Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Physical Causes

Though at first quite skeptical of a statement made by a commenter at Huffington Post;
 PoloniumMan :The heat from the radioactive decay of 232Th, 238U, and 40K is 3.8x10^13 Watts or 38 trillion watts or about three times the energy consumption rate by human civilization (1.3x10^13 Watts); so not much more, but still more.

Not sure where you're going with the two nukes dropped on Japan, especially since the Tsar Bomba (the big one set off by the USSR) released about 2,000 times more energy than Fat Man and Little Boy combined.

Speaking of homework, I've got to get back to mine. I'm studying nuclear weapon effects, so keep that in mind when you reply.

at first I wanted to argue the point, my thought being that if he was right and the radiant form of the material was stronger than a nuclear bomb, then, maybe global warming isn't what I should be studying, but rather, how can we get the Earth cool enough to walk on, again. You know... As a joke. His loose use of words could be interpreted as being that we ALL walk on land that is hotter than say the 11000 degrees that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki suffered...but, what the heck...why fight information when it drops in your lap, right?
Was there anyway I could find the heat structure of a bomb? And, were there any others willing to back this guy?

myth buster No, PoloniumMan is right. Heat produced by the decay of uranium, thorium, their daughter products and various long lived radioisotopes of other elements are the source of geothermal activity, which produces much more heat than all human activity combined. Truthfully, nuclear weapons don't even release much energy compared to civilization; they just do so all at once, rather than spread out over a long period of time. 

Some folks are naturally rude, but, most folk are like mythbuster.
Friendly, willing to stick his paw out and friend you. So, he backs this guy, I'm going to dig a little deeper. And sure enough, from a pair of sources came this...

Now, it may not seem so exciting for some, however, note that it has specific years noted, and while tonnage (as in bomb weight) isn't would be interesting to see the effect on temperatures from these same years.
I mean, if I give the idea of mechanical ANY credibility.
Well, that's where I am, now, on the study, and in the meantime, the mechanical just got bigger...

maxwelldog: Thank you, Myth buster. I believe you just said the answer.
His computation is heat over a long period of time, and am I to understand, spread over the surface of the entire world?
While my atomic bomb was a four point computation, contained over a single area (either city of old men, women, and children will suffice) and also within a few seconds.
Funny, though, that the "study of nuclear weapon effects" didn't produce this kind of response?
More of a chance that Puloniumman was upset by my reply and reacting irrationally and with youthful vigor, though, wouldn't you say?

Good chance he doesn't believe the global warming, either. All human activity...on a normal basis. Another interesting aspect I had not considered. How much heat is produced by a single car engine, and then multiplied by 17 million (+/-), continent to continent. Factories. Airplanes. Offices. Electrical lines. Heaters. Air conditioners. Refrigerators. Then 98.6 X 6 billion. Even the dead give up heat...when the vultures and wolves come to dine on the carcass.

In any case, thanx for the answer. 

Don'tcha just love friendly people?

And then came the data...
Oh boy. A match...from the death of a penguin. The Adelie Penguin.

See how you can read both world wars? WW1 and actually the grappling before it, are still below the mean line of a specific living creature...algae that feeds krill that feeds a the Adlelie Penguin. This was from a University of Michigan study on the slow motion extinction of that particular bird.
Also note WW2, but, more importantly, the dates around 1962, 1967-1969...

It is sad to note the curved blue line, steadily dropping to near extinction. If it hangs on long enough, probably they will survive as, and I haven't seen anything that would prove contrary to the idea, but the swing back to cold temperatures would revive the algae, feed the krill, and in turn feed the Adelie Penguin...
But, again, note the nuclear testing dates.

Now, without more specific data on a specific area (I have to assume a median measurement is being provided) I still don't have a definitive proof.
But it sure has the appearance of similarity, or at the very least, an unbelievable coincidence.
I've notated about the area of time the Industrial Revolution occurred (note that the steady upswing of the temps never returns to previous temps) and about where World War Two existed...and where the "normal" lowering of the temperatures would have been prior to our interactions.
Then the nuclear weapons testing...
See how it rises with each and every serious test?

Why the continuing rise in temperature?
Population is growing so quickly, temperatures from the whole world are needed (and each to their area, which would either prove more meat in more populated areas or a totally benign result)
and, how long would that take?
geez...I dunno.
I'm just getting over a cold right now, haven't made a thousand dollars this year and we're already into December, I've lost my stupid teeth somewhere, and...I need to focus on painting more...
So while I will continue doing the study, I would say, don't look for a fast resolution.
It would seem to me that few people actually care, or, maybe are just unaffected by any of this.
My answer to the global warming is the same as my answer to energy application and use.

Use less, share more.


Bran said...

Hi Maxwell T Dog - I think your summing up "Use less Share more" is the right way. All the maths models and rhetoric on Global Warming or Climate change just evade the overall problem. The bottom line comes down to rapid changes in population and our behaviours - higher expectations. Worse thing is most people want to look the other way or just say "this isn't happening" or "it's not my problem". The politicians are busy flying round the World going to meetings to pour out more hot air - so I guess we are waiting for that Woodstock moment . . . here's hoping.

maxwelldog said...

I'll call Jimi Hendrix...see if he'll play.

Anonymous said...

HI maxwelldog
The numbers are in on Global warming, and it is obvious ... we are experiencing a warming trend
The cause is also reasonably clear, some is nature (between 1% and 10% depending on who does the calculations) and the rest is man's interference in our biosphere.

Sadly, our reason to continue is to make the bank balances of a few ultra rich people just a little bigger ...
For larger numbers in a bank book, the planet has it's balance of nature destroyed. I don't think it's a worthy trade-off.

PlayTOE from HufPo