Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
10
6
Cooling tower
10
5
Nuclear power
plant (1500MW)
10
4
Refinery (6m t/yr)
Cumulus cell
Thunderstorm
10
3
Steel mill
Extraterrestrial
solar radiation
Manhattan
Moscow
Depression
Net radiation
at earth's surface
Montreal
10
2
Tokyo
Chicago
Los Angeles
Ruhr
Budapest
Washington
Vancover
Sheffield
Munich
Hamburg
10
Boston-Washington
Available potential
energy
Donetz Basin
West Germany
Benelux
1
UK
East Germany
Central and West Europe
Japan
France
USA
Photosynthesis
Earlier 1970s
Later 1970s
North America
10
-1
Geothermal heat
USSR
Continents
World
10
-2
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
2
10
3
Area (km
2
)
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
1
10
Figure 12.26
A comparison of natural and artificial heat sources in the global climate system on small,
meso- and synoptic scales. Generalized regressions are given for artificial heat releases in the 1970s (early
1970s: circles, late 1970s: dots), together with predictions for 2050.
Sources: Modified after Pankrath (1980) and Bach (1979).
illustrates the magnitude and spatial scale of
artificial and natural energy fluxes and projected
increases. In Cincinnati, a significant proportion
of the energy budget is generated by human
activity, even in summer (see
Table 12.2
). This
averages 26W m
-2
or more, two-thirds of which
was produced by industrial, commercial and
domestic sources and one-third by cars. In the
extreme situation of Arctic settlements during
polar darkness, the energy balance during calm
conditions depends only on net longwave
radiation and heat production by anthropogenic
activities. In Reykjavik, Iceland (population
100.000) the anthropogenic heat release is 35W m
-2
