<p>Yes, it does add to global warming.</p>

<p>No, it's not currently measurable.</p>

<p>Human primary non-renewable energy consumption is about 15TW - and pretty much all of that goes into low-grade heat in the ocean surface and the atmosphere.</p>

<p>Expressed in the same terms as the forcing units of global warming, the forcing effect of that heat is about <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063514" rel="nofollow">1.7%</a> of the effect of the anthropogenic release of $\ce{CO2}$ to date.</p>

<p>So we can calculate it, but it's not directly measurable as a change to global energy content: it matters, but it's not quantifiable from temperature observations, given current data and techniques.</p>

<p><em>(Kudos to Pont for the link to the paper)</em></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-03T10:21:57.680Z
2016-06-06T07:13:24.653Z
2016-06-06T07:13:24.653Z
410 gone
<p>I understand that the main issue of global warming is greenhouse gases that trap solar energy instead of allowing it to bounce back into space. That being said, I've always had this impression or idea that the amount of energy released from burning fossil fuels should also have an effect. Consider from antiquity to about 1600 AD, the sum of heat being dumped into the atmosphere came from the sun. Now, after the industrial revolution, a new source has been added, that being human activity (burning coal, burning petrol, burning natural gas, thermonuclear weapons, nuclear reactors). While I suspect human activity has no measurable comparison against the output of the sun, I'm wondering if it has an impact on global warming to any degree.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-02T18:38:04.647Z
I suspect no but I don't have the numbers to hand to back it up.
bon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-02T19:26:20.770Z
I don't have time to write a proper answer, but this open-access paper from last year addresses your question very adequately: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063514/full . From the abstract: "Over the long lifetime of CO 2 in the atmosphere, the cumulative CO 2 -radiative forcing exceeds the amount of energy released upon combustion by a factor >100,000."
Pont
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T07:37:30.937Z
@SimonW I think that this **is** a duplicate of the question you've identified
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T16:26:48.863Z
Yes it does. But who really cares... we won't be burning fossil fuels in about 50 years. New technology will have replaced this very very primitive practice of burning fossils. Why is everyone so worried about something that will go away in a few years... relax. There will be a little more damage done to earth but we need energy. Fossil fuels will be totally gone soon. Just chill out. People are well meaning but, really, you are worried about something that is almost ready to go away.
slindsey3000
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:06:48.650Z
@slindsey3000 have you taken the argument of God, our Lord and Savior, into your analysis? I believe this global warming is caused by God, and that God wants people to live in a more tropical environment.
Steve G
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:35:27.170Z
@SteveG No I have not. Not at all. I am saying why worry about something that is about to go away. I would not worry about "safe cars" either... driverless cars will be around in 15 years. Accidents will be reduced by 99.999%. Just tough it out for a bit. The future is bright for us all.
slindsey3000
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:38:03.780Z
@slindsey3000 I don't understand. What does car safety have to do with global warming?
Steve G
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:41:08.837Z
@SteveG No on brought religion into this. Please don't start.
Sidney
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:41:57.557Z
@slindsey3000 I appreciate your optimism, and hope you're right. My pessimism says otherways, but you know what they say about low expectations.
Sidney
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:48:22.090Z
@Sidney Do you think we will be burning fossil fuels in 50...100 years? There is zero chance we will be using these primitive "fossil fuels" in the future.
slindsey3000
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T17:51:39.617Z
@slindsey3000 I hope you're right. While it's true technology marches foreward, there are still people out there who think they will never break even on solar panels, people who thing that wind turbines kill entire flocks of migratory birds etc. Most importantly people still exist who don't believe in global warming at all, so they see no need to embrace new technology when their old fossil fuel based tech has served them so well. They'll die out of course, but what about the lessons they impart to their kids? What about developing countries who don't see it as their responsibility?
Sidney
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-01T18:01:55.573Z
@Sidney I agree with all that. I just don't see the need to worry about something that is going away soon.
slindsey3000
<climate-change><fossil-fuel>
Does the amount of energy released from burning of fossil fuels have a measurable impact on global warming?
Sidney
# Does the amount of energy released from burning of fossil fuels have a measurable impact on global warming?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-02)

I understand that the main issue of global warming is greenhouse gases that trap solar energy instead of allowing it to bounce back into space. That being said, I've always had this impression or idea that the amount of energy released from burning fossil fuels should also have an effect. Consider from antiquity to about 1600 AD, the sum of heat being dumped into the atmosphere came from the sun. Now, after the industrial revolution, a new source has been added, that being human activity (burning coal, burning petrol, burning natural gas, thermonuclear weapons, nuclear reactors). While I suspect human activity has no measurable comparison against the output of the sun, I'm wondering if it has an impact on global warming to any degree.

**Tags:** climate-change, fossil-fuel

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I suspect no but I don't have the numbers to hand to back it up.  
> **username_2**: I don't have time to write a proper answer, but this open-access paper from last year addresses your question very adequately: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063514/full . From the abstract: "Over the long lifetime of CO 2 in the atmosphere, the cumulative CO 2 -radiative forcing exceeds the amount of energy released upon combustion by a factor >100,000."  
> **username_3**: @SimonW I think that this **is** a duplicate of the question you've identified  
> **username_4**: Yes it does. But who really cares... we won't be burning fossil fuels in about 50 years. New technology will have replaced this very very primitive practice of burning fossils. Why is everyone so worried about something that will go away in a few years... relax. There will be a little more damage done to earth but we need energy. Fossil fuels will be totally username_3 soon. Just chill out. People are well meaning but, really, you are worried about something that is almost ready to go away.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 have you taken the argument of God, our Lord and Savior, into your analysis? I believe this global warming is caused by God, and that God wants people to live in a more tropical environment.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 No I have not. Not at all. I am saying why worry about something that is about to go away. I would not worry about "safe cars" either... driverless cars will be around in 15 years. Accidents will be reduced by 99.999%. Just tough it out for a bit. The future is bright for us all.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 I don't understand. What does car safety have to do with global warming?  
> **username_0**: @username_5 No on brought religion into this. Please don't start.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 I appreciate your optimism, and hope you're right. My pessimism says otherways, but you know what they say about low expectations.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Do you think we will be burning fossil fuels in 50...100 years? There is zero chance we will be using these primitive "fossil fuels" in the future.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 I hope you're right. While it's true technology marches foreward, there are still people out there who think they will never break even on solar panels, people who thing that wind turbines kill entire flocks of migratory birds etc. Most importantly people still exist who don't believe in global warming at all, so they see no need to embrace new technology when their old fossil fuel based tech has served them so well. They'll die out of course, but what about the lessons they impart to their kids? What about developing countries who don't see it as their responsibility?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 I agree with all that. I just don't see the need to worry about something that is going away soon.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-06-03. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

Yes, it does add to global warming.

No, it's not currently measurable.

Human primary non-renewable energy consumption is about 15TW - and pretty much all of that goes into low-grade heat in the ocean surface and the atmosphere.

Expressed in the same terms as the forcing units of global warming, the forcing effect of that heat is about [1.7%](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063514) of the effect of the anthropogenic release of $\ce{CO2}$ to date.

So we can calculate it, but it's not directly measurable as a change to global energy content: it matters, but it's not quantifiable from temperature observations, given current data and techniques.

*(Kudos to username_2 for the link to the paper)*


---

