmosphere by 2019 was **1.694*(10^21) Joules.*\*

Now, the number of molecules in the global atmosphere is 1.04\*(10^44), and so the equation from the Kinetic Theory becomes dT = dE / ( (5/2)*n*k ).

Therefore,
dT = 1.694(10^21) / ( (5/2)1.04(10^44)1.381(10^-23) )

dT = 1.694(10^21) / 3.5906(10^21)

**dT = 0.47 K** (or degrees C) as at 2019, relative to 1980

**This is in good agreement with measured temperature anomalies.**
It is not entirely clear whether or not the full number of molecules in the atmosphere should be used, because the effective distribution has not been considered. However, if only a smaller number are effective, then the resulting increase in temperature would be greater.

**The explanation for atmosphere energy and temperature given above is simply basic Physics, and so the energy put into the atmosphere must be taken into account. It is often called the “primary energy”.**

**Tags:** climate-change, atmosphere, energy, anthropogenic

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think you are referring to human-generated heat only, correct? You may want to reflect that in the title. *Generally* spoken, the energy reservoir the atmosphere provides -- similarly to the oceans -- must of course be taken into account. How much of the warming is due to human inputs is another question.  
> **username_2**: You might want to learn about [thermal radiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation) - all matter with temperature will emit electromagnetic radiation. So your starting statement is false. There even is an [atmospheric window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window) which allows exactly that band of radiation to get to space.  
> **username_3**: -1 because the question is based on a false premise as @username_2 pointed out.  "This is not electromagnetic energy so it cannot be radiated away.  Therefore it builds up year by year..." is not true.  Energy is radiated from things that have temperature, regardless of how the heat was produced or transmitted.  
> **username_0**: username_2, thank you for your comment.  It is true that all solid matter at temperatures above Absolute Zero cab radiate energy, but nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere are diatomic molecules, and so cannot absorb electromagnetic energy.  So they cannot radiate.      The atmospheric window allows some infrared energy radiated from the Earth's surface to escape to space.  
> **username_0**: Thank you, username_1.  My post is concerned with anthropogenic activities, so the calculation gives the data which might interest you.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 You are right with your first two sentences. But at standard conditions (~ 15 ° C/288 K and above) there is almost *no* atmospheric window which allows these (IR) bands of radiation to get (directly) to space. This is how the greenhouse effect (the CO₂/H₂O part of it) works!  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Sun > Earth: 170,000 TW; geothermal energy "flow" through Earth's surface: 45 TW; primary energy "flow": 18 TW (which is 0.034 W/m², if I've done the math right). In other words: your calculations are probably right, but only valid for a closed (or isolated) system (i.e. no energy flow through the boundaries of this system). Planet Earth is no isolated system, "Law of Conservation of Energy" - mentioned in another of your comments – is not affected.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 But the atmosphere contains CO2, H2O, and other gases which can radiate thermal energy.  Heat released into the atmosphere will add energy to those molecules and they will radiate energy in all directions, including into space, thus taking that energy out of the earth.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 true, but you still have around 80 to 100 W/m² leaving the earth through infrared radiation.  
> **username_0**: username_4, thank you for your helpful comment.   The 0.034 W/m^2 you mention is, no doubt, the primary energy flow into the Earth's system, and of course this is far too small to have a significant effect if considered in the way the mainstream GHG theory is thought to work.     Therein lies the problem.   The whole point of my comments is that the primary energy cannot be ignored ( Law of Conservation), but the GHG theory cannot cope with it because it can only deal with the rate of flow of energy, that is in W/m^2.    So, the GHG theory needs to be replaced by a theory accepting both.  
> **username_0**: Mark, many thanks.  You are, of course, correct according to the approach of the mainstream GHG theory.   But, it cannot accept the idea of energy stored in the atmosphere, and so that means it rejects the Law of Conservation of Energy.  So, a new theory is required which accepts BOTH the stored anthropogenic primary energy AND the energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide (and others).   But, this absorbed energy is released into the atmosphere by  THERALIZATION, and this is entirely different from the mainstream thinking.   My proposed new theory is on WordPress at  https://hotgas.club  
> **username_4**: @username_0 AFAIK CESM2 (and therein CLM) consider anthropogenic heat flux (as well as geothermic and ground heat flux). However, as others and I have already mentioned earlier, these terms are almost irrelevant compared to incoming solar radiation and, to a lesser extent, radiative forcings in a global context. The permanent AHF and GeoHF combined have the same effect as additional 1.5 years of GHG-emissions at the current scale.  
> **username_0**: username_2 (continuing) I'm puzzled by your figure entitled "Temperature anomaly measured vs prime energy driven". It seems to show a NASA smoothed temperature anomaly against year from 1800, and another curve for "accumulated temperature" from 1880. You're right; there is NO FIT there. But, my work was dealing with the temperature anomalies since 1980 (which I took as the zero anomaly). Please read my paper "The Combined Energy Theory for Global Warming" on WordPress at https://hotgas.club for a full explanation. The primary energy emitted by the burning of fossil fuels goes into the atmosphere,  
> **username_5**: Just wrong, whilst "mainstream GHG theory" isn't. Warming isn't explained by waste heat. Climate science isn't shown to be wrong. this isn't the site for debating it.  
> **username_0**: klinomath My work is concerned with the effect of the increase in atmosphere energy during the period of anthropogenic activities. I think you would agree that the CMB rate of radiation could reasonably considered to be constant throughout this period. Also, the effect of the Sun. So, any increase in the energy input to the atmosphere would be caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Much of this energy goes to the oceans, but about 9.5% is retained in the atmosphere, and builds up year by year. I have shown in my paper that this is the main cause of the increase in tem  
> **username_3**: I'm very curious about what you are looking for here.  You've proposed a new hypothesis about the cause of global warming.  Numerous people have pointed out that your hypothesis is incorrect, and you respond by arguing that it's right - without even addressing the flaws that were pointed out.  You say you've written a paper, so why don't you submit it to Nature and get it peer reviewed and published?  What purpose is there in posting about it here if you're not going to accept feedback?  
> **username_0**: Mark, you say that numerous people have pointed out that my  hypothesis is incorrect.  But, they have not provided any evidence or explanation for their claims.  They are just relying on the GHG theory, and I have never been able to find a reasoned, formal  statement of that theory.   On the other hand, my own theory is fully explained in my paper "The Combined Energy Theory for Global Warming" on WordPress at https://hotgas.club  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2024-06-09. Score: 8

Your premise that heat doesn't radiate away is false. Furthermore, primary energy released from the surface of Earth is included in any basic Earth System Model.

Greenhouse gases are sustained for many years, and their lasting effect is what allows energy to get trapped near the surface and raise the temperature of the atmosphere. The primary input to heat energy of the Earth's atmosphere is solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth's surface, and then radiating back infrared. This greatly outweighs anything else like the Earth's own natural heat flux (e.g. volcanoes, thermal vents) and any primary heat generated by human activity. Yes, the primary energy released from combustion is part of the Earth's heat budget, but it is not usually part of the "global warming" conversation. "Global Warming" is more of a socially-acceptable term than a scientific term, but generally refers to the current warming trend caused by increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel combustion and other human activity. The greenhouse effect is separate and distinct from the heat generation you are describing. The transfer of energy is quantified in typical [Earth energy budget diagrams](https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/#:%7E:text=In%20the%20simplest%20terms%20possible,Earth%20back%20out%20to%20space.), showing that independent thermal energy from activity on Earth is 18 W/m2, while there is 398.2 W/m2 emitted from the surface due to absorbed sunlight.

Human-generated heat can increase the atmospheric temperature in the nearby area, and is often discussed in terms of the "urban heat-island effect".

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Dr Thorpe, I am focusing upon the effects of the primary energy emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, but you have dealt only with carbon dioxide effects instead.  Please let me know your thoughts on this problem.  Do you not accept the equation from the Kinetic Theory which relates the energy in a gas and its temperature?    Do you reject the BP Statistical Review of Energy.   Do you not accept the Law of Conservation of Energy Aubrey username_0, MInstP  
> **username_6**: Fundamental equations are not ignored in Earth System Models or Climate Models.  I think you might be underestimating the amount of heat generated by absorption of sunlight.  Think of a desert: no one is there generating heat, but it is still the hottest place on Earth.  
> **username_0**: username_6.  So how do you explain the threatened "heat domes" forecast to affect the western regions in America?  
> **username_0**: username_6.  Thank you for replying with your edited version of your answer to my initial post.  Sadly, your problem seems to be shown in the first two lines.  You have confused the term "heat" with "radiation", but the physics meaning of "heat" is the kinetic energy of motion of the molecules of a gas,  which is sometimes known as "sensible energy".  On the other hand, "radiation" refers to the "electromagnetic energy" of the photons emitted by hot bodies.   The term "primary energy" means the sensible energy emitted (NOT radiated)  
> **username_4**: @username_0 "Primary energy" is a technical (or economical) but no physical term! After some or many transformations it's some sensible heat, latent heat, radiation in the atmosphere (as well as a steel bridge somewhere in China and some potential energy bound in a new mountain station in the Swiss Alps). On the long run it's only radiation at the TOA: either visible light or radio waves but quite predominantly IR-radiation and a really tiny bit of sensible heat in the atmosphere.  
> **username_0**: username_4, thank you, but here is a quote from Wikipedia. "Primary energy (PE) is the energy found in nature that has not been subjected to any human engineered conversion process. It encompasses energy contained in raw fuels and other forms of energy, including waste, received as input to a system. Primary energy can be non-renewable or renewable."    Incoming solar energy is certainly huge, but according to the mainstream GHG theory, the  outgoing energy to space must be equal to it, for energy balance.  So, primary energy is of vital importance in global warming.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-06-14. Score: 3

Let's put your theory to the test by comparing it not just with two arbitrarily chosen points of time but with the development over the last decades.

Data sources:
[![Global primary energy consumption](https://i.sstatic.net/65wLrqcB.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/65wLrqcB.png)
(source: <https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption>)

[![NASA global warming](https://i.sstatic.net/Arhome8J.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Arhome8J.png)
(source: <https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121>)

I used this with the formula you have given and came up with this chart:
[![Comparison of warming based on prime energy and NASA](https://i.sstatic.net/oHOJnvA4.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/oHOJnvA4.png)

I wouldn't call that a good fit. Now you could argue that you're also missing a lot of prime energy consumption by nature - wildfires, coal-seam fires, oil-well fires.

Where is the energy going on those parts where it dips?

The energy will not just accumulate in the atmosphere and sit there, the atmosphere is not a closed system, there are energy flows in all directions and all have to be taken into account for the complete picture.

I know you are trying to challenge mainstream research, but I just don't see how your arguments hold up. A flux of 0.034 W/m² is quite small. Is it negligible? I don't know, but if we manage to change the atmosphere composition in such a way, that it changes the flux by 0.3 W/m² in a [decade alone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_due_to_changes_in_atmospheric_gases) it sure sounds puny.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Hi username_2 Thank you very much for your post.  I’m really pleased for the chance to have a serious discussion on global warming.  You have clearly been to some trouble to check what I have been trying to say, and it will take some time for me to give you a proper answer.  Watch this space.  

---

