Why don't (man made) generators of heat from internal sources in earths system cause climate change?












3












$begingroup$


So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    3 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    3 hours ago














3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




So I'm very far from a climate scientist but I've always wondered, why don't things like electric heaters, lightbulbs etc... contribute to climate change, or even things like accelerated decay of radioactive material. Human caused factors. I'm fairly sure It's due to the equilibrium being very stable to relatively small factors that we humans contribute and it can simply radiate away into space but I honestly have no idea.



A simple calculation I did just now after thinking about it in some more depth put it this way:
If every human had 100 100W fluorescent lightbulb (5% efficiency) each and were to leave it on for a year. I feel this maybe an overshoot by a few order of magnitudes but my aim is to account for other heat sources that take the average over the humans average
We'd have Power output as heat:
$$E_{heat} = 0.95 * 100 * 100 * (60*60*24*365) * (7.5 * 10^9) = 2.2 * 10^{21} J year^{-1}$$
Then with maybe a too simple $E=mcDelta T$ equation




The atmosphere has a mass of about $5.15×10^{18}$ kg (Wikipedia)




specific heat capacity of air:




SHC of air 0.716 https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html




$$E_{heat} = M c Delta T$$



$$2.2 * 10^{21} = 5.15×10^{18} * 716 * Delta T$$
$$=> Delta T = 0.6K / year$$



Small amount for what I feel is still a gross overestimation of 100 x 100W lightbulbs per person as an internal energy output, but why isn't this a factor especially as the world becomes more energy hungry? Is it 'heat neutral' I find it hard to imagine that something even like a wind turbine generating the electricity would decrease the heat energy in the air more than an electric heater powered off of it would. And why large nuclear energy sources human accelerated don't play a large effect.







atmospheric-science climate-science






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Ján Lalinský

14.8k1334




14.8k1334










asked 4 hours ago









SkidusheSkidushe

162




162












  • $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    3 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
    $endgroup$
    – jinawee
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Most estimates of yearly energy consumption are around $5cdot 10^{20}$, so not that far off.
$endgroup$
– jinawee
3 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



    There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



    The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      -1












      $begingroup$

      Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



      Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



      Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
        $endgroup$
        – craq
        5 mins ago











      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459462%2fwhy-dont-man-made-generators-of-heat-from-internal-sources-in-earths-system-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



      With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



        With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



          With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The forcing due to CO$_2$ is much larger. For example "business as usual" is RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) which will give 8.5 W/m$^2$ extra heat due to greenhouse gases in the future. Over the whole surface of the Earth, that is $4.10^{15}$ W or $10^{23}$ J/year.



          With that calculation using heat capacity, that would create very a rapid rise in temperature of the atmosphere, year after year. It is not the proper way to analyze the effects of an extra forcing. Instead, one should look at steady state. Currently, the surface of the Earth radiates about 400 W/m$2$. An additional 8.5 W/m2 means a 2 % increase. Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann $T^4$ law, this would in steady state give a 0.5 % rise in temperature, about 1.5 degrees. (Very crude back-of-the envelope estimate)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 2 hours ago

























          answered 3 hours ago









          PieterPieter

          8,11431432




          8,11431432























              3












              $begingroup$

              The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



              There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



              The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$

                The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



                There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



                The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



                  There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



                  The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  The power involved does not represent a significant fraction of the total energy budget, so it can normally be ignored. Assuming (per Wikipedia Solar Energy) that the energy received on earth from the sun is about $3times 10^{24} text{J/year}$ and total energy production on earth is (per Energy Consumption) about $6 times 10^{20} text{J/year}$, worldwide energy production would represent a value of 0.02 on this chart.



                  There's a huge amount of fudge there. The value really represents energy consumption, so the heat output of production will be greater. At the same time, production from water/solar/wind are counted, when they do not produce additional heat (since it's already counted in the solar figure). But the figures would need a 50x boost to even reach a 1 on the chart.



                  The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  BowlOfRedBowlOfRed

                  16.1k22440




                  16.1k22440























                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



                      Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



                      Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
                        $endgroup$
                        – craq
                        5 mins ago
















                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



                      Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



                      Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
                        $endgroup$
                        – craq
                        5 mins ago














                      -1












                      -1








                      -1





                      $begingroup$

                      Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



                      Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



                      Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      Almost all household consumption of electric energy produces equivalent heat, and this does contribute to heating the planet, no matter how the electric energy was produced.



                      Similar thing is true for many (probably most) industrial use of electric energy - most of it dissipates into heat and turns into internal energy of atmosphere and Earth crust. This too contributes to heating the planet.



                      Whether this effect on warming is substantial when compared to warming due to rising CO$_2$ I do not know. Probably it is ( as can be estimated from your calculation), but decreasing it is very hard, especially in developing countries that play catch-up to the developed countries. Certainly it is much easier to convince people to limit/stop burning coal and fossil fuels and use other sources of energy, than to limit/stop consuming equivalent energy in electrical devices.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered 3 hours ago









                      Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský

                      14.8k1334




                      14.8k1334












                      • $begingroup$
                        Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
                        $endgroup$
                        – craq
                        5 mins ago


















                      • $begingroup$
                        Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
                        $endgroup$
                        – craq
                        5 mins ago
















                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
                      $endgroup$
                      – craq
                      5 mins ago




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry, this is not correct. The important point for OP is that human energy use is absolutely tiny compared to the energy entering/leaving the atmosphere, as explained by the other answers from BowlOfRed and Pieter. The effect of human energy consumption is definitely not "substantial" compared to the effect of CO2.
                      $endgroup$
                      – craq
                      5 mins ago


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f459462%2fwhy-dont-man-made-generators-of-heat-from-internal-sources-in-earths-system-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to label and detect the document text images

                      Vallis Paradisi

                      Tabula Rosettana