Dr. Roy Spencer recently opined about this issue (which is different from UHI) in: Waste Heat as a Contributor to Observed Warming
If we divide that by the surface area of the U.S. in meters, we get 0.33 watts per sq. meter.
Now, compare that the the total radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations supposedly operating today, which (according to the IPCC) is somewhere around 1.6 W/m2.
…
…waste heat from our use of energy keeps getting generated, no matter how much our surroundings have warmed. So, with this correction, we now see that waste heat generation (0.33) becomes more like 50% of the remaining radiative imbalance (0.6) from anthropogenic GHG production.
Waste Heat is Mostly Released in the Lowest 10% of the Atmosphere
It seems his observations were spot-on, as this new paper just published in Nature Climate Change tells us. From the University of San Diego:
Urban Heat Has Large-scale Climate Effects
Researchers find that heat given off by metropolitan areas is enough to influence winter warming
The heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas has a significant enough warming effect to influence the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems during winter months, according to a trio of climate researchers.
Led by Guang Zhang, a research meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, the scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the extra heat given off by Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) of warming in winter. They added that this effect helps explain the disparity between actual observed warming in the last half-century and the amount of warming that computer models have been able to account for.
“What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions,” said Zhang. “This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The study, “Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America,” appears in online editions of the journal Jan. 27. The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and NOAA supported the research.
Zhang, along with Ming Cai of Florida State University and Aixue Hu of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., considered the energy consumption – from heating buildings to powering vehicles – that generates waste heat release. The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was 16 terawatts (one terawatt equals 1 trillion watts). Of that, 6.7 TW were consumed in 86 metropolitan areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
The release of waste heat is different from energy that is naturally distributed in the atmosphere, the researchers noted. The largest source of heat, solar energy, warms Earth’s surface and atmospheric circulations distribute that energy from one region to another. Human energy consumption distributes energy that had lain dormant and sequestered for millions of years, mostly in the form of oil or coal. Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.
Zhang said the effect his team studied is distinct from the so-called urban heat island effect, an increase in the warmth of cities compared to unpopulated areas caused by human activities.
The authors report that the influence of urban heat can widen the jet stream and strengthens atmospheric flows at mid-latitudes. They add that the warming is not uniform. Partially counterbalancing it, the changes in major atmospheric systems cool areas of Europe by as much as 1 degree C, with much of the temperature decrease occurring in the fall.
Overall, these changes have a noticeable but slight effect on global temperatures, increasing them worldwide by an average of about 0.1 degree C.
The study does not address whether the urban heating effect disrupts atmospheric weather patterns or plays a role in accelerating global warming, though Zhang said drawing power from renewable sources such as solar or wind provides a societal benefit in that it does not add net energy into the atmosphere.
The authors also contend that the urban heat effect accounts for the discrepancy between observed warming and winter warming simulated in the models used by the climate science community for analysis and prediction of climate. They suggest that the influence of energy consumption accompany heat-trapping gases and aerosols as necessary variables in computer models.
###
Here is another press release from NCAR:
BOULDER—Even if you live more than 1,000 miles from the nearest large city, it could be affecting your weather.
In a new study that shows the extent to which human activities are influencing the atmosphere, scientists have concluded that the heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas alters the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems. This affects temperatures across thousands of miles, significantly warming some areas and cooling others, according to the study this week in Nature Climate Change.
The extra “waste heat” generated from buildings, cars, and other sources in major Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes winter warming across large areas of northern North America and northern Asia. Temperatures in some remote areas increase by as much as 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the research by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography; University of California, San Diego; Florida State University; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
At the same time, the changes to atmospheric circulation caused by the waste heat cool areas of Europe by as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with much of the temperature decrease occurring in the fall.
The net effect on global mean temperatures is nearly negligible—an average increase worldwide of just 0.01 degrees C (about 0.02 degrees F). This is because the total human-produced waste heat is only about 0.3 percent of the heat transported across higher latitudes by atmospheric and oceanic circulations.
However, the noticeable impact on regional temperatures may explain why some regions are experiencing more winter warming than projected by climate computer models, the researchers conclude. They suggest that models be adjusted to take the influence of waste heat into account.
“The burning of fossil fuel not only emits greenhouse gases but also directly affects temperatures because of heat that escapes from sources like buildings and cars,” says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, a co-author of the study. “Although much of this waste heat is concentrated in large cities, it can change atmospheric patterns in a way that raises or lowers temperatures across considerable distances.”
Distinct from urban heat island effect
The researchers stressed that the effect of waste heat is distinct from the so-called urban heat island effect. Such islands are mainly a function of the heat collected and re-radiated by pavement, buildings, and other urban features, whereas the new study examines the heat produced directly through transportation, heating and cooling units, and other activities.
The study, “Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America,” appeared online yesterday. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, as well as the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hu, along with lead author Guang Zhang of Scripps and Ming Cai of Florida State University, analyzed the energy consumption—from heating buildings to powering vehicles—that generates waste heat release. The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was equivalent to a constant-use rate of 16 terawatts (1 terawatt, or TW, equals 1 trillion watts). Of that, an average rate of 6.7 TW was consumed in 86 metropolitan areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
Using a computer model of the atmosphere, the authors found that the influence of this waste heat can widen the jet stream.
“What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions,” Zhang says. “This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The release of waste heat is different from energy that is naturally distributed in the atmosphere, the researchers noted. The largest source of heat, solar energy, warms Earth’s surface and atmospheric circulations redistribute that energy from one region to another. Human energy consumption distributes energy that had lain dormant and sequestered for millions of years, mostly in the form of oil or coal.
Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.
“The world’s most populated and energy-intensive metropolitan areas are along the east and west coasts of the North American and Eurasian continents, underneath the most prominent atmospheric circulation troughs and ridges,” Cai says. “The release of this concentrated waste energy causes the noticeable interruption to the normal atmospheric circulation systems above, leading to remote surface temperature changes far away from the regions where waste heat is generated.”
About the article
Title: Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America
Authors: Ghang J. Zhang, Ming Cai, and Aixue Hu
Publication: Nature Climate Change, January 27, 2013
===============================================================
The Paper:
Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America
Guang J. Zhang, Ming Cai, & Aixue Hu
Abstract:
The worldwide energy consumption in 2006 was close to 498 exajoules. This is equivalent to an energy convergence of 15.8 TW into the populated regions, where energy is consumed and dissipated into the atmosphere as heat. Although energy consumption is sparsely distributed over the vast Earth surface and is only about 0.3% of the total energy transport to the extratropics by atmospheric and oceanic circulations, this anthropogenic heating could disrupt the normal atmospheric circulation pattern and produce a far-reaching effect on surface air temperature. We identify the plausible climate impacts of energy consumption using a global climate model. The results show that the inclusion of energy use at 86 model grid points where it exceeds 0.4 W m−2 can lead to remote surface temperature changes by as much as 1 K in mid- and high latitudes in winter and autumn over North America and Eurasia. These regions correspond well to areas with large differences in surface temperature trends between observations and global warming simulations forced by all natural and anthropogenic forcings1. We conclude that energy consumption is probably a missing forcing for the additional winter warming trends in observations.
The supplementary Information (SI) for this paper is here, and well worth reading:
Click to access nclimate1803-s1.pdf
I’ll have updates to this in follow up stories – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This smacks of something that I have seen batted around lately. In the end both sides of the argument will probably be both right and both wrong in degrees (no pun intended). Each side being able to claim – legitimately – that the other side was wrong.
The tragedy would be that both sides had some meaningful contributions to the changing climate puzzle but neither was willing to listen to the other because of stubborn pride. Some man-made, some natural.
Poetry and irony. I think Shakespeare would love it.
How do you separate the waste heat from the unmixed CO2 plumes these urban areas certainly generate?
Wayne d says:
You miss the point. It is not that this energy from solar power does not end up as heat (or, more properly, thermal energy). Rather, it is that (at least much of) it would have ended up as thermal energy in the Earth-atmosphere system anyway had we not harnessed it. (I say “at least much of it” because if the use of solar panels were to decrease the Earth’s albedo, one could be producing thermal energy from solar energy that would have otherwise been reflected back into space.) The thing about fossil fuels is that were they to remain buried in the ground, the chemical energy stored in them would not get converted to thermal energy (at least at anything remotely close to the rate they are now).
LazyTeenager says:
January 27, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Charles Gerard Nelson says:
January 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Given the ‘efficiency’ of machines one can only assume that a substantial proportion of all energy consumed is not converted to ‘useful work’ but to waste heat instead.
———–
All of it ends up as heat eventually. In the long run its 100% efficient conversion to heat.
Dear Lazy Teenager.
Straighten us out here with your scientific wisdom.
Example. A diesel powered elevator is used to lift one ton of rock 500 feet, from the bottom of a quarry to the top. In the process produces ‘waste heat’ and performs ‘work’.
Could you explain what you mean when you say…
‘all of it ends up as heat eventually. In the long run its (sic) 100% efficient conversion to heat.’
How does one ton of rock sitting 500 feet above its former resting place ‘end up’ as ‘heat’?
Are all Warmists as dumb as you?
“Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth’s land–atmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively. Here, present and future global inventories of anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) are developed, and parameterizations derived for seasonal and diurnal flux cycles. Equilibrium climate experiments show statistically-significant continental-scale surface warming (0.4–0.9°C) produced by one 2100 AHF scenario, but not by current or 2040 estimates. However, significant increases in annual-mean temperature and planetary boundary layer (PBL) height occur over gridcells where present-day AHF exceeds 3.0 W m−2. PBL expansion leads to a slight, but significant increase in atmospheric residence time of aerosols emitted from large-AHF regions. Hence, AHF may influence regional climate projections and contemporary chemistry-climate studies.”
This is a 2009 article. Things to Note.
1. Roy spencers estimate for the US is close, but 3 years late.
2. The global number is much smaller.. . 028Watts
3. .028Watts, will get you .01C to .03C of warming UNLESS you assume a very sensitive climate
4. In 2009 it was thought that AHF could make a difference in regional projections.
5. The new paper shows one of these REGIONAL effects.
Underground coal seam fires are increasing. They cannot be extinguished in most cases. Certainly they are very large contributors to waste heat; it is estimated that up to 3% of all coal burning is from uncontrolled, underground coal seams:
http://www.sapient-horizons.com/Sapient/Underground_Fires.html
[Disregard the article’s CO2 nonsense, since CO2 has no measurable effect at current concentrations.]
People are worried about urban waste heat, when cities cover much less than 3% of the planet?? “Waste heat” seems to me to be just another scare story.
Chris Edwards says:
January 27, 2013 at 6:19 pm
but how is the 20 odd percent of oxygen holding up?
If CO2 went from 0.03% to 0.04%, then oxygen may have gone down from 20.96% to 20.95%. It is a bit more complicated than that since some of the CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean, but whatever the exact number is, it is not something to lose sleep over.
I have noticed two times in the last year when conditions were very near the rain, snow, or ice threshold, the precipitation has been snow all around Fargo ND but Fargo itself had rain or ice. Don’t know if its UHI effect, or just coincidence. Or it could even be a mistake on the radar. I don’t think radar actually detects rain, snow etc, but the various weather services, intellicast, accuweather or whatever use algorithms to have their radars show the type of precipitation based on atmospheric conditions. I know, its totally unscientific to conclude its UHI base on noticing it two times. I plan to try to look at the radar more often when temps are near 32 F. Still, a proper scientific study would have to be done to determine if its statistically significant. One could look at the entire nation, not just where one lives too. I wasn’t trying to do any such study. Just looking at my local radar. Take it for what its worth, which is probably nothing 🙂
The electrical power generating capacity of the US is approx. a million megawatts or 1×10^12 W (1TW) which corresponds to 1×10^12 Joules (1TJ) per second of energy. You have to add energy for cars, planes, heating and other uses. So I am assuming 16TW implies the consumption rate which means we consume energy at the rate of 16TJ per second. Multiply that by the number of seconds in a year (~3.2 x 10^7 seconds) and you get ~3.2 x 16 x 10^19 J of energy per year…
I’ll have to see if I can track it down, but sometime in the last year I remember having a vehement disagreement with someone regarding a study of waste heat and its effect on global temperatures. The paper essentially blamed the lion’s share of global warming on the direct heat transferred to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels and constrained the effect of GHG’s to less than 50%(?) of any global warming.
I think what this type of research clearly demonstrates is that even if there has been 0.8C of warming in the past 100 years, it’s divided between so many factors, natural and anthropogenic, that no single cause can be considered of great significance. Even if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the largest contributor to a warmer world, once you account for the effects of land use changes, water diversion, urbanization, and increased heat from combustion, the remaining temperature increase attributable to GHG’s is a fraction of that 0.8C (which really isn’t a worrisome increase to begin with).
Gee, maybe civilization isn’t in danger after all…
To put this in perspective, the paper estimates global human power generation at 16 TW or 0.0314 w/m2 over the earth’s surface. The estimated power generated by radioactive decay in the earths core is 44TW or 0.0863 w/m2, nearly 3 times as great.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
Both sources have a negligible effect on GLOBAL temperatures or climate. On the other hand, it seems plausible that waste heat could cause a small but potentially measurable localized increase in surface temperatures, particularly at night and during winter. However, even localized heating will probably be very difficult to attribute specifically to waste heat rather than other effects. E.g., if we take Dr. Spencer’s estimate of 0.33w/m2 for the US and assume the wast heat is concentrated in just 5% of the land area we get localized generation of 6.6 w/m2. This is less than 4% of the 164 w/m2 average global insolation so the wast heat effect will be hard to separate from small changes in albedo due to land use.
My take away is that if anything, the paper casts just a bit more doubt on the utility of the land surface temperature record and the reliable classification of thermometers as “rural”.
We are in the midst of the experiment, yet measurements are being changed to reflect a precoceived notion.
Data be damned, the funding points to the future.
Prove me wrong, please.
Lady Life Grows says:
January 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm
For hundreds of millions of years the global average temperature was 72F, or exactly room temperature (assuming paleoclimatologists are correct in their estimates).
Warming would be GOOD. We need to harp on that reality a whole lot more.
===========
Agreed. Human being cannot survive sustained temperatures below those of the tropical jungles without technology. In contrast there is no place on earth too hot for humans so long as there is water.
Most of the change has been in raising low temperatures, not in raising high temperatures, which holds virtually no risk to humans, so using the average is highly misleading.
How is it a bad thing to raise low temperatures while leaving high temperatures relatively unchanged? This simply makes the climate more moderate, which should reduce costs and risks in the long term.
D.B. Stealey says:
January 27, 2013 at 7:49 pm
People are worried about urban waste heat, when cities cover much less than 3% of the planet??
===========
land only covers 30% of the earth. 40% of that is used for argriculture. The rest of the land is ice, rock, mountains and deserts. 150 years ago we used 4% of the land for agriculture. About the same amount as we now use for cities.
davidmhoffer says:
Skin temperature ~ 20 C
Via SB Law = 418 w/m2
Average area of skin per person ~ 1.8 m2
Population 7 billion
418*1.8*7000000000= 5.3*10^12
Area of earth = 5.1*10^14
(5.3*10^12)/(5.1*10^14)= 0.01 w/m2
via SB Law, assuming an average earth temperature of 15 C, temps would increase to:
15.002 C
awg might be real, but not due to human beings radiating from their skin.
—
Up front, I’m kidding you David. Don’t take it personally.
But how many times have I told you not to forget the “back radiation”? You of all people on that subject (igloo warming via “back radiation”). See why I always calculate NET radiation? Huh? Prevents simple slips. 98.6F is 310K. 70F is 294K. Take 5.67E-08‹W/m²/K^4› ∙ (310‹K›^4 – 294‹K›^4) to give 100 W/m2 (that’s documented) time 1.5 m² of skin that the average person’s skin radiates about 150 W, not 418 W.
So rock back your impact from human’s heat on global temperature back to about 15 C + 0.0007 C.
Now try exactly that same calculation you performed using the 16 TW given in the articles, the total global energy used.
I get +0.03 W/m2, not 0.33 W/m2. I get 15 C + 0.005 C for all energy used by man (2006). How about you? You check me this time.
Of course all of this relies on Earth’s ability to spread about energy. LOL.
While 0.33 watt/m^2 may be a lot for the continental U.S., the 16 TW used worldwide, spread over the earth surface is only 0.03 watt/m^2.
=================
Assuming that cities cover about 3% of the land, and land covers 30% of the planet, this means that cities cover about 1/100 of the earth.
Multiply 0.03 watt/m^2 by 100 = 3.0 watt/m^2 . Which means that in cities the waste heat is double the 1.6 W/ms GHG effect cited by the IPCC.
RE: OssQss says:
January 27, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Very funny “Butterfly Effect” commercial. Thanks. I needed that laugh.
Well, ya gotta admit, this time they’ve got US. We can’t escape Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot’s lessons on thermodynamics. It’s back to the caves for US. IIRC, Carnot Efficiency is the ratio of system high temperature to system low temperature, the difference is waste heat.
Carnot is the best you can do. Reality is worse. Sometimes much worse. (Electric heating vs natural gas).
pyeatte says:
January 27, 2013 at 8:23 pm
The electrical power generating capacity of the US is approx. a million megawatts or 1×10^12 W (1TW) which corresponds to 1×10^12 Joules (1TJ) per second of energy. You have to add energy for cars, planes, heating and other uses. So I am assuming 16TW implies the consumption rate which means we consume energy at the rate of 16TJ per second. Multiply that by the number of seconds in a year (~3.2 x 10^7 seconds) and you get ~3.2 x 16 x 10^19 J of energy per year…
——————————————
-total generating capacity is [irrelevant]. Total capacity of an electrical system needs to be at least 115% of max peak load to prevent catastrophic failure. Actual average production is much less.
-The idea that energy is consumed at a continuous rate every second of the year is just silly.
-When I see wrong units used I do not even consider the information. How can you take a study seriously when the author does not [understand] high school physics? The same applies to Mosher’s Watts per Square Metre. It is totally meaningless. Is it average for a year? Peak for a second? Minimum? Why not say? Why not use the correct units? I can’t see for the smoke.
The image used appears to show the Norwegian Fjords lit up like a Christmas tree.
And on another note Polywell Fusion, TriAlpha Energy, and Focus Fusion – all designs which could do direct conversion of the energy produced (reversed particle accelerator) vs ITER’s steam plant – are getting a pittance of what ITER does for development.
In addition if Polywell works we will have access to asteroid belt material. The end of resource constraints for quite some time – likely millions of years. At minimum 100K years. Enough time to figure out what to do next.
Polywell and the rest are low neutron radiation devices. ITER is a high neutron radiation device.
So what are the alternates getting? Millions. What is ITER getting? Billions.
I don’t get it.
D.B. Stealey says:“Waste heat” seems to me to be just another scare story.
More of a misnomer than anything else because almost all of the energy we use from any source ultimately ends up as heat. (If we use enough maybe we can stave off the next ice age?)
And location does matter – for example, O’Hare airport, from 1989 to end of 2012, saw 20,773,461 take-offs and landings (divide by half for number of flights).
Odd number 20,773,461. I take it there was a crash. And the plane was scrapped?
OK, the abstract says ‘498 exajoules’, which is energy, which comes out as about 16 Terawatt-seconds per year.
Two pearls:
“The authors report that the influence of urban heat can widen the jet stream and strengthens atmospheric flows at mid-latitudes.”
And
“The study does not address whether the urban heating effect disrupts atmospheric weather patterns…”
1) Not at one contradiction obviously…
“Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.”
2) LOL Please O “climatologists”, tell us WHERE to build cities that are not under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams?