- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,103
- Reactions
- 16,902
That sums up my thinking on the whole issue.I don't have the answer to that but I find it hard to believe it's totally inconsequential
All the coal, oil and gas burned ultimately ends up as heat added to the atmosphere. We also add heat to the atmosphere from other sources such as nuclear fission and primary electricity (hydro, wind etc - electricity that wasn't obtained from a heat source).
Now that might seem inconsequential at the level of your own house but even in a city the size of Adelaide there's a measurable local effect in the CBD versus suburbs versus country areas. Needless to say that phenomenon is more pronounced in larger cities.
So we know we can alter the climate in cities. Then we need to consider that much of the heat isn't released in cities because things like large factories and power stations are typically located somewhere else, often a very long way from any actual city. The largest point of heat release in Victoria for example is 150km away from Melbourne and the situation is similar with most cities.
Then there's things like aircraft, ships and ground transport all of which are mostly or at least substantially releasing their heat well away from cities.
Now that's heat not CO2 but all up there's a hell of a lot of it. I won't claim to know the effects but I very much doubt it is zero.
The same basic concept applies to everything man puts into the air. Added up there's a lot of it and the effects aren't going to be nothing at all and that's true whether it's carbon dioxide or if it's dichlorodifluoromethane.