Heat (energy) into the earth is the total solar flux minus reflected light. Heat (energy) out of the earth is the IR corresponding to the temperature of the earth that was heated by the solar flux. You can do whatever you want with the heat (energy) that comes into the earth and you will not change its temperature because it is essentially a closed system between those flows. Running machines with renewable energy just diverts the energy for a useful purpose on its way to low grade heat where it would end up anyway.... and then be radiated to space.
To change the earths temperature you can do the following:
1. change the amount of light reflected (change earth's albedo). Make it blacker ro make it warmer or make it whiter to make it cooler.
2. change the earth's atmospheric infrared trap, e.g, add more greenhouse gases. This actually slows the emission of IR until the temperature of the earth rises enough for the energy outflow to again match the energy inflow. This is the greenhouse effect. You can of course cool the earth by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as well.
3. add energy to the earth from stored reservoirs of potential energy, e.g., burn fossil fuels, react nuclear material. These are very tiny amounts when compared to the amount of energy that moves around via sunlight.
I like that you read so far into this. However, because we as "untrained scientists", do not have enough people switching over to renewable energy to simulate the effects to the atmosphere if humans did a 100% switch to renewable energy. Also, you could be absolutely correct. The weather could completely change. If the transition is made slowly, then the weather would have a chance to adapt.
"If we are extracting energy from the climate and transforming it into buildings, lighting, transportation etc. " >> that energy STILL goes into the atmosphere , it doesnt just "disappear" . People who cant see the problem of global warming havent lived long enough.
Nope.
Even if we got 100% of our energy from renewable sources, that energy is not being taken *out* of the thermosphere. We're not sending trees up to space stations. We're not using wind energy to charge batteries that we send to the moon. We're using the energy right here, where the waste heat will end up... right here, right about where we took the energy from.
I doubt if our infrastructure in renewable will make a significant or even measurable effect on the climate either by reducing CO2 or by other means you mentioned.
Dook pretends to know that our CO2 has longevity in the atmosphere but he is clearly clueless and his fellow alarmists are generally just as ignorant and demonstrate their lack of science knowledge.
No. Puny little man can do nothing to affect the climate.
No. But if we got rid of Al Gore, we might.
No.
If one was to consider our atmosphere and oceans to be contained within a control volume then the system receives energy inputs from either the outer or the inner boundary. Solar radiation arrives through the outer boundary and is relatively constant. Humans are not able to introduce energy into the control volume from that direction. Through mining (oil, coal, gas etc.) additional mass and energy is transported across the inner boundary.
The addition of this energy (by humans) into the control volume has resulted in some observable consequences. The first being the slight rise in average global temperatures and the second an increase in weather related kinetic activity (higher average wind speeds and increased storm activity etc.).
Accepting the above premise to be true, would we be in danger of tipping the energy balance in the other direction if all (or at least more than 50%) of our energy needs were met through renewable sources such as solar, wind, wave, bio-fuel etc?
To restate:
If we are extracting energy from the climate and transforming it into buildings, lighting, transportation etc. would these redirections of energy then contribute to cooling by lowering the overall level of climate related energy?
