Moving from million-year to annual measurements, the Mauna Loa data shows a cyclic annual fluctuation of CO2 in addition to a slow general trend. The peak CO2 level occurs in summer, whereas peak anthropogenic emission is obviously in winter. The obvious (to me anyway, but I'm only a scientist, not a priest or a politician) explanation is that insects and other coldblooded creatures are more active in summer, converting plant material to CO2. Thus temperature controls CO2, not the other way around.
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.
So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?
David Jones asked the Naked Scientists:
Dear Chris, I have watched a youtube video called The Great Global Warming Swindle which puts forward convincing evidence that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Featured on the programme are Nigel Lawson, Nigel Calder (ex New Scientist Editor), Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace). They actually show graphs that say that over long periods of time, temperatures rise and THEN, 800 years later CO2 levels rise. They also show eveidence that states in the 1940s to 1970s when CO2 levels rose significantly, temps dropped. They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity. How can climate change scientists refute these facts? Please explain. Thanks Hywel Jones
What do you think?
David Jones asked the Naked Scientists:They might actually be right about long term changes and those time periods, but they are conveniently overlooking one simple fact: We've applied combustion to tens or hundreds of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in just 150 years to power the Industrial Revolution, so "long periods of time" and "800 years" don't apply to current changes. This sort of environmental change is unprecedented. It produces both heat AND carbon dioxide. Even the rise of the first photosynthetic organisms didn't change the atmosphere this fast. In fact, the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content and temperature move in lockstep, and have for at least 800,000 years.
Dear Chris, I have watched a youtube video called The Great Global Warming Swindle which puts forward convincing evidence that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Featured on the programme are Nigel Lawson, Nigel Calder (ex New Scientist Editor), Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace). They actually show graphs that say that over long periods of time, temperatures rise and THEN, 800 years later CO2 levels rise. They also show eveidence that states in the 1940s to 1970s when CO2 levels rose significantly, temps dropped. They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity. How can climate change scientists refute these facts? Please explain. Thanks Hywel Jones
What do you think?
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
3% true.
There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
You need to remove the underlying upward trend to see the seasonal cycle more clearly.Interesting, I have never really thought about it that way. I'd like to take a stab at guessing the cause. Temperature of the ocean. I don't like watering my house plants with tap water because of the chlorine and chemicals, but I'm too cheap to buy them bottled water. My alternative is to run hot water into a vessel, then leave it sitting around for a while until it's cool. The high temperature makes the chlorine and gases evaporate faster, leaving you with something closer to natural water. It even tastes better. Similarly, I would assume that when the ocean is cooler, it is better at absorbing carbon dioxide, less efficient when it is warm.
The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved? Or are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?
One more guess, and this is a pretty wild one: Some human populations still rely on inefficient sources of heat when it is cold, like burning wood. So, depending on what population in which hemisphere is experiencing winter, you might have a higher or lower percentage of people releasing more or less carbon dioxide per capita, and natural absorption processes then either start to catch up or fall behind.
The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved? Or are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?There's going to be a lag relative to the growing season; the material that grows in the peak growing season is going to take a while to break down, and will still be breakng down while new growth is happening.
are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?
So it's pretty clear that temperature is driving some nonhuman source of CO2 that is more significant than the anthropogenic one.Not quoting any sources here, just regurgitating a bunch of stuff I already know, so I'm not posting any links. There are a lot of feedback loops driving this phenomenon. One good example is the melting of permafrost. The more CO2 we release, the hotter it gets, permafrost melts and glaciers recede, exposing dead and decomposing matter, which releases CO2. If it gets hot enough to wither and destroy trees (I saw this happen to a lot of oak trees in Texas several years back), they release CO2, or they start to get eaten by termites, which releases CO2, etc. A hotter ocean is less likely to absorb CO2. Then you have things like the albedo effect, so the less ice there is to reflect heat back into space, the more stays here to make it hot, releasing even more CO2.
3. Remember that a causal relationship demands (a) a lag between cause and effect and (b) a concomitant reduction in effect with a simiilar lag characteristic when the cause is reduced.After 800,000 years of not rising above about 320 parts per million, in the 150 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 content has risen above 400 ppm, a full 20% higher than it was in any of those ice core samples.
4. Never mind human history, ice core data suggests CO2 lags 100 - 500 years behind temperature so it can't be a driver.
All of which suggests that the most honest explanation of the status quo, based purely on evidence, is coincidence, not causality.
Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.
Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?
But let's not get distracted by a non-issue.
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
3% true.
There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.
Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.
Here, on the other hand, is a recent finding that may explain a lot:
shows that melting of Antarctic ice releases huge quantities of CO2. There's no reason why this shouldn't also apply to seasonal melting of Arctic ice, so once again we would expect to find a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, but with temperature being the driver.
This is fortunate as it brings chemistry, geology and climatology into line with the known physics of water and carbon dioxide.
The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.Is that what's turning your letters blue?
It's not arrogance. It's indignation, because arrogant people like you think they know more than scientists. After 25+ years of arguing with people like you, I've had it up to here. I've got news for you, pal. When they say 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, that's not just liberal scientists. That is the INTERNATIONAL panel on climate change. That means scientists in countries like China and Russia are included, not just socialist European countries and liberal Democracies. Scientists and all over the world agree.
Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?
To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there.There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.
So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?
They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity.So, if that's true, we know what sunspot activity has been like for the last 800,000 years.
Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?On my planet, or at least the northern hemisphere of it, most crop is harvested in the third quarter of the solar year. Some soft fruit ripens earlier and it's a good idea to eat it before the birds do, but apples, wheat, barley, corn, rice, potatoes, grapes, olives, and indeed pretty much everything we eat, is harvested from mid-August to mid-October, by which time the plants have slowed or stopped growing. And Seville oranges are harvested from December, when the trees are completely dormant.
To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there.
Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.No.
Correct, except I wasn't talking about a "net" effect. I was talking about the seasonal fluctuations mentioned by another poster. He suggested it's counterintuitive how CO2 goes up and down in relation to crop harvests, so I suggested this as an explanation. We grow crops, CO2 comes out of the atmosphere. We harvest the crops, CO2 goes back in. I never said anything about a net effect.Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.No.
That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect.
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
3% true.
There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.
Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.
If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.
1) That's not how the so-called Greenhouse Effect works. A lot of the Sun's energy that would "bounce" off the Earth and back into space is what gets trapped.
If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.
The greenhouse analogy may not be an accurate visualization, since it implies transparent windows which trap the heat inside the greenhouse. This models CO2 as a one way IR valve. A better analogy may a greenhouse with windows that are covered in semi-opaque white plastic, which allows some light transmission but reflects heat in both directions. This type of greenhouse house never gets as hot as expected, since it traps less input heat than transparent windows. All the models predict 100-1200% more temperature rise than observed, which could be explained by the white plastic on the windows.
Water is the main thermal regulator of the earth. Below is the absorption spectrum of water: Water will absorb any X-rays from the sun. Water gets more transparent from UV into the visible spectrum, then it begins to absorb heavily in the IR and microwave regions.
"The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved?"
The CO2 may form a hydration shell from a symmetrical dodecahedral arrangement of 18 water molecules where each CO2 oxygen atom is hydrogen bonded to three water molecules. Such hydrogen bonding is likely to be weak, transient and exchanging between a continuum of structures. This allows some cooperation between the hydrogen bonding at both ends of the CO2 molecule.
CO2, being a rigid linear molecule of negligible concentration, is a trivial contributor to the greenhouse effect - as can be seen from the surface temperature of Mars.False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.
Yes, there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but all the science shows that temperature is the cause (thermostat) and CO2 is the effect (thermometer). At least that was he case until recently when, during a coincidental warming period, homo sapiens started adding a bit more CO2 to the atmosphere and thus distorted the data.
False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.
I really don't understand anything about, but from a sort of Bayesian standpoint, why do you guys disagree with the world wide consensus on climate change - what is it that most climate scientists have gotten wrong and why?
But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.
Due to the partial covalence of water's hydrogen bonding, electrons are not held by individual molecules but are easily distributed amongst water clusters giving rise to coherent regions [1691] capable of interacting with local electric [1692] and magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation
False. You're conveniently forgetting that the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than ours. If you took everything out of Earth's atmosphere but the carbon dioxide, then added 100 times more carbon dioxide, that would NOT be enough to keep the planet warm.False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.
But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.False. I don't know how many times I have to say this. When they say, "97% of climate scientists agree," that means not just liberal Democrat scientists in the U.S. The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.
Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics.You're the one trying to repeal the laws of physics, Alan. Mass/energy conversion does what it does despite your protests. Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis." Apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years, and you're going to get a rise in temperatures when all that stored solar energy is released.
Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics.You're the one trying to repeal the laws of physics, Alan. Mass/energy conversion does what it does despite your protests. Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis." Apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years, and you're going to get a rise in temperatures when all that stored solar energy is released.
You really need to let go of your confirmation biases and accept facts here. Combustion of fossil fuels produces heat, CO2 and entropy. Actions don't occur without reactions. That's physics. That's reality. Deal with it.
Craig, I agree with you that the greenhouse effect is a real, significant and anthropomorphic force, but I don't think arguments such as these ↑ are very helpful.A) Sorry. I've grown increasingly frustrated and impatient over the years. I just turned 47. In 1988, I read Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World" for the first time. I became an avid environmentalist. I studied science specifically to understand this issue better. I have watched the predictions in his book come true, everything falling like a line of dominoes. This is not the time for politeness. It is time for Flat Earth climate change skeptics to wake up and smell the coffee, whether or not they prefer instant or fresh ground.
A) Please try to be more polite. We are all here for scientific discussion and debate, so when the debate happens it should be done using the same language we use when we discuss. It is so easy for flame wars to erupt from ad hominem attacks because of the online medium (I caution ALL of the participants in this discussion to avoid snarking, even moderators such as myself)
B) Claiming trees convert energy into mass by photosynthesis is at best misleading. The increase in apparent mass of a tree due to the stored chemical energy is insignificant compared to the mass of biomass required to form that biomass. Trees get almost all of their mass from matter inputs such as CO2 and H2O, which they convert into sugars (C6H10O5)n, storing about 17.35 kJ per gram. If a tree has stored 500 kg worth of energy as cellulose, that works out to about 86.7 GJ. Using E = mc2, I calculate that it adds just over 965 micrograms of mass.
C) Similarly, the heat being released by combustion is insignificant compared to the effect of the CO2. We currently use energy at less than 20 TW globally. If we assume that all of it ends up as heat, and compare that to the heat the Earth receives from the sun 176000 TW globally, plus the heat from the decay of radioactive isotopes in the core (about 44 TW, also insignificant), then anthropogenic combustion adds about 0.01% to the energy coming in. And since radiative loss scales with T4, and ambient surface temperatures are typically between 250 and 350 K, this additive increase in energy flux will have no significant force on the temperature.
However, increasing the insulation of the atmosphere by increasing the retention of IR radiation can decrease the rate of radiative cooling by several % for a given T, so increases of several degrees can be produced.
D) I will agree with you as far as the money goes. Alan, I can't think of anyone making money from scaremongering, at least nothing close to the money that is generated for fossil fuel producers. If we want to think that this discussion is biased due to monetary concerns I don't think that it is is side asking for regulations is the place to look... Governments and/or industries need money to perform services. Just as you pay to have your sewage treated or your garbage hauled off, you need to pay to mitigate the harms cause by using fossil fuels.
I am libertarian in many ways, but I think that taxes or fines on negative externalities (harming commonly owned resources, like the atmosphere) make perfect sense to combat "Tragedies of the Commons." A "carbon tax" makes a lot of sense to me.
Was February yesterday? Na, week or two ago, it's also the 1st time in ~23 million years CO² concentration in the atmosphere has been as high as 400ppm.Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.
Coincidentally this past February is also the warmest month on record. Correlation or coincidence? Me thinks the jury is still hung.
Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.
False. You're conveniently forgetting that the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than ours. If you took everything out of Earth's atmosphere but the carbon dioxide, then added 100 times more carbon dioxide, that would NOT be enough to keep the planet warm.I didn't "forget" it. I began with it. You'd be well advised to revise Dalton's Law of partial pressures.
Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis."No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy).
The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.But it is primarily intergovernmental, i.e. driven by politics, and only seeks and publishes opinions with which the Panel itself agrees - apart from the footnote statement of incompetence I mentioned earlier.
Correlation is not proof of causation.
There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.
Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing. Observed correlation. Now let's test for causation.
If you look at the physics of infrared absorption and actually put in some numbers, it's obvious that CO2 is not the cause. If you don't understand physics you can build a model of past data and predict what will happen next, and as puppypower points out, if that model uses CO2 as the causative input, you consistently get the wrong answer. Or you can look carefully at historic data and note the 500 - 800 year lag between temperature and CO2. Or you can look at recent data and ask why CO2 levels are highest in summer, when humans are burning less fuel of all types.
There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.That's a stupid analogy. Here's a better one.
No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy).FALSE. That's not mass/energy conversion. It is the photon that provides the extra mass. In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass. I didn't say it's a significant amount of mass. Anyone who understands the equation E = mc^2 knows that the speed of light squared and reciprocated means a tiny amount of mass comes from the energy of one photon. I never said it was "significant" relativistic mass. I know better. But it is still mass/energy conversion. Same goes for a termite eating a tree, just reversed. Those complex, high energy molecules enter a digestive system and get broken down. The heat energy of the photons food contains is what keeps your body temperature nice and toasty.
Nobody is denying the CO2 is going up. However, the expected temperature increase is being over estimated by all the computers models. There is something wrong with their assumptions since the actual temperature rise is 100-1200% lower than the models are predicting.The ocean is part of the problem. It absorbs CO2, but we're not sure how much. So far, the ocean has been absorbing lots of the extra CO2, but we're not sure how saturated it is getting. Also, the oceans circulate pretty slowly and contain so much water that we're not sure how long it takes to get saturated all the way to the bottom. We've been lucky so far, but if and when the ocean is not able to absorb more CO2, all the rest is going to start staying in the atmosphere and rate of increase will accelerate. That would be a really bad thing.
If all models are too high by 100-1200% either we have over estimated the impact of CO2 on global temperature, or we have ignored moderating variables, such as water.
Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me.
In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.
Yeah, I know there's more to it than that. I took a year of Biology for majors my first year in college thinking at the time that would be my major. I fully understand how photosynthesis works, not to mention oxidative phosphorylation, cellular respiration, the citric acid cycle, the proton pump, etc. so maybe your are outclassed on this one. I also know what mass/energy conversion is, and the principle of mass/energy equivalence. I also know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. So, you can obfuscate the issues and put words in my mouth all day long, but you're not going to change my mind about any of this because I have learned my science correctly.In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.
You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV.
It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation".That's not a rat you smell. It's a rotting baby you threw out with the bath water.
On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.
The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work?When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.
*we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.Are you sure you're a physicist? In my estimation as a layman, it's ALL important. To the best of my knowledge, real physicists operate according to the Scientific Method, which does NOT include sweeping the "bits in the middle" under a rug.
There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.
But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.
The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work?When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.
Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.
"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?
I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.
"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.
Your are wrong.
There is plenty of room for everybody.
There are plenty of resources for everybody.
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.
Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.
Your are wrong.
There is plenty of room for everybody.
There are plenty of resources for everybody.
Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.
Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita.
Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.
Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.
Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.
RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR ANOMALY °C ANOMALY °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97
That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.
So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?
It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO2 concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand.
Your are wrong.
There is plenty of room for everybody.
There are plenty of resources for everybody.
That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.
Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.
Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.
Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.
Fascinating. Nobody had been to the North Pole, the top of Everest, or measured any temperatures in continental Antarctica in 1880. International thermometry was not usefully standardised until 1920 - indeed nobody was really interested in accurate ground surface temperature measurement unitl the advent of the aeroplane, and I'd be particularly interested to know how your authoritatve source measured the mean surface temperatrure of the Pacific Ocean.
Being a pernickety sort (i.e. a physicist), I always ask people how they defined the parameter they are talking about, and how they measured it. Never had an answer for "global mean temperature" until 1970, and even the satellite data has been "corrected" several times since - remarkably, always towards the predicted value of the climate scaremongers!
Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.
DOH,
Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago. I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record. Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....
Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately ;)
The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing CO² content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.
Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow ;) Fortunate or not the correlation still stands [:-\]
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.
Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
7. A dead hippopotamus cannot lie. Finding the bones of several such animals in Cambridgeshire suggests that this part of the world, at least, was a heck of a lot warmer a few thousand years ago. Knife marks on the bones suggest human activity, and I very much doubt that anyone was importing hippo thighs for fun and profit.I never heard of that, so I looked it up. Wikipedia says those bones are from 120,000 years ago. That's a lot longer than the "few thousand years" you said.Quote: "They eventually discovered 127 bones that came mostly from a hippopotamus, with a few belonging to rhinoceros and elephant," so that's not "several such animals" like you said. Like most skeptics, you are playing loosely with the facts ... again. And it's sort of hard to believe a single hippo, single rhino, and a single elephant would have teamed up to make a trek to Derby across a land bridge. Seems more like they were placed there. Are you sure you're not getting this story mixed up with the movie Ice Age or something?
Maybe you are under the impression that when the planet gets warmer or cooler, that warm or cool gets evenly distributed. Maybe you haven't heard of things like the Atlantic Conveyor. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, which sets the trend for circulation of the Atlantic's waters. A sufficient influx of fresh water could shut it down, meaning as the rest of the planet gets warmer, the British Isles could get cooler. The opposite could in fact happen and probably has. There's more to climate change than just a simple, evenly distributed temperature rise. Due to the geography and physical features of the Earth, the distribution, absorption and dissipation of heat is never going to be even, so yes, you can get anomalies like hippos in places you might not expect, especially given 120,000 years.
You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?
The Atlantic convayor is wind driven.FALSE. Like any other example of thermohaline circulation, the Atlantic Conveyor is driven by density gradients arising from uneven surface temperatures ("thermo") and freshwater influx into salt water ("haline").
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.https://books.google.com/books?id=d_arS8LsAtIC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=diminishing+returns+of+technology+rifkin&source=bl&ots=2Y90VmpEWU&sig=riCbydTijX1-7_tC8nywzSx59_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj54NHRkMPLAhVRyWMKHSCnBsIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diminishing%20returns%20of%20technology%20rifkin&f=false
You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering.
The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering.
Government expenditure on "climate concerns" (mostly, it seems, on ridiculous transport and security costs for pointless conferences) is not the point. By claiming some green credential, governments can impose massive taxes on fossil fuel, so the global warming swindle is perpetuated because a direct tax on food, health and all the other things that use fossil fuel, would be considered immoral. Some of the tax revenue filters back to the scaremongering industry: a very efficient use of your money to extract more.
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.
That's not my statement. That's something I read in a magazine several years ago. Mathematicians did those calculations, not me. And it doesn't seem that exaggerated. This is the nature of exponential growth.
Human population has doubled in about 50 years, keep doubling every 50 years, that leaves you with about 4 trillion people in 500 years. Even if they use less resources in the future, that's still a lot of people.
Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
False.
Business doesn't work that way. "Job creators" are largely a myth.
When the economy is good, businesses hire. When the economy is bad, they lay people off.
What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers.
Business responds to their demand by producing supply.
People are as much to blame as anyone.
Even basics like food are a good example. There is plenty of lettuce out there to make salads, but Americans don't eat salads, they eat cheeseburgers.
That's their choice. That's why there's an obesity epidemic.
Similarly, I have no biological children. I don't drive a car. I eat low on the food chain. These are all personal decisions anyone can make. People can always NOT consume what they are offered. However, especially in the US, conspicuous consumption is a status symbol, and that's a big part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is education. Kids don't like math and science, it's "too hard," they would rather watch videos and play video games all day, just like they have since I was a kid, and every generation gets a little bit farther from the knowledge that could help them make good decisions about things like obesity and climate change. That's something you could blame on Big Business. They control the curriculum. American kids are basically indoctrinated to become part of the Consumer Class and the present system, but when we try to change the curriculum, conservatives claim we are the ones doing the indoctrination.
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.https://books.google.com/books?id=d_arS8LsAtIC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=diminishing+returns+of+technology+rifkin&source=bl&ots=2Y90VmpEWU&sig=riCbydTijX1-7_tC8nywzSx59_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj54NHRkMPLAhVRyWMKHSCnBsIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diminishing%20returns%20of%20technology%20rifkin&f=false
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/02/globalisation.globalrecession
That's curious, because you're also opposed to spending on researching the topic based on this remark:Government expenditure on "climate concerns" (mostly, it seems, on ridiculous transport and security costs for pointless conferences) is not the point. By claiming some green credential, governments can impose massive taxes on fossil fuel, so the global warming swindle is perpetuated because a direct tax on food, health and all the other things that use fossil fuel, would be considered immoral. Some of the tax revenue filters back to the scaremongering industry: a very efficient use of your money to extract more.
exponential growth of humanity?
Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers.
No false, the market drivers are those who make and maintain a market, primarily. It took 6 attemps to get people to buy premade sandwiches on the 6th attempt after all the investment, advertising, marketing, free tasters, people actually started to buy pre made sandwiches, 5 attempts failed because there was no market, they the sandwich makers, built one. And covered the sandwiches in plastic, kept them in fridges, and throw them away after a few days because they are off now. It took many years, lots of investment and 6 attempts. Consumers were not asking for premade sandwiches, business decided that they should ask(want) for them.
Business responds to their demand by producing supply.
NOOO! utterly false it makes the demand, that's why marketing and advertising exist! "Get your new widge and get it while its hot, women will sleep with you if you do" Newspapers state the same lie- "We right the stories that our audience want to hear" Maybe thats not a lie, when you see it's all stories. "We newspapers have no effect on what people think, we just respond to demand" "we companies have no influence on what people consume, we just respond to demnand" could there be a bigger lie when most people do not even actually know what it is, they are consuming? "it's says blue berry pie, but theres no blue berries in it? really?"No. The most common business model for success is to "find a need, and fill it." This goes back to your sandwich illustration. The inventors of the prewrapped sandwich probably had the foresight to realize people in cities were working long hours in factories and had a limited period of time for lunch. Great idea, but people were turned off by the idea of prepackaged food in those days when home cooked meals were more the standard. So, it took some marketing to get the "good idea" out there. Steve Jobs fits your illustration. He was brilliant, he created products so ingenious that everybody wanted them and were willing to stand in line for days at a time eating prewrapped sandwiches to get them first. Most people who call themselves "job creators" are not Steve Jobs material. They merely ride waves of supply and demand created largely by consumers spending money when they have it. By the way, that book I posted a link to also has an example that will help explain what happened to your blueberries; funny twist, at least to me, is that his best analogy is what happened to the shoe cobbler, not blueberry cobbler.
Yes and companies spend millions trying to keep them eating them, they even put chemicals in Cheese burgers they know are addictive. They also increase the suger and hype up the taste- can you guess why?
Important to note: it is a very time consuming process to research and look into the activity of a company, espically considering that companies do all they can to protect their image and the image of their products. To make informed decisions(if its even possible in that climate) about products is therefore by default an exhastive process, add-inf, if you gonna look at everything you buy. To blame consumers for poor choices is really a copout that defends the business community- it's all on the comsumers blame them and lets us the business world carry on: which ofcourse makes sense when you realise that democracy means "business rules" and provides for the dumb masses. The sad thing in all of that is ofcourse that while on the one hand big business can offer solutions to enviromental problems, often their own interests are more interesting, which brings us to the sad part that the planet and all its different forms of life should really be at the mercy of something better; Logically, reasonably and morally, but as for whatever that answer is, it should surely be reasonable and moral with at least a hint of logic in there somewhere.Again, I disagree. I'm 47, so I remember when it USED to be an exhaustive process to research a company. Now, we have the Internet, so there are really no excuses. It's pretty easy now. In fact, I heard about an app for your phone so specific that you can check and see if a company donated money to Republican or Democratic candidates and causes. Sorry, but a person's life is a person's life. Everyone has the right and the ability to find out whether or not the stuff they buy is good or bad for them and the environment they share with the rest of humanity. If it isn't important enough to a person to do that research and vote with their dollars, choosing instead to ignorantly empower big business with their dollars and ruin the health of themselves and the environment in the process, then they really have no one to blame but themselves. This is a cultural issue in my eyes. Everyone wants to "live for the moment" because "we might not be here tomorrow." That just exacerbates the problem. People buy stuff to make themselves feel good. People don't want to think about consequences. Ours is a superficial, materialistic culture. I'm no fascist, but I do think there's been too much focus on the "individual" and "individual rights" in the U.S. "Socialism" is practically profanity here, as is "communism." God forbid people should sacrifice the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want to in order to be part of a larger community with common goals. I think being against socialism is "antisocial" to a degree. We are social creatures like monkeys and dogs, not solitary animals like cheetahs. People seem to have forgotten, we're all part of a single entity: humanity. We're all part of that tiny blue pixel Voyager saw when it turned back and looked at Earth from billions of miles away. In an age when a perspective like that is even possible and nearly everyone on the planet is interconnected electronically, that's the one thing we shouldn't have forgotten.
adding fudge factors ... and massaging such historic data as you have in order to make it fit your naive hypothesis, is not science.You mean like when they found 127 bones, most from a single hippo with a few elephant and rhino bones mixed in, and you extrapolated that to mean the climate was warm enough 120,000 years ago for "several such animals" to have "crossed a land bridge" to Derby? You can't massage and fudge data any better than that. Give me a break. Maybe some prehistoric explorers took some bones home as a trophy or a resource or something, because there's no way a hippo, a rhino and an elephant befriended one another and wandered up to the U.K. via a land bridge.
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.
exponential growth of humanity?
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/52.20.gif
Duh.
Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
I disagree. It takes 2,000 calories or so per day to sustain a human life. Everything else is optional. That's a pretty extreme point of view, but it is factual.
We don't need pretty much any of the stuff we buy when it comes right down to it. You can always refuse the stuff you are offered.
When enough people do that, they offer you something else.
Keep buying what they offer, and they'll keep offering you the same thing. You know, people like me are ultimately responsible for the GMO debate. You see, I made the choice to start drinking soy milk about 20 years ago, even though it used to cost a lot more than milk. Thanks to people like me creating demand for the product, other producers got on board thinking they could make as good or better product cheaper. Mass production ensued, competition drove down the price, and soy milk started taking up grocery store space where milk used to be. Voila, the GMO scare was born. They want people to be scared of the soybeans they make soy milk out of so they will go back to buying milk. It's just that simple.
They claim that because the genes of the soybean aren't "natural," they should be labelled that way, even though "cows" never existed in nature until humans started selectively breeding them and modifying their genes. I had the opportunity to see an uncle of mine in Missouri put on a rubber glove and shove his hand up a cow's vagina when I was a kid. That's more dangerous than drinking soy milk, and less natural.What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers.No false, the market drivers are those who make and maintain a market, primarily. It took 6 attemps to get people to buy premade sandwiches on the 6th attempt after all the investment, advertising, marketing, free tasters, people actually started to buy pre made sandwiches, 5 attempts failed because there was no market, they the sandwich makers, built one. And covered the sandwiches in plastic, kept them in fridges, and throw them away after a few days because they are off now. It took many years, lots of investment and 6 attempts. Consumers were not asking for premade sandwiches, business decided that they should ask(want) for them.
No, your statement is false, mine is true, I frigging hate it when people do that. Have you studied economics at the college level? I have. Consumer spending drives about 70% of an economy like that of the U.S. That's why the economy is sluggish.
This thread is about climate change, but you went there, so let me break it down to you using some arguments I've used before to keep it quick. These figures are about a year old and from memory. The four Walton heirs, owners of Walmart, are worth about $150 billion, or about 1% of the entire U.S. gross domestic product for an entire year. They employ about 1.4 million Americans and pay them about $27,000 a piece per year. That's an average, which includes not just floor staff, but managers and people at all levels of the heirarchy. So, a few years back, Walmart was in the news because they were collecting canned goods and donations from customers so that their employees could have Thanksgiving dinner. That's the sluggish economy in a nutshell. It's the reason "supply side economics," or "Reaganomics" has been proven not to work. When millions of people are out of work, and millions more are barely scraping by, a business owner may notice he has no customers, all of his employees are standing around, his inventory is collecting dust. How is the government giving him a tax break supposed to stimulate the economy? So he can hire more people to stand around? So he can buy more inventory to collect dust? Maybe open another location where more employees can stand around watching inventory collect dust? The alleged "job creator" can't do anything about the economy.
He needs customers. His employees are those customers. Think about the Waltons. If they paid those 1.4 million people better, my fictional business owner would have busier employees. If McDonalds did the same, he would have even more. By paying his employees better instead of pocketing a big tax break, he is doing his part to make the consumer economy go.
You make some points I can sort of agree with in your illustration about pre-wrapped sandwiches. If you like those sorts of example and would like a better grasp of this subject, I suggest you read this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nature-Economics-Survival/dp/0865716730Business responds to their demand by producing supply.NOOO! utterly false it makes the demand, that's why marketing and advertising exist! "Get your new widge and get it while its hot, women will sleep with you if you do" Newspapers state the same lie- "We right the stories that our audience want to hear" Maybe thats not a lie, when you see it's all stories. "We newspapers have no effect on what people think, we just respond to demand" "we companies have no influence on what people consume, we just respond to demnand" could there be a bigger lie when most people do not even actually know what it is, they are consuming? "it's says blue berry pie, but theres no blue berries in it? really?"
No. The most common business model for success is to "find a need, and fill it."
This goes back to your sandwich illustration. The inventors of the prewrapped sandwich probably had the foresight to realize people in cities were working long hours in factories and had a limited period of time for lunch. Great idea, but people were turned off by the idea of prepackaged food in those days when home cooked meals were more the standard. So, it took some marketing to get the "good idea" out there. Steve Jobs fits your illustration. He was brilliant, he created products so ingenious that everybody wanted them and were willing to stand in line for days at a time eating prewrapped sandwiches to get them first. Most people who call themselves "job creators" are not Steve Jobs material. They merely ride waves of supply and demand created largely by consumers spending money when they have it. By the way, that book I posted a link to also has an example that will help explain what happened to your blueberries; funny twist, at least to me, is that his best analogy is what happened to the shoe cobbler, not blueberry cobbler.Yes and companies spend millions trying to keep them eating them, they even put chemicals in Cheese burgers they know are addictive. They also increase the suger and hype up the taste- can you guess why?
I know why. That's an excuse. I used to eat cheeseburgers pretty much every day. When I was 18 or 19, my diet was incredibly poor. I ate whatever I wanted, which was actually just a few things: Cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, potato chips, doughnuts, anything chocolate. You couldn't have force fed me a salad. I didn't have to go to rehab to get off junk food. I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms. I simply decided I needed to start eating healthier, and did.
I have a hard time believing people when they blame "food addiction" for being overweight. I get hungry too, just like everyone else. We are all quite literally addicted to food. It's a survival mechanism. 50,000 years ago, if you found something sweet or fatty, your body would respond and say, "Hey, that tastes good, eat more of that. We could use it to survive." Now, when there is a fast food restaurant on every corner, you have think about what you are doing. It's sort of like with the penis. I have a biological urge to reproduce. That doesn't mean I have to act on it every time it crosses my mind. If I did, I would be locked up.
Similarly, I don't need to go diving into a bag of potato chips every day just because they taste good. I try to control my brain rather than letting it control me.
I'm not a dog or cat. They get those same sorts of "addictive" chemicals you spoke of in their pet chow and respond by having brand preferences, but they don't know about nutrition like human beings, so they have an excuse.
Important to note: it is a very time consuming process to research and look into the activity of a company, espically considering that companies do all they can to protect their image and the image of their products. To make informed decisions(if its even possible in that climate) about products is therefore by default an exhastive process, add-inf, if you gonna look at everything you buy. To blame consumers for poor choices is really a copout that defends the business community- it's all on the comsumers blame them and lets us the business world carry on: which ofcourse makes sense when you realise that democracy means "business rules" and provides for the dumb masses. The sad thing in all of that is ofcourse that while on the one hand big business can offer solutions to enviromental problems, often their own interests are more interesting, which brings us to the sad part that the planet and all its different forms of life should really be at the mercy of something better; Logically, reasonably and morally, but as for whatever that answer is, it should surely be reasonable and moral with at least a hint of logic in there somewhere.Again, I disagree. I'm 47, so I remember when it USED to be an exhaustive process to research a company. Now, we have the Internet, so there are really no excuses. It's pretty easy now. In fact, I heard about an app for your phone so specific that you can check and see if a company donated money to Republican or Democratic candidates and causes. Sorry, but a person's life is a person's life. Everyone has the right and the ability to find out whether or not the stuff they buy is good or bad for them and the environment they share with the rest of humanity.
If it isn't important enough to a person to do that research and vote with their dollars,
choosing instead to ignorantly empower big business with their dollars and ruin the health of themselves and the environment in the process,
then they really have no one to blame but themselves. This is a cultural issue in my eyes. Everyone wants to "live for the moment" because "we might not be here tomorrow." That just exacerbates the problem. People buy stuff to make themselves feel good. People don't want to think about consequences. Ours is a superficial, materialistic culture. I'm no fascist,
but I do think there's been too much focus on the "individual" and "individual rights" in the U.S.
"Socialism" is practically profanity here, as is "communism." God forbid people should sacrifice the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want to in order to be part of a larger community with common goals.
I think being against socialism is "antisocial" to a degree.
We are social creatures like monkeys and dogs, not solitary animals like cheetahs. People seem to have forgotten,
we're all part of a single entity: humanity. We're all part of that tiny blue pixel Voyager saw when it turned back and looked at Earth from billions of miles away. In an age when a perspective like that is even possible and nearly everyone on the planet is interconnected electronically, that's the one thing we shouldn't have forgotten.
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.
What the F!
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?Stop farming animals for food.
Stop farming animals for food.LOL,
Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to.You said a mouthful. I agree 100%.
I still await anyone's definition of global mean temperature, and an explanation of how it has been measured for the past 100 years. If you don't define your parameter, and explain how it is measured, you aren't doing science. No observational research.I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading. Clearly, as anyone with eyes can see, temperature and carbon dioxide content ARE IN LOCKSTEP. One goes up, the other goes up. One goes down, the other goes down. Fred Astaire may have been "leading" Ginger Rogers, but they danced TOGETHER. And they stayed within the parameters of the dance floor. They didn't go flying up into the rafters at 400 parts per million.
So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.
What the F!
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.
Hold his breath :)
Clean coal power plants would reduce co2 emmissions, as would moulton salt reactors.
Reverse combustion systems placed over cooling tanks to capture and so covert CO2 emmissions.
You can tell me there are not ways to reduce Co2 emmisions without shutting off power.
we are wasteful even with waste.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turning-carbon-dioxide-back-into-fuel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Totally possible to increase energy production and reduce Co2 emissions at the same time. Still I'd like to see more research into new forests really, and maybe new forest housing.
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://a.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2015/06/3047952-slide-s-2-in-these-new-neighborhoods-the-houses-look-like-trees.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047952/in-these-urban-forest-neighborhoods-the-houses-are-disguised-as-trees&h=422&w=750&tbnid=dTG3TBGlDi_c9M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=160&docid=GZk3xuYOFSjceM&usg=__ZL0snpL5JRsVo7QoKKXzZnK3Ktc=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk5-lmMbLAhVjQZoKHYUzDgEQ9QEISzAH
P.s we really dont have any wealth growth, it's all gone upstairs, we just have ever increasing bubles of fiat debt paper and the illusion of a house bubble.
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?Stop farming animals for food.
See ?? That's your problem right there. You're more worried about yourself than you are about the human race as a whole. Who cares if your lifestyle gets taken down a couple of pegs? I sure don't. You already unclog toilets for a living. What's to lose?How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?Stop farming animals for food.
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.
This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics,
And they would be barking up the wrong tree.Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.
This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the Entropy law. The amount of mass lost as heat in a chemical reaction between a few grams of substances is so negligible that chemists usually don't factor it into their results, and that's even when the reactions are dramatic; to a degree, chemists "ignore" the physics in that case. However, the entropy created in the environment is significant when a mass/energy transformation like combustion is applied to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels. Any chemist could tell you that.
I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading.
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."
Your wealth and lifestyle will come under serious attack when large populations begin to migrate in search of food. Why not take action to prevent it happening, or at least to seriously investigate the cause of climate change?
I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:
http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif
See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.
I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:
http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif
See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.
If one only concentrates only on temp and CO2, one might fail to recognize methane seems to be the precursor to spikes in others. While it may or may not be indicative of human activity. It suggests that increased hydrocarbon abundance in the atmosphere has a causal effect.
AFAIK, recent human activity has increasingly influenced hydrocarbon abundance... [:-\]
I'm affraid it's the same counter though;
Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?
To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.
I'm affraid it's the same counter though;
Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?
To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.
Truth be told, this doesn't look "almost flat" to me. But I can see how you might choose to read it that way.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png)
the link between CO2 and climate is not at all strong, or at least the cause and effect are not know which way round they are. So why do we need to panic about CO2?
The object of my experiment (reducing the number of farmed animals) is to test the hypothesis.
...
Based on the Ice Core graph, it seems the topic of this thread is clearly answered. Skeptics are wrong to claim no link.
Cause/effect somewhat debatable. Looks like increased atmospheric hydrocarbons drives temp &co2 spikes.
What are the most likely causes for increased hydrocarbons?
Animal population explosions
Plant population explosions
Methane trapped in crust released
Fracking
Tar & oil extraction
What else could be added to the list?
I suspect many of the past spikes have followed seizemic events, where the crust was ruptured, exposing methane in large quantities. Most likely precipitated by earth quake.
Can't rule out cosmic events rupturing crust or meteors carring methane, both seem unlikely, but possible.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it. You cannot possibly say that the bullet leaving the gun was the cause of your finger on the trigger (well, you might, but nobody would believe you) or that the light coming on was the cause of your pushing the switch. Or that pregnancy causes sex.Here's the part I want to focus on. You said, "It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it." So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?
If A always precedes B, you can't control A by modifying B.
Now it is established (at least by the Vostok ice cores, probably the only untainted data we have) that temperature leads CO2 concentration, both upwards and downwards. The Mauna Loa annual data confirms this, and the mechanism is pretty clear.
So however desirable it might be to stop burning fossil fuel (no question there), it won't change the direction of climate, which is obviously driven by something else. All it will do is provide a short-term means for politicians and other parasites to blame you and me for the inevitable (and divert tax subsidies to their friends' "renewables" industries) instead of getting off their backsides and doing something to mitigate the looming disaster.
I have to give the Cameron government credit for one thing, at least - reducing the subsidies for unreliable energy sources. But it's a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.Technology is the problem. If it wasn't for technology, there wouldn't 7 billion people blazing through resources at breakneck speed on an exponential growth curve. We would still be living at a balance with what the environment was able to support.
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
Blind faith in technology and "progress" is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
Here's the part I want to focus on. You said, "It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it." So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?
Oh, I know, it probably has something to do with applying combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels. When you burn stuff, that produces heat.
What you are talking about is natural. Let's say the Sun's output was a bit higher. That would raise temperatures, which would thaw permafrost, releasing greenhouse gases. In that case, temperature would lead.
However, human beings are now part of the equation. That's what you're not considering. In the last 150 years, we've obviously added a lot of extra heat to the system by releasing lots of stored solar energy that was trapped in fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide isn't just "following" the temperature lead anymore, coming up out of thawed permafrost and such. We are adding a lot of it to the atmosphere through combustion, and removing less of it because of deforestation.
But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.Technology is the problem. If it wasn't for technology, there wouldn't 7 billion people blazing through resources at breakneck speed on an exponential growth curve. We would still be living at a balance with what the environment was able to support.
It is time for humans to take stock of our situation and do something about it. Blind faith in technology and "progress" is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?Have you ever had a fever? Did your temperature go back down?
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
Evil drivel. If you mean that we should return to some sort of hunter gatherer society with a total population of a few million using fire to hunt with etc then be my guest to try it and find out that being incompetant in the modern world has the prediction that you will still be incompetant trying to hunt for yourself.Okay, I'll go, but only if we also kick out all the plumbers and fiscal conservatives. You're the ones disseminating misinformation. I've got news for you, pal. You don't get to decide what's best for the whole human race, and you are not even close to smart or informed enough to make that decision for us, so maybe you should lay off the right wing fascist streak and go unclog a toilet, because apparently you are at least competent enough for that.
Should such anti-hunam, anti-technology, anti-science types as these drivel speaking hippies be allowed anywhere near a science forum?
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.FALSE.
I don't know why I bother to explain these things
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.FALSE.
I don't know why I bother to explain these things
Ok lets look at the numbers
First off let's see how much heat the Earth gets from the sun.
The solar constant is of the order of 1.3 kilowatt per square metre.
The Earth's area facing the sun is pi r^2
(That's the area of the shadow it casts rather than the surface area.)
the radius is about 6.4 million metres.
So the area is 128E 12 square metres
So we get about 1.7 E 17 Watts from the sun
In a day we get 4 E 18 Watt hours and in a year we get 1.5 E 21 Watt hours
That's 1.5 E 9 TWHr per year.
By comparison we use something like 100,000 TWHr/ year
(from here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.
So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true
I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.
But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.
Thank you for injecting some actual science.
... subjective science analysis removed ...
For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist.
So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?The distribution of water between the atmosphere and the surface, between its various states and formats, and in the circulation of ocean currents, appears to be the principal driver of climate change.
So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?The distribution of water between the atmosphere and the surface, between its various states and formats, and in the circulation of ocean currents, appears to be the principal driver of climate change.
This bounded chaotic oscillation will lead to roughly periodic variations in temperature at any point on the globe. The shape of the temperature curve is consistent with the known positive feedback of the water vapor greenhouse effect, leading to rapid temperature rises and slow decreases.
It is even arguable that the water cycle produces a cyclic variation in the mean surface temperature of the globe, but as I've pointed out previously, we don't have credible data on that parameter before 1970 so it would be unscientific to speculate.
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.What's the total combined mass of humanity? About 500 million tons? That's the teeniest, tiniest fraction of the planet's mass. Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet. All that combustion has caused the CO2 level of the whole entire atmosphere to increase a full 20% in ONLY 50 YEARS. That's the point I'm getting at. Our changes are relatively small if you only use the sun's total output as your metric, but they appear much larger when you compare them to the sorts of atmospheric changes that usually take thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years of geological time, like the changes brought about by continental drift and plate tectonics. That's why there's a sharp spike at the end of this graph the coincides with the invention of the mass-produced automobile:
So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true
I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.
But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;FALSE. The vast majority of the tornadoes in the world happen in Tornado Alley. That's because of geography. Air masses travel over the Rocky Mountains and dump all their snow. What is left is very cold, very dry air. In Tornado Alley, that air mass meets up with a very warm, very moist air mass travelling up from the Gulf of Mexico. That's what powers most of the world's tornadoes.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/noaa-number-of-major-tornadoes-in-2015-was-one-of-the-lowest-on-record-tornadoes-below-average-for-4th-year-in-a-row/
The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes. [/color]
Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
there has been no significant temperature change.For the record, science isn't about liberal or conservative points of view. Again, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is what matters in science. Empirical evidence and the predictive power of a theory is the ultimate test of that theory. Again, I read Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World" in 1988. He made a lot of predictions in that book. I have watched them come true one by one for nearly three decades, falling like dominoes. That's what's scary. We don't want the rest of the dominoes to fall, trust me.
For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist. [/color]
My! what a lot of nonsense you managed to put in there.So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.What's the total combined mass of humanity? About 500 million tons?
So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true
I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.
But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.
Yeah, he's technically correct, but not really.
Two square meters of sunshine melts a rock that's been around for ten billion years. That could easily provide enough steam-generated power for an entire house, perhaps enough to move a train.
Please remove your head from the sand. We've released the solar energy stored in a hundred million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, not to mention the carbon dioxide that goes with it. That is without precedent, unless you want to go all the way back to when organisms first figured out how to photosynthesize and store solar energy in the first place. Turns out, their success allowed them to change the atmosphere faster than organisms could adapt, which caused mass extinctions. And guess what? The changes they made took a lot longer than 150 years...Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.1) Here's a word for you: "Context." In the context of his argument, we're supposed to be comparing the energy output of our economy to the Sun's total output, which he claims is 1/15,000. That's a silly argument because the context is all wrong. We're talking about the TOTAL CO2 CONTENT OF THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE, which has DRAMATICALLY RISEN BY 20% IN JUST 50 YEARS. So, I don't CARE if he's correct, or technically correct about the 1/15,000. That's not the "context" that matters. It's the fact that, left to her own devices, natural laws apparently kept the limit of atmospheric CO2 to a MAXIMUM level of 320 ppm for at least 800,000 years that we know of, and we have now pushed that to a full 20% PAST those levels, and in just 50 short years of geological time. Our atmosphere is not supposed to resemble one in which most of the Earth's forests are on fire, and they will in fact respond by catching fire. So will grasslands.
2) It's not the direct heating effect of burning fossil fuels that matters a damn.
The effect that makes a difference is the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
3)Two square metres of sunshine provides about 2.6 Kw.
I can use more than that trying to heat a single room
Good luck trying to heat a house with it.
And, for the record, a train uses something like a thousand times that.
So, you are trolling.1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.So, I don't CARE if he's correct
2) It's not the direct heating effect of burning fossil fuels that matters a damn.
The effect that makes a difference is the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
3)Two square metres of sunshine provides about 2.6 Kw.
I can use more than that trying to heat a single room
Good luck trying to heat a house with it.
And, for the record, a train uses something like a thousand times that.
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.Please remove your head from the sand. We've released the solar energy stored in a hundred million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, ... yada yada yadaYet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
So, you are trolling.Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are.
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.Please stop pretending you are a chemist. You are not a big fan of reality, huh? Remember my analogy about having a fever? It only takes a few little degrees above 98.6 Fahrenheit, and you will die. That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
Some more numbers.Thanks for that. Don't know where you got your numbers, but they fall in line with what I know. Jeremy Rifkin stated a figure in his Entropy book around 1988 that it takes about 2,000 calories to sustain a human, but in the US, it was more like 200,000 calories per capita at the time, which seems to agree with your numbers that take into account European countries.
You need about 10,000,000 joules per day from food to stay alive
Most of that energy is actually used to keep you warm enough to digest your food, move the blood around your body, and keep your brain functioning. Very little (about 10%) is available to do "useful" work.
Western Man uses an additional 150,000,000 joules of "artificial" energy each day to grow food, process transport and cook it, pump water and sewage, build and destroy things, heat and cool space, and waste time with computers. The number varies with region - a bit less in the Mediterranean and at least double in North America.
At least two thirds of the world's population regards 1.5 kW per capita as an aspirational figure, and intergovernmental "climate agreements" recognise this as some kind of human right.
So whatever you propose as a reasonable level of population or a sensible means of supplying its energy needs, you will have to find a way of providing at least 1.5 kW per head.
I beg to differ with BC in one small way. We ingest carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, inhale oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide and water. The energy conversion efficiency of human digestion is around 90%, which is as close as you need to "combustion". Admittedly the chemistry is a lot more subtle, but the physics is indistinguishable.
Since at least half of the heat reaching the earth's surface actually comes from radioactive decay inside the planet, the largest possible effect of direct heating from fossil fuels is probably closer to 3 parts per million, or about 0.001 degree."Probably" isn't good enough for me. This is what the IPCC has to say about it:
Just plain wrongSo, you are trolling.Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are.
I am Craig W. Thomson.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=craig%20w%20thomson
Nothing anonymous about that. Now, is your name really "Bored Chemist" ?? I don't think so. Practice what you preach, troll.
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
Again, it's not the size of the 1/15,000 ratio of our output vs. the sun's that is important. I worked with live tropical fish for 4 1/2 years and raised them at home even longer. One thing you need to know about aquariums is that they require STABLE conditions. If you let the pH of the water or some other condition drift the tiniest fraction from where it should be, you can throw off the whole system and kill your fish, your reef, everything. As a chemist, you should be able to understand that. It doesn't take a whole lot extra of something to make a huge difference in the system to which you introduced it when you start tinkering with stable or self-regulating systems.
If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?
The physics is very easy to distinguish, one of the differences is subtle. The process by which the body oxidises glucose takes place in a number of smaller steps. This makes it more nearly a reversible system and thus more efficient at getting work from that energy.
I beg to differ with BC in one small way. We ingest carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, inhale oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide and water. The energy conversion efficiency of human digestion is around 90%, which is as close as you need to "combustion". Admittedly the chemistry is a lot more subtle, but the physics is indistinguishable.
I remember it- it wasn't relevant then, and it isn't relevant now.Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.Please stop pretending you are a chemist. You are not a big fan of reality, huh? Remember my analogy about having a fever? It only takes a few little degrees above 98.6 Fahrenheit, and you will die. That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?
Also, your logic is flawed. Of course, EVERYTHING that happens on earth is tiny compared to the sun, because the sun is HUGE. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.
If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?It's nice to know that irony is alive and well.
Coal BTUs/yr 188,190,000,000,000,000 188 |
Oil BTUs/yr 187,573,685,712,000,000,000 187,574 |
Fossil BTUs |
Fossil BTUs per hour 21,434,004,076,712,300 21 |
Fossil BTUs per day 514,416,097,841,096,000 514 |
Fossil BTUs per year 187,761,875,712,000,000,000 187,762 |
Square feet on planet 5,490,383,247,360,000 |
Fossil BTUs per square foot per hour 3.9 |
Solar radiation |
BTUs per solar day 56,621,224,353,374,200,000 56,621 |
BTUs per solar year 20,666,746,888,981,600,000,000 20,666,747 |
Solar radiation 429.7 |
+ |
BTUs Solar & fossil fuel per day 57,135,640,451,215,300,000 57,136 |
2007 fossil percentage 0.90% |
2005 remaining coal 997,748 Million tons |
2007 rate of consumption 6,150 Million tons |
Years remaining at 2007 rate 162 |
2007 remaining oil 1,327,000 Million barrels |
2005 consumption rate 30,660 Million barrels |
Years remaining at 2005 rate 43 |
2005, 2007 baseline numbers for oil and coal consumption pulled from http://www.peaktoprairie.com/?D=188 (http://www.peaktoprairie.com/?D=188) |
The solar constant is defined as 429.7 Btu/sq. ft./hour, a ball of hydrogen that has a 12 year cycle isn't very constant, but somewhat predictable. |
In 2007 nearly 1 percent of the heat on earth came from fossil fuel. 2013 – 2014 when the sun shifts into it's hottest part of the 12 year cycle, it will be hotter! |
A wild guess 10% of the excess fossil heat was consumed by air conditioners relocating excess heat. Ahh the luxuries of being the one's heating the earth |
If I were a wise race of beings, I'd be saving that fuel for an ice age, when it was really needed, and hope it lasts. |
Just plain wrongFALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation. And again, I'm doing that as myself, not anonymously like you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Yes, I DO understand that. You still don't. You can't burn a zillion tons of fuel without getting a bajillion tons of carbon dioxide. Then, you have a FEEDBACK LOOP, because the carbon dioxide helps you trap the heat you got from burning the fuel in the first place. That makes it hotter, so plants could die, at which point they release even MORE carbon dioxide.And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
Again, it's not the size of the 1/15,000 ratio of our output vs. the sun's that is important. I worked with live tropical fish for 4 1/2 years and raised them at home even longer. One thing you need to know about aquariums is that they require STABLE conditions. If you let the pH of the water or some other condition drift the tiniest fraction from where it should be, you can throw off the whole system and kill your fish, your reef, everything. As a chemist, you should be able to understand that. It doesn't take a whole lot extra of something to make a huge difference in the system to which you introduced it when you start tinkering with stable or self-regulating systems.
If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?
OK, I will try again.
Do you understand that the problem with the Earth getting hotter would carry on- even if we stopped burning anything- because the CO2 in the air would still keep on trapping CO2 for years until it was absorbed by plants and/ or the ocean?
That's why it's not an issue of the tine heat produced by burning fossil fuels it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
That's why the combustion heat (which is tiny) is irrelevant.
it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
If you want to put a word into a sentence, make sure it's the right word.Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite.
This
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is plain wrong but this
"When you eat, your body uses combustion. " is acceptable hype.
Adding the wrong word is pretentious and ignorant, no matter what the underlying science looks like.
If you want to blame fossil fuel for the allegedly observed temperature rise you have to invoke the notion of carbon dioxide being a vastly more significant greenhouse gas (by a factor of at least 3000 times) than water. Which, by measurement, it isn't.No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."
Only a fool would deny that climate changes - it is inherently and observably unstable. But it takes a committed liar to insist, or a gullible nonscientist to believe, that CO2 is the driver of climate change.
This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.
I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that.
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;FALSE. The vast majority of the tornadoes in the world happen in Tornado Alley. That's because of geography. Air masses travel over the Rocky Mountains and dump all their snow. What is left is very cold, very dry air. In Tornado Alley, that air mass meets up with a very warm, very moist air mass travelling up from the Gulf of Mexico. That's what powers most of the world's tornadoes.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/noaa-number-of-major-tornadoes-in-2015-was-one-of-the-lowest-on-record-tornadoes-below-average-for-4th-year-in-a-row/
The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes. [/color]
http://www.universetoday.com/75828/where-is-tornado-alley/
When the climate gets warmer, that shifts climate zones. When you warm up the atmosphere, that affects circulation patterns. If you shift the movement of air masses away from the geography that makes them clash, you get less tornadoes.
http://sites.sinauer.com/ecology3e/ccc/CCC-24-01.jpg
Again, you are led by Confirmation Bias. You start with a theory (climate change is not real), then cherry pick information that you believe supports your non-factual claim. That's the exact opposite of the Scientific Method, and your hypotheses therefore have no place in a scientific forum.
What argument do you think I'm trying to support?This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.
Bored Chemist's perspective is MEANT to confuse the issue. He's clearly cherry picking facts and information that support his argument.
No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."Please use correct mathematical terminology. A chaotic oscillator is inherently unstable - it wouldn't oscillate i9f it was stable. There is short-term rationale within the behavior of climate, but the different periodicities of the components make it unpredictable. And of course it is observable (even if most of the so-called observations are massaged proxies) - we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise.
Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parametersTemperature and CO2 content are parameters. A parameter is not a limit.
I've never said carbon dioxide is "the" driver of climate change. It is "a" driver of climate change.The only data you have presented, clearly shows that it is an effect, not a cause.
You guys are basically telling me, we can apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, and there will be no consequences, no equal and opposite reaction.Nobody has said that. But a few of us have asked you to put numbers to the "consequences" and offered some suggestions. And the whole business of climate scaremongering depends on the reaction not being equal and opposite!
I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.That's not my claim, never has been. Why are climate skeptics so inclined to tell lies? Desperate to prove your case? You're misquoting me. What is changing is tornado season. Summer is getting longer. Winter is getting shorter. Tornado season is just shifting. And, just like I said earlier, temperatures are starting to affect circulation patterns, so while the number of tornadoes is going down, there are actually more tornadoes just outside tornado alley, in places like Colorado and Minnesota.
Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
blah blah blahAgain, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense. Your arguments are ignorant and silly enough to post at FOX news.
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. You are the one sowing discord, along with "global moderator" alancalverd. Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch.
That's almost 1% of heat. It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.
Straw man.blah blah blahAgain, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere,
It's not me or the plumber who say it (though the fact that he and I agree on that while we disagree on just about every other aspect of this area is significant)That's almost 1% of heat. It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.
You are trying to pretend that 1 is the same as 15000You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences.
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."
No.Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.
Maybe you're just trying to make me angry by calling me a lazy liar. You can insult me all you like. The simple fact is, I am concerned about humanity, that's the only reason climate change is important to me.
And you're fighting me on that ...
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."
So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."I'm not misrepresenting your views. You are misrepresenting science's views. Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. When you apply combustion to a log, that changes its mass. You get heat and carbon dioxide from that log AT THE SAME TIME. It's ALL part of the same process.
whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.
I declare Craig the winner. He's most successfully ground to argument down to nothing.Thanks. I tend to agree with scientists, that the simplest, most widely applicable theory is probably the correct one.
The answer toy your silly question is that it would take roughly 1 in 80,000 of my weight in arsenic to kill me- unless I had the sense to consume it slowly enough.Yes, I see how you operate. You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument.
I have always said all along that you get both heat and CO2.So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."I'm not misrepresenting your views. You are misrepresenting science's views. Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. When you apply combustion to a log, that changes its mass. You get heat and carbon dioxide from that log AT THE SAME TIME. It's ALL part of the same process.
whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.
You are obfuscating the issue because you're misrepresenting the relationship between carbon dioxide and heat, BOTH of which are produced by combustion. BOTH of those come from a burning log, or a barrel of oil, or a pile of coal. The heating isn't the only thing "directly" dumped into the atmosphere when you burn things. Combustion DIRECTLY releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere AT THE SAME TIME that it dumps heat into the atmosphere.
When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things. They BOTH came from the act of combustion, they are both a result of the mass/energy conversion that took place.
But if you keep going on about blankets, perhaps you should admit that you got that analogy from somewhere.Yeah, Mrs. Pivik's 2nd grade class. Is there anything else you can nitpick at me about? Perhaps you would like to chastise me for not inventing English before speaking?
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.CO2 very definitely is the problem, because it's the thing that we are changing (and have been doing for a couple of centuries)
That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.Maybe you should lay off the pharmacy products. Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels ("direct energy use") warms the planet, even when you are wacked out of your mind on pills. And I have never even used the words "horsepower" or "bare electric fire." Purple haze all in your brain, voodoo child?
But if you keep going on about blankets, perhaps you should admit that you got that analogy from somewhere.Yeah, Mrs. Pivik's 2nd grade class. Is there anything else you can nitpick at me about? Perhaps you would like to chastise me for not inventing English before speaking?
I took 8 hours of Biology in college, and 8 hours of Astronomy. You can barely hold your own in this conversation as a degreed chemist. That speaks volumes. Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler." THAT'S why I keep getting your comments mixed up with these other guys.
Sorry, I'm not taking climate science lessons from a pill salesman today, or ever. Pharmacologist, LOL. Like I said earlier in this thread, chemists don't even count the mass/energy conversion when they do experiments. They round off and disregard that change. That alone make you less of a physics guy than me. I don't believe for an instant that you are any more qualified to have this conversation than I am.
Why even bother to say that?That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels ("direct energy use") warms the planet, even when you are wacked out of your mind on pills.
I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.That's not my claim, never has been. Why are climate skeptics so inclined to tell lies? Desperate to prove your case? You're misquoting me. What is changing is tornado season. Summer is getting longer. Winter is getting shorter. Tornado season is just shifting. And, just like I said earlier, temperatures are starting to affect circulation patterns, so while the number of tornadoes is going down, there are actually more tornadoes just outside tornado alley, in places like Colorado and Minnesota.
Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. You are the one sowing discord, along with "global moderator" alancalverd. Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch.
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.
Maybe you're just trying to make me angry by calling me a lazy liar. You can insult me all you like. The simple fact is, I am concerned about humanity, that's the only reason climate change is important to me.
And you're fighting me on that ...
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.
Your claim that burning fossil fuels directly increases the temperature of the atmosphere to a degree beyond the 15,000th of the earth's energy budget is false.On the contrary, you're the one who seems to think applying combustion to a trillion tons of fossil fuels adds up to nothing. Go figure.
This is clear from the numbers. Your inability to do numbers is astounding.
I've got news for you. It would be almost absolute zero on the planet's surface if there was no atmosphere.
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.
Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.
Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.
When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.
Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.
Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.
When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.
Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority.
when you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"
The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.Is that what's turning your letters blue?
You clearly don't want to listen to sense and have a strong tendency toward confirmation biases, but let me explain this for you anyway. The Antarctic is MELTING. Guess what? Water doesn't take salt with it when it evaporates. That snow and ice on Antartica is FRESH water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and freezes faster. So, you get seasonal, temporary ice shelf when melted fresh water freezes for a while just off the Antarctic coast. This new ice will eventually melt and mix with the ocean. It is NOT permanent ice pack. It is a fleeting skin of frozen fresh water, not proof Antarctica is growing in ice mass.
Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues.I don't need or want your respect. I have something better than your silly pop quiz, anyway. It's a Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook used by the US Military Academy. There's a section on linear regression functions, interpolation and extrapolation. Long story short, I bought it used. It's an old book. They used data from 1980 to 2000 in that section to predict that CO2 levels would reach 400 parts per million by 2020.
NASA says that the ice mass of Antarctica is gaining mass.Silly argument. Even if this is true, just because the average temperature of the Earth is going up, that doesn't mean every single location on the planet is going to raise by exactly x number of degrees. The atmosphere circulates randomly. For example, if you continue to blow hot air, it could push some cold air into the corner of the room, giving you a colder reading there. You're still making it warmer overall. This is how Jim Inhofe made a snowball.
Can you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?
Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
Indeed, and it didn't stop you pontificating about it.when you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"
Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.
well, yes and noCan you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?
Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS.
I'm not just an authority on that. I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points.
You keep saying things that are clearly not true.That's a comprehensively false statement. All you've done is SAY I'm saying things that aren't true. You haven't proven your point about anything. You're obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs, nothing more. The only thing I'm unclear about is your reason for doing so.
Frankly I wonder what sort of climate study you might have been doing that didn't teach you about the importance of time scales.Again, you've gotten things completely backwards. I'm the one who posted the graph showing that temperature and CO2 content have moved in lockstep for 800,000 years, I'm the one who pointed out that it only took 50 years to raise CO2 content a full 20% higher than it has been in 800,000 years, and said changes are supposed to be gradual. I'm the one who said changes in climate should take thousand or even tens of thousands of years, so it's strange when grandparents say things like, "I remember when the lake used to freeze over every year, and we would go ice skating." My grandma was old, but not geological epoch or Vostok ice core old.
Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues.I don't need or want your respect. I have something better than your silly pop quiz, anyway. It's a Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook used by the US Military Academy. There's a section on linear regression functions, interpolation and extrapolation. Long story short, I bought it used. It's an old book. They used data from 1980 to 2000 in that section to predict that CO2 levels would reach 400 parts per million by 2020.
This is 2016. We passed that a year ago.
Looks like they should have put that example in the "exponential functions" section.
I'll tell you what happens, that almost no one is talking about. If you melt thousands of cubic miles of ice, and the water runs off into the ocean, what happens is the mass distribution on tectonic plates is going to shift. That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. The problem is, the earth's surface isn't made of rubber, its plasticity is limited. It takes time to alter its shape and respond to changes like that, which are supposed to happen gradually. We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.
https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg
Those are the very basics of the issue. Temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere are obviously related. Anything you post to try to discredit that relationship is a B.S. argument.
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.YES. Combustion doesn't just produce carbon dioxide. It produces heat. Even if you didn't produce any carbon dioxide at all during combustion, just pure heat and nothing more, the atmosphere has insulative properties, so it wants to keep that heat from escaping into space. That's a factor. That's a fact. Yes, it is important.
Can you see why the one which has gone away is less of a problem than the one that is still here?
Or are you still trying to claim that the direct heating effect is important?
Your inability to do any maths is also noted.False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.
When the great ice sheets that covered North America and Eurasia melted there was no vast out flow of lava. No massive volcanic disruption. There seems to be no support for any massive melting in the first place so...... Yet another made up drivel point.Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?
Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?[/color]It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:
Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?
So we are talking about some "special" volcanoes you have invented which erupt, but don't make lava.
That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes....We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.
1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.
2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.
3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference.Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.
I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice.Except that you keep using nuclear physics - conversion of mass to energy. The significant energy in a chemical process has nothing to do with mass loss: chemical laws are all based on conservation of mass.
Your inability to do any maths is also noted.False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.
Humans burn a lot of stuff to power the economy. It's no surprise to find the earth is getting warmer from that, unless you are some sort of backward, flat earth caveman, or maybe a Republican plumber.
Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?[/color]It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
Less than expected, so that's sort of like if somebody predicted you would get killed in a car crash, but you just got maimed because a large puddle they didn't account for affected your course. The prediction was close enough to be helpful if you ask me. You should have paid attention. Now you're maimed, yet you sound like you want to get right back in the car and head off the wrong way down a one way street at top speed.
Yes, I know about it.
The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.... I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice. You know about Entropy right?
1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.
Quote2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.Quote
Again I was after the simple number of how much temperature would rise using heat capacity but given that there are loads of graphs fired about showing the amount of heat energy being absorbed by the oceans, it's a needed fiddle factor in order to somehow explain the pause, all the heat that would be heating the earth is going into the oceans etc, I was giving the warmest side the benefit of the doubt. But yes I agree, heat going into the surface ofe the ocean, especially from warmer air, will just cause more evaporation.Quote3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference. Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.
Ah! I see you are on the skeptic side like myself. Yes I agree. Although it would be nice to hear from the other side for their chosen number.
All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet.i.e., below the ozone layer.
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.
The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.
Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?
Perhaps you should find a language you actually understand and write in that.I write in English just fine. I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you.
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.Ice is less dense than water, it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder. Water takes up more space when frozen into a crystal lattice.
I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.
In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
You seem utterly unable to readEr.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand,I it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder.
Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.htmlOk, so here's the first law (from wiki)No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.
In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.
and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.I would be delighted to promote or take issue with this statement, or its converse, if anyone would tell me what "it" is and how it was measured. These are the most fundamental questions of any scientific discussion, yet when it comes to climate change, nobody ever answers them.
If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law.
Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts, I'm tired of the dishonesty about climate change. Most of it is promulgated by corporate interests, and there are a lot of corporate scientists in public forums. Lots of them like to cast doubt on the opinions of people like me. Yeah, I don't have a degree, but I'm not clueless. I know my science.
Guess again; here's the 2nd law together with the bit that says that reversible processes don't have an entropy change.Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.htmlOk, so here's the first law (from wiki)No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.
In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.
and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.
First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.
So, you're wrong again. If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. Apply combustion to fossil fuels, you get entropy. Despite your protests, the two processes are inextricably linked.
The classic example is the burning log. You don't actually lose any mass/energy when you burn a log, the total is still the same, but you lose the potential to do work. You dissipate heat, ashes and smoke into the environment, and those are less usable forms of mass and energy, being in a diffuse state. It would take more energy than you got burning the log to collect all that mass and energy back together into a log. That's the essence of the entropy law. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, dissipated heat and carbon dioxide in the environment is part of the entropy. All the mass and energy are still there, but they are now in more diffuse, less usable forms.
You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Do you realise that the first law is different from the second.No, I am not wrong. You can't transform mass to energy or energy to mass according to the first law without getting entropy according to the second, EVER. Yes, they are listed as two laws, but they don't operate outside each other's realms. They have everything to do with one another. You can't get entropy without some sort of mass/energy conversion, and you can't perform mass/energy conversion without producing entropy.
Only one of the laws (never mind the processes) is about entropy
And, since it was the laws we were talking about, you remain wrong.
I didn't actually say that did I.You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.
So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
From Wikipedia: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."I didn't actually say that did I.You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Strawman again.
You really are acting like the denialists.
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.
The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.
Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
But this is still more useful, and more interesting than talking about entropy with someone who clearly doesn't understand it..
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.Ice is less dense than water, it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder. Water takes up more space when frozen into a crystal lattice.
I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
I know how to do long division, plus I have a calculator. You don't have any business testing anyone until you understand this subject better yourself.
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.I would be delighted to promote or take issue with this statement, or its converse, if anyone would tell me what "it" is and how it was measured. These are the most fundamental questions of any scientific discussion, yet when it comes to climate change, nobody ever answers them.
AFAIK the only worthwhile data we have are the Vostok ice cores, which clearly show CO2 concentrations following, not leading, the local temperature, for hundreds of thousands of years, and some recent Mauna Loa data that shows the same effect north of the Equator for the last 50 years.
Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.
You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
According to those Vostok ice core sample, when there aren't 7.125 billion people blazing through fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and temperature MOVE IN LOCKSTEP, and they STAY WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.
CO2 is leading, temperature is leading, who cares?Scientists. It's how we distinguish between cause and effect.
That would be a rare and welcome pleasure. Pope Urban VIII, Caiaphas, Lysenko, Goebbels, and many other malign figures in history possesed these qualities. Fortunately, science requires neither: it's all about beng humble in the face of evidence. And I don't think any correspondent in this forum can close his argument with a death sentence.
But since you care so little for science, let's turn to literature.It takes a pretty crappy moderator to flame someone so blatantly.
Be warned Alan. You are challenging a man with a vast skill set and a high IQ.At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me.
Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting.No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.
Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting.No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.
I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.
The reason you keep getting kicked out of science forums is that you consistently lie. You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics talked about entropy. It does not. Being wrong is poor but happens. It is forgivable if embarassing. You then went on to claim that you had not been wrong. Why????? That's the bit where you provide the evidence that you have no real relationship with truth. [/color]That's 100% false. I've only been kicked out of a forum once. That was on my birthday, and I was drunk.
I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.
I tried to break it down for you in the simplest terms possible.
The atmosphere is like a blanket. It helps the earth keep warm by not letting all the sun's energy just bounce off the surface and back out into space. It retains heat.
When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you release solar energy stored by ancient organisms. That heat energy doesn't just escape into space. A lot of it stays here because the earth's atmosphere is like a blanket.
That same combustion process releases carbon dioxide, which helps the atmosphere act like a thicker blanket, insulating us even better, both trapping more of the sun's energy, AND keeping part of that combustion heat here.
That's all you really need to understand. The rest is just details. Of course, the earth is a complicated system, but don't get bogged down in the details, or cherry pick local examples to suggest they somehow apply to the rest of the globe. Don't lose sight of the forest and focus on a couple of trees that seem to be anomalies. I suggest you listen to the experts at the IPCC. Like all scientists, they use the Scientific Method to construct theories and make predictions, unlike politicians and corporate interests, who are motivated not by truth, facts or empirical evidence, but by profits. Nothing on the order of "a few thousand in grant money for my environmental science career" profits either, but rather, "selling billions of people oil while also getting tens of billions in tax breaks and subsidies" profits, for example.
1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.
The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.False on two counts.
1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.
Again, for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide content HAS NOT RISEN ABOVE 320 PART PER MILLION. So, in a nutshell, this in unprecendented, this is uncharted territory, so you have a lot of gall suggesting you know better than I do what's better for the human race, because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.
Again, 400 ppm is A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 800,000 YEARS.
The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.False on two counts.
Yes, the heat released by trillions of tons of coal and trillions of barrels of oil is significant.
Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. Heat islands, or "urban warming," happen because asphalt roads and brick buildings absorb heat better than grassy fields and forests.
If you have dark asphalt shingles on your roof, there's a heat island up there, too. Urban warming is just a bunch of those heat islands in close proximity. Replace them with white shingles to reflect some of that heat, or with wood shingles, which are a poor thermal conductor, to save electricity, money, and the earth.
Heck, I'll help you do it. I used to lay almost a square of shingles an hour when I was younger. Got a lot of work after a thunderstorm dropped baseball-sized hail on Abilene, TX, way back in the late 1980's.
because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.
The simple and brief answer is that historically orbital factors have initiated changes in global temperatures. When an increase in temperature was initiated the decreased solubility of CO2 in the warmer oceans caused a release of CO2 that enhanced the relatively weak orbital forcing. This is why in the ice record the CO2 lags the temperature changes. However, it is well known that the orbital factors are not strong enough to account for the observed temperature changes. In fact because it was known that orbital forcing wasn't enough it was actually predicted that the ice record should show a lag between CO2 and temperature for the reasons above before it was actually observed experimentally. We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.Nice video. I happen to have one too, the whole reason I'm posting this late, which I usually don't. Mornings are my time for math and physics. US news coverage is geared more toward Atlantic than Pacific storms, so I first heard about this in a greatest natural disasters of 2015 documentary on Hulu I watched today and thought about this thread:
At what point in the last 150 years did the laws of physics change? Until last year, temperature still led CO2 according to the Mauna Loa data, so you must be party to some information that is not in the public domain. Your source would be of great interest.What in blazes are you talking about?
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.
So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:
"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."
That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther. That is the act of taking apart a complex, high energy molecule to get the energy, leaving you with less complex molecules in more stable forms. For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out.
I entered the debate in this thread by doing your maths for you (about how little actual heat we use) and showed that you were wrong.You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math...
Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability.
But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.
Well, somebody's wrong. Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. Negative entropy is the opposite of entropy, and that's not supposed to be possible according to the 2nd Law. To create more order locally, you MUST increase entropy in the environment.
"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."
Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
I entered the debate in this thread by doing your maths for you (about how little actual heat we use) and showed that you were wrong.That's not math. That's nonsense. You couldn't prove a counting horse wrong with that math. A horse could stomp out the answer to a math problem about carrots more accurately than that. Are you in fact a horse? That would explain a lot.
And what I have said is that you cant't tell 15000 +/- 500 and 15001 =/- 500 but you can tell 300+/- 10 from 400 +/- 10.
So, would you like to discuss what I did say, rather than strawmanning what I never said?
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.
That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.
However, there is a way to calculate the entropy change in any reaction, at least at standard conditions of 25 oC and 1 bar (atmospheric pressure).
There you go again with the insults Craig. As soon as someone challenges your view you have a tantrum.What tantrum? Do you imagine that you are making me angry? Is that your motivation? Do you derive pleasure from your thinly veiled agression?
Okay, that's not offensive at all, so just to keep things even, I similarly won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a mentally incapacitated brain fart, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by anybody but climate change skeptics and deniers.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.
That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.
"Proof by assertion" has no place in science. I won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a priest, politician or philosopher, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by scientists.
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.Excuse me, miss, but I'm not a lady.
"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."Calm down, dear. Nobody said it doesn't add heat or carbon dioxide. All the adults did was calculate how much heat, and then you started throwing your toys out of the pram when they pointed out that it wasn't very much.
Specifically, extra CO2 is the biggest aspect of it.But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.
That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.
"Well, somebody's wrong."Well, somebody's wrong. Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. Negative entropy is the opposite of entropy, and that's not supposed to be possible according to the 2nd Law. To create more order locally, you MUST increase entropy in the environment.
"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."
Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong. There's no way you're a chemist. You would understand this stuff better than an artist if you did. I didn't even take chemistry in college. I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist.
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.False. There's nothing spontaneous about it if you have to either add heat (photons) to ice for it to melt, or remove photons from water to freeze it. If the environment is a stable temperature, no such changes will occur.
The earth isn't a closed system- so discussion of combustion here isn't actually up to the mark.
However you are still simply flat out wrong about entropy.
Here's the obvious proof
Either water or ice has a higher entropy than the other state- I don't even need to specify which.
Sometimes the melting of ice is spontaneous
Sometimes freezing is spontaneous.
So in one case or the other, the spontaneous change involves a decrease in entropy.
as Alan pointed out, you need to look further to get the whole story.
Maybe you got hit in the head with a toy before you did your calculations. Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat."Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."Calm down, dear. Nobody said it doesn't add heat or carbon dioxide. All the adults did was calculate how much heat, and then you started throwing your toys out of the pram when they pointed out that it wasn't very much.
I think YOU have the "first" and "second" problem. The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. That's just the order they wrote them down in. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, the first and second laws take place simultaneously. Old particles are "annihilated" to "create" new ones in a single reaction. The combustion and the entropy aren't two separate things. The entropy is in the new collection of particles, which are more disordered and contain less energy than before.If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law.
You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between "first" and "second". This may explain why you think CO2 affects global temperature, when the historic evidence shows otherwise.
You might think us bored and boring old scientists are being unnecessarily pedantic, but athletes also consider the difference between first and second to be significant, and lawyers depend on sequence to establish causality and liability.
I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.
Maybe you got hit in the head with a toy before you did your calculations. Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.
Again, I don't know why you guys feel the need to pick apart every argument I present.
Here's my main point: Anthropogenic climate change is real, and is causing the planet to warm slightly. Nitpick all you like about my accuracy of the details, but you're not going to get me to change that point of view, ever. The fact remains that we are addicted to energy production, and that is NOT consequence free.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality.
But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988. Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.
Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.
And since we are talking about greenhouse gases it's pretty damned obvious that you have to treat it as an open system. Do you not understand that the earth can gain and lose energy?False. If I locked you in a small, airtight room, that's a closed system. Breathe, and the CO2 content goes up. Try burning a pile of wood in there and you're going to see what makes it a closed system.
Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.Why don't you just start being right about something.
I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing.
What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present? Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet?When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition. As the bacteria multiplied, they changed the composition of that atmosphere by feeding on one substance and creating waste products. As bacteria evolved into more complex life forms, those had to be adapted to the new atmosphere being created. In fact, when plant cells first evolved photosynthesis, they changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically, killing most species. Remaining species had to find ways to cope with the new atmosphere.
That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey. It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.As far as I can see, you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks, you're stubborn as a mule, and your third leg gets stiff when you pretend to be an authority.
What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present? Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet?When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition. As the bacteria multiplied, they changed the composition of that atmosphere by feeding on one substance and creating waste products. As bacteria evolved into more complex life forms, those had to be adapted to the new atmosphere being created. In fact, when plant cells first evolved photosynthesis, they changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically, killing most species. Remaining species had to find ways to cope with the new atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Here's the point: Yes, a species can be so successful that it changes the entire atmosphere. The atmosphere's contents are determined in part by the complex web of life on Earth. There are lots of checks and balances that provide the atmosphere's contents stability. Species fit into niches and don't normally overrun the entire planet, which helps stabilize the atmosphere's contents. Humans are different. We learned how to control fire only recently in geological terms, and now there are more than 7 billion people relying primarily on the release of stored solar energy from fossil fuels for their livelihood, releasing lots of CO2 as we do, and chopping down forests in the process to make room for cities and farmland, and grazing land for almost a billion and a half cattle that make their own greenhouse contributions, comparable to an automobile as they weigh almost half a ton and eat almost 25 pounds of grass a day each.
I don't know what it is today, but about 25 years ago, I was shocked to learn the Earth was losing about one Indiana-sized state worth of forest land every year, over a hundred square miles a day. That's important, because forests are the best way to take CO2 back out of the system. That's what coal deposits are: ancient forests that trapped the sun's energy, and CO2 in the process. In a very real sense, when we burn coal, we're turning the atmosphere back into what it was before those ancient forests helped make it livable for today's life forms.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png
It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that the invention of fire, the Industrial Revolution, and the explosion of human population from a few million to a few billion coincide with the dramatic spike at the end of that chart. All the previous information in that chart indicates that the news media should have been reporting on a cooling trend for the last two decades, not telling us we've experienced yet another year of record high temperatures.
When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png
Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry.
"I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988."But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988. Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.
Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.
I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those.
This is my second physics forum in 3 years, so I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better.
No, the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey. It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.As far as I can see, you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks, you're stubborn as a mule, and your third leg gets stiff when you pretend to be an authority.
http://sanfranciscotutoringservice.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjwuPi3BRClk8TyyMLloxgSJAAC0XsjhRYSBteOqNFozxKh2s1y-QGiewtlHOTKbVbIxr2LWBoC0e_w_wcBWhen the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.So you mean before that no chemicals existed?
No, the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.Yes, I'm a donkey, you're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000, Jeffrey H. is the guy who can't read. Any other empty barrels care to make a sound?
But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.
Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.
I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.Wrong on two counts.
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.
I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]
The medieval warm period was caused by people chopping down trees to fuel industry.
Of course, back then, pretty much everything was made of wood: Plates, bowls, spoons, buckets, troughs, pails, houses, furniture, roads, bridges, factories, plows, wagons, etc. Wood was burned for heat, and trees were cut down to make charcoal for factories. Then, Black Death ensued, killing about 1/3 of the human population, mostly in Asia and Europe, which caused the economy to grind to a halt, followed by a cooling period when people weren't cutting down and burning trees so fast. That is known as the Little Ice Age.
We are currently in the Medieval Worm Period, when flat earth climate change deniers populate science forums.
1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.
3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.
Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.
3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.
Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.
2. False, that's hyperbole, also known as "talking drivel," which is not scientific.No, if the impact of the tiny changes in CO2 level that would have resulted from the slight amount of wood burnt and trees cut down or regrown was enough to cause significant climate changes then we should be boiling now. By which I mean we would be seeing the oceans boiling at the surface.
3. Bronze Age ?? You said there was no industry until the Industrial Revolution, now you're citing ancient industry.No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?
So, you don't understand physics, chemistry, biology, math or history. Maybe you should stick to talking about something you are familiar with, like pipes and toilets.
No, the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.Yes, I'm a donkey, you're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000, Jeffrey H. is the guy who can't read. Any other empty barrels care to make a sound?
But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.
Since there was never any call to do that sum three is no way you could know whether I can do it or not is there?
You're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000,
the particular quote from the file (about a minute into that clip)Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.Wrong on two counts.
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent.
When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy.
No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]
No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]
Because the Romans invented underfloor heating and introduced it to Britain, and being greedy bastards without the essential hardiness of woad-clad Brits they cut down all the trees and set fire to them thus causing massive global warming so they could grow grapes and introduce malaria to East Anglia in order to weaken the invading Norse and Saxon hordes. Really, the historical ignorance of you deniers is appalling. You'll be telling us next that the 12th century global cooling wasn't a punishment from God for the invention of Protestantism and Bruno's challenging of Papal authority.
The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.Yes, and the loudest nutter has a penchant for posting in blue.
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.The industry of the time is determined by the technology of the time. Learning to control fire to cook food or clear farm land is still "technology" and "industry" for ancient man.
You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.
The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.
Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.
At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.
I'm still waiting for you to address thisSee? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.
Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.The industry of the time is determined by the technology of the time. Learning to control fire to cook food or clear farm land is still "technology" and "industry" for ancient man.
You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.
You have too many gaps in your knowledge to criticize anyone for not being able to think. I suggest you read a science book and maybe even take some science courses before you come here running off at the mouth with your pseudoscience and argumentative nonsense.
Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.
If you're saying anything other than that, YOU'RE polluting the forum with gibberish and need to be corralled in a separate sub-forum.
At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.
Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.That's not what the IPCC says. How dare you contradict the consensus of the world's best-paid climate "scientists"?
Yes, I'd like you to answer the question I asked.I'm still waiting for you to address thisSee? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.
Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow, and probably a lot of it, such as with a particle accelerator.
Entropy is often said to be the "arrow of time," and this is why. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was the cascading of all the mass/energy in its highly ordered, "singularity particle" state into more and more stable forms of mass and energy that are spread out and diffuse. Energy naturally wants to spread out, not stay crammed together in one place. The entropy law, among other things, reflects this tendency.
Remember the log? Burn it, and you get heat, ash and smoke. Together, those things technically equal the log. That's the 1st Law. Collecting the ash, smoke and heat back together to make a log takes more energy than you got burning it. That's the 2nd Law. Using a particle accelerator to create a heavy particle that hasn't existed in large numbers since the Universe was a few seconds old is a bit like putting ashes, smoke and heat back together to get a log. Think about how much energy it takes just to get a new particle or two out of an accelerator, enough to power whole cities.
In a sense, "creating" a heavier particle in a particle accelerator by colliding a lot of mass and energy at a single point is like "turning back the clock," because everything in the early universe was much closer together back then, so it still had a temperature and density similar to the conditions at that impact point in the particle accelerator.
In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself.
Is there anything else you would like to know?
From a purely black body radiation standpoint (neglecting albedo and emissivity) without its atmosphere the Earth would have a mean surface temp of 255 K or -18.15 °C/-0.67 °F. This is pretty much 100% from just the incoming solar radiation. The actual measured mean surface temp of Earth is 287 K which is a difference of about 32 K. The sun delivers approximately 783,000,000 terawatt hours of energy to the Earth over the course of the year and all this energy takes us from 3 K (the blackbody temperature of the universe) to 255 K for an increase of 252 K. This means it takes 3,110,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K and this is a significant underestimate because the rate at which energy is radiated away increases non-linearly with increasing temperature. So in reality the amount of energy is much higher than this. Now the greenhouse effect has added about 32 K so adjusting for that we get 2,760,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K. As of 2011 the world used about 150,000 TWh of energy per year (this counts all possible ways of consuming energy). So even taking into account the greenhouse effect and assuming all of this energy ends up as heat eventually the net increase of Earth's mean surface temperature due to just the actual heat humans produce is on the order of 0.05 K and of course this temperature increase would be basically a one time increase i.e we have to use this much energy each year just to maintain the unnatural extra 0.05 K increase if we stop it goes back to just the plain sun value. Thus, we would have seen the mean surface temperature increase by 0.05 K over pre-industrial values with slight yearly increases tied directly to increases in energy consumption which currently stand at about 3,000 TWh per year or 0.001 K per year.Thanks for doing the maths for us.
So the takeaway from that is that if the heat generated by humans was a significant contributor to changes in global temperature than the total change should have been on the order of 0.05 K since say 1880 to today with a change of about 0.001 K per year. (Remembering that we've easily overestimated the impact of energy on temperature.) What we've actually seen is an increase of 0.8 K with yearly increases of about 0.02 K which are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 times the overestimated values of direct heating by humans. Does human activity directly heat the Earth? Of course it does. Is that effect significant? No it is easily 20 times smaller than the observed changes. Personally I believe the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change but I also understand that the direct heating of the Earth by the human use of energy is not significant.
Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:
http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5
(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself.
I'm not American so I didn't bother to read the link. You are cherry picking parts of post to avoid answering any challenge.You present no challenge to anyone. Your posts are devoid of useful information.
I don't think it will make any difference to Craig, but the rest of us will now accept that the direct effect from heating is small and the big change comes from something else.What makes no difference to me is you arguing which part is small and which part is large. I don't care. I only said, they are both factors. They ARE both factors. agyejy proved my point.
The word industry, today, refers to the organised use of labour to make stuff and to provide services.Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic.
Before the industrial revolution it was used to refer to working hard.
Industry and technology are separate ideas.
If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.Have you even taken one college science course? You don't seem to recognize your own idiocy, hypocrite. Why don't you take your industry vs. technology argument to the kids table instead of drowning out our adult climate change discussion with nonsense?
The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.FALSE.
Make up your mind.(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself.
I don't think it will make any difference to Craig, but the rest of us will now accept that the direct effect from heating is small and the big change comes from something else.What makes no difference to me is you arguing which part is small and which part is large. I don't care. I only said, they are both factors. They ARE both factors. agyejy proved my point.
The heat is a factor because the extra carbon dioxide helps keep it here. It doesn't just escape into space, so yes, it IS a factor, no matter how small you claim that factor is.
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
Way to go on missing the point there.The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.FALSE.
CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit heat, but not necessarily right back in the direction it came from. CO2 molecules aren't stationary, but rather tumble through space. Depending on the orientation of a CO2 molecule at the time of emission, that infrared photon might come back to earth, or it might escape into space. CO2 does NOT trap ALL the heat, just some. More CO2 traps more heat, but still not all of it.
You're a regular geyser of misinformation, aren't you?
What makes no difference to me is you arguing which part is small and which part is large. I don't care. I only said, they are both factors. They ARE both factors. agyejy proved my point.
The heat is a factor because the extra carbon dioxide helps keep it here. It doesn't just escape into space, so yes, it IS a factor, no matter how small you claim that factor is.
You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.I pretended it wasn't what? The difference between big and small? That statement makes no sense. Do you even think about what you are posting, or do you just rattle off any sort of nonsense you like?
It's the bit where Tim told you the difference between big an small and you pretended it wasn't.No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
For starters only about 60% of the energy humans use ends up as waste heat.Citation, please.
The real numbers are definitely closer to 0.025 K total and 0.0005 K per year or closer to a factor of 40 than a factor of 20.
Tim told you the difference between big and small.You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.I pretended it wasn't what? The difference between big and small? That statement makes no sense. Do you even think about what you are posting, or do you just rattle off any sort of nonsense you like?
It's the bit where Tim told you the difference between big an small and you pretended it wasn't.No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
Citation, please.
Oh, never mind:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/26/us-wastes-61-86-of-its-energy/
At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.
Our
If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.Have you even taken one college science course? You don't seem to recognize your own idiocy, hypocrite. Why don't you take your industry vs. technology argument to the kids table instead of drowning out our adult climate change discussion with nonsense?
At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat. Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm
Sound doesn't carry indefinitely, it is degraded to heat by air viscosity.That can actually take much longer than you'd think depending on the frequency of the sound. Most of the sound energy from cars is below 2 kHz and below that frequency dissipation via the viscosity of air can take many miles. Enough that a good portion of that energy ends up in the upper atmosphere before it is eventually converted to heat. I will concede that if you wait long enough it eventually becomes heat but that heat is very likely not to be anywhere near the surface of the planet.
The only energy that escapes from your car is if the lights shine up into the sky- and even that will eventually get degraded to heat when it hits something.
The light from the TV set is absorbed by the walls of the room within microseconds. (how long does it take for the room to get dark once you switch the lights off?)
Eventually you drive the car back home so the net change in gravitational energy is zero.
"Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy."
Oh yes it does.
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.The only irony here is that you're basically repeating what I've said before [your car hood gets warm, light bulbs get warm, electrical outlets get warm] and using that argument against me now. I said the heat is important, you said it isn't, and here you've said "all the energy ends up as heat." That's what I said. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustion. That's what mass/energy conversion does. It changes mass and energy to other forms of mass and energy, and dissipates them in the process. The properties of those dissipated parts becomes part of the environment, and thus contributes to climate change.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat.
Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm
Ironically, this is the only bit where entropy gets involved, but it doesn't let Craig off the hook.
and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.I am not here to jump through hoops for you. I am not here to prove myself to you. You are not here to test me or to school me. I have been to college. I graduated cum laude.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
So if you really care about heating the planet, use the phone instead of travelling.On the other hand, who is going to take Al Gore seriously when he rides a bicycle across country? What is he supposed to do, move into a shack with no electricity in Idaho and send non-environmentalists bombs in the mail?
Try telling that to people who attend "environmental" conferences.
A good portion of the human use of energy goes into constructing things. Things like buildings, cars, toys, and even increasingly complex molecules. Energy goes into making those things and is stored in those things. Eventually given time they will degrade and eventually that stored energy will become heat but generally speaking not on the time scale of a single human lifetime and certainly not on the scale of a single year. I was attempting to illustrate that in terms of the analysis I did above less than 100% of the energy we use in a year ends up as heat by the end of that year and generally speaking a decent percentage of our energy use is locked up in various things we build for decades or centuries.Yes. We are like trees or dinosaurs in that respect. The energy in many of the things we make, and in our bodies that get buried in graveyards, will become fossil fuels in time. At that point, the energy can be released to contribute to future climate change.
Tim told you the difference between big and small.No, you're either lying, or your reading comprehension sucks. I think it's the former. It's pretty clear after a couple of weeks that you're merely trying to piss me off. You don't care about real science. You care about your limited, biased viewpoint, and about twisting and cherry picking facts to support it.
The energy from the sun is big. The energy from fossil fuels is small.
You pretended that the direct heating effect wasn't small and you pretended that the heating from the sun wasn't big.
so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustionNo it isn't.
Well, as I said, I already did the calculation but, since you insist.and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.I am not here to jump through hoops for you. I am not here to prove myself to you. You are not here to test me or to school me. I have been to college. I graduated cum laude.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
Do the calculation yourself if it's so simple, or go get YOURSELF a damned clue.
Craig: ask yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.bind·ing en·er·gy
Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?
If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
Do you understand the significance of that?Here's what I understand: The insignificance of you. You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments.
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.
When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.
So, you understand essentially nothing.Do you understand the significance of that?Here's what I understand: The insignificance of you. You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments.
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.Craig: ask yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.bind·ing en·er·gy
Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?
If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.
When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.
The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.
Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.FALSE.
The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc
(actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).
You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.
Don't make me laugh. Let me speak to you in your own language. You remind me of an affectatious Mensa poser who barely made it in on SAT scores and thinks substituting stilted pleonasm for vernacular passes for intellect. I would be more than happy to sit down and take a supervised IQ test with you, or perhaps we could merely compare college transcripts or skill sets. I would be willing to bet money I'm better than you at at least ten things, and I'm starting to think science is one of those.Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
I would be willing to bet money I'm better than you at at least ten things, and I'm starting to think science is one of those.Please show some evidence of the last conjecture. Or count the pleonasms in your last post. Whatever amuses you.
And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believersFALSE, and I can see why you didn't post the article I found looking for that graph, because it says so:
So what is wrong or biased with this article the other day from Nature?Nothing. We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html
http://www.nature.com/news/antarctic-model-raises-prospect-of-unstoppable-ice-collapse-1.19638
I'm not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for a moderator at a physics forum to suggest a causal link to underlie that correlation based on the opinions of neurosurgeons rather than climate scientists.But I didn't. I merely posted a graph of correlation. The inference of a causal link must have been yours.
I merely posted a graph of correlation. The inference of a causal link must have been yours.FALSE. Here's your quote, with bold face type for emphasis:
"Then again, this is just a correlation, and correlation is not causation. A correlation exists between CO2 levels and any other variable which has increased or decreased since 1980, such as, say, the average ticket price at American cinemas. It seems unlikely that movie tickets affect the atmosphere directly.
The problem we have here is that you seem to be impressed by any mathematics that supports your preconceptions, but not any that challenges them. That is most unscientific.Nonsense.
If I have any motivation, it is a desire to help and encourage people to think critically and to value fact above hypothesis, opinion or propaganda.
What you refer to as "preconceptions" come from books written by scientists, and from college courses taught by scientists. I find that in this forum, you consistently ask me to disregard this information in favor of your flat-earth climate change skepticism.
Thank you for citing that page.Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.FALSE.
The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc
(actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).
You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.
http://www.decodedscience.org/is-there-a-connection-between-a-burning-log-and-emc2/22390
Again, I understand Entropy just fine. When you take a bunch of solar energy that's concentrated in fossil fuels, then use combustion to release it according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you get a bunch of dissipated heat, ash and smoke that includes carbon dioxide.
It takes more energy to collect all that energy and carbon dioxide back together than you got burning it in the first place. That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy Law. When you convert mass or energy from one form to the other, you are going to get Entropy.
By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry.
Craig: ask yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.bind·ing en·er·gy
Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?
If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.
When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.
The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.
Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.
And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers
What mechanism would you suggest is the dirving factor behind that?The point is exactly that: the historic correlation between magnetic field and CO2 is as near perfect as you can wish for, but it is entirely spurious. There is no possible linking mechanism. Lesson 1: correlation does not imply causation.
The Renaissance began with skepticism, so please try thinking for yourself - the world needs you.If I think for myself, you'll say I'm not following science. If I follow science, you'll say I'm not thinking for myself. It's a classic Catch 22.
The fact that this forum hasn't banned you should tell you something about its ethos.On the contrary, the fact that this thread is full of trolls moderated by a flamer me tells me something about its pathos.
Having read your posts since I understand that you were talking to the crank.Oh, look, the right wing fascist wants to crack down on my freedom of speech so he can talk about pseudoscience.
That is why there can be no serrious discussion here untill he is restricted.
However the evidence does suggest that temperature drives CO2, and we can propose several plausible mechanisms for that.Again, while that may be true historically, you seriously need to update your information. Only in the last 150 years did we start plowing through fossil fuels at breakneck speed. In the last 800,000 years, CO2 content of the atmosphere was NEVER above 320, and as I have pointed out at least half a dozen times in these threads, we added another 20% to that in just 50 years. So now you need to accept the fact that there's a new factor to consider. Maybe temperature USED to lead, but that was before there were 7 billion people relying of fossil fuel consumption for their livelihood, which is UNPRECEDENTED.
both BC and I have the thick skins you acquire with a sackful of professional qualifications and experience.Nonsense. If you had a sackful of professional qualifications, you wouldn't be in a public forum arguing with an artist. You would be hanging out with Stephen Hawking, publishing a scientific paper, or converting kinetic energy to mass. Public forums are for hobbyists and people who read pop science books, but they also harbor crank scientists and nobodies with science degrees eager to make themselves feel better by trashing out laymen and people who read pop science books. I am well experienced with this phenomenon.
If you read what I wrote, rather than what you think I might have written...I read what you wrote. Care to define "atomic chemistry" ??
you confused atomic chemistry with nuclear physics
You are not unteachable, Craig.No, but perhaps you are.
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
If I was arguing with Craig about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )
The Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin') believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.
The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb." People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.
At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board.
I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )
The Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin') believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.
The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb." People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.
At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board.
I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics.OK, lets have a look at that.
Lets be clear about this.Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )
The Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin') believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.
The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb." People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.
At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board.
I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
Please tell us which climate scientist thinks that the direct heat released by combustion is significant in global warming.
If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.
It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus
So what is wrong or right about these analyses?
1. I was first shown the Vostok ice core data about 10 years ago (at an alumni conference of the Cambridge Earth Sciences department, just in case Craig wants to play the academic qualifications game) and immediately noticed that the temperature graph was always ahead of the CO2 curve. Now in my universe, the cause always precedes the effect, so CO2 cannot have been the cause of temperature fluctuations. Subsequent published analyses have confirmed what was visually obvious.
2. Notwithstanding point 3 below, we do have some very reliable recent data from a single sampling point - Mauna Loa. The temperature curve shows a smooth continuous upward trend in recent years, but the CO2 curve, whilst its mean follows the temperature curve, shows an annual cyclic pattern that is a very regular sinusoid. Now if this reflected anthropogenic carbon dioxide, as you might expect, you would expect to find the maxima in winter when we burn more carbon fuels to keep warm. But it isn't. The maximum occurs in early summer, every year. This clearly implies that temperature drives carbon dioxide.
3. I have always been skeptical of so-called recent historic data on global mean temperature, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere - the fact that nobody had visited the poles,let alone made any serious measurements of arctic and antarctic temperatures before 1900; the fact that nobody has ever defined "mean global surface temperature" when asked; the fact that frankly nobody even cared about accurate land surface temperature measurements before 1920; the increasing paucity of such data between 1945 and 1970; the almost complete absence of temperature measurements of the sea surface (75% of the globe), mountains, or deserts (another 20%), prior to 1970; the increasing heat island effect on what land surface measurements we do have; lack of international standardisation of meteorological thermometers before 1926; the extraordinary correlation of the NOAA "adjustment" of recent data to the known CO2 concentration.... enough for the moment....In short, most of the "data" looks like guesswork massaged with presumptions.
4. In my undergraduate days we studied infrared absorption as part of physical stereochemistry and the quantum mechanics of chemical bonds. We learned (and calculated, and measured) that the O=C=O structure is a rigid cylinder with very few infrared excitation modes. At pretty much the same time (the 1960's) we began exploiting the IR transitions of CO2 to make very powerful lasers - simple and powerful precisely because CO2 has such a narrow IR spectrum. Water, by comparison, has an enormously broad IR absorption spectrum even as a monomer, and exists in the atmosphere as monomer, dimer, trimer and possibly hexamer gases, liquid, and several ice phases with different structures and spectra. Given that the hugely powerful greenhouse gas, H2O, comprises around 4% of the atmosphere, and the weakly absorbing CO2 less than 0.04%, and that the latent heat of evaporation and melting of water (both of which take place in the atmosphere) is responsible for almost all of the energy transport that we call weather(still with us, Craig? that's part of the international syllabus for pilots, and I scored 100% in the meteorology exam) it does not seem at all reasonable to ascribe any significant change in global surface temperature to the IR spectum of CO2.
5. We also learned that the CO2 absorption spectrum is close to saturation at ground level: adding more CO2 will not affect the overall IR absorption or emission of the atmosphere: the "extinction" phenomenon is of course true for all absorbers of radiation and formed one of the bases of my subsequent studies (PhD (Warwick) in case Craig is still with us) and career (Chartered Physicist, National Physical Laboratory, US Bureau of Standards, and now a few private companies) in radiation measurement of all sorts. Even in our schooldays we learned that warm air can contain more water than cold air, so if water vapor promotes heating or cooling, the effect has an inherent positive feedback until the air is either desiccated (as over Antarctica) or forms clouds that cut off the solar input - a bounded chaotic oscillator, just like the Vostok record.
So I'm just a teeny bit skeptical about any model that begins with the presumption that CO2 is the primary climate agent (particularly when the IPCC said, in its first report, that it isn't) and then tries to fit "adjusted" "data" to the known or presumed CO2 curve. My skepticism is enhanced each year when the dire predictions of those models turn out to be wrong.
The "technical aspects" outlined above can be summarised us: when studied carefully, the data does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of climate. And that's the historical problem with scapegoats: the goat hadn't sinned, so sacrificing it did not placate the gods.
Meanwhile the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and climate change is going to exacerbate humanity's selfimposed mess, so the sooner we stop bleating about a non-cause and start dealing with the inescapable effect, the better. But the solution is politically unpalatable, so intergovernmental panels and treaties will continue to ignore the facts and blame the electorate for burning coal.
completely independent temperature records, and known temperature proxies that have a well characterized link to global temperature. The results are mathematically identical.
This completely explains the seasonal fluctuations about the mean of the CO2 curve.
Well it would if the CO2 curve peaked in July-August, when sea temperature is maximal, but it actually peaks in May-June. But don't let the facts spoil a good argument!
Please give us a reference to the three independent pre-1900 trans-Antarctic survey records, the corresponding pre-1900 trans-Arctic records, the matching data from the Sahara, Amazon Basin, Manitoba and Gobi, and any three independent data sets from the entire Pacific ocean surface that predate the industrial revolution.
Please cite a temperature proxy that is not also a CO2 proxy.
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades.
Reanalysis data sets also show the same warming trend. A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations. Reanalysis comparisons by Vose et al. (2012) and Compo et al. (2013) find nearly identical global surface warming trends as in the instrumental record (Figure 8).Links to the cited papers can be found on the cited page.
Please define "global temperature".
I do not find it in the least surprising that independent groups, starting with the same data and the same assumptions, end up with the same model, however dubious the data and assumptions.
However when the model fails by more than its error bars to predict the next finding, or explain the observed historic phase shifts, it does rather cast doubt on the validity of the entire process.
An interesting mental exercise is to ask the question, what would happen if we took away all the water from the earth. Say we have a waterless earth, but leave the atmosphere with the current CO2. This will allows us to isolate the impact of the water on global climate and weather.
If we took away the water, you would no longer have to worry about hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms, floods and any type of storm event; tornado, that comes from water based clouds. We won't have to worry about El Nino and La Nina affects, which originate in the oceans.
The loss of the water, will alter the thermal capacity of the earth's surface; goes down. This loss will cause higher thermal swings between day and night, as well as summer to winter. Without water in the atmosphere, there are no clouds to reflect the sun or help the earth retain surface heat.
If the surface water was not there to absorb and release heat, less heat would be transferred via oceans based currents. The need for heat transfer will be done mostly by the atmospheres. But the atmosphere can't move as much heat, due to their lower thermal capacity, unless air speed gets super high.
The lack of water, will impact all of life. There will be no photosynthesis, since the two reactants are water and CO2. This means the production of oxygen will stop. The result will be the partial pressure of the oxygen decreasing over time, as oxygen reacts with the surface to form oxides, but is not replaced. With less and less O2 in the atmosphere, we cant form new CO2. We will also lose the ozone layer, allowing more and more UV to enter the earth. CO2 can be broken down wth short wave UV back to CO, O, O2, C. Loss of O2 may shift the CO2 equilibrium back to O2.
I am not sure how one can ignore water, since it is the straw that stirs the global weather drink. The lack of water based disccuson and the fixation on CO2, shows there is a gap in knowledge.
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
D & K demonstrated and explained a strong correlation between ignorance and arrogance, both of which appear to typify Craig's contributions here. Nothing to do with herd instinct or whatever else makes people prefer a consensus in the absence of conflicting data.Nonsense, because when I was younger and lived in Texas, I DID follow the herd instinct, and was a climate change skeptic. Now I have enough of a science background to know better. Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.
What interests me about this whole subject is why anyone supports a consensus in the face of facts. It's the basis of religion, politics, antiscience, and practically every anthropogenic evil I can think of. I am not in the least concerned about Craig's affectation of DK syndrome, which has shed no light on the question at all, but he does seem to have a florid case of it.
Craig doesn't want a discussion because he already 'knows' he is right. How can you have a reasoned debate with a guy who so easily resorts to insults? Just make sure that you don't point out when you think he is wrong.Wrong. I do know that the 97% of climate scientists who agree with one another know more about this than you, dill hole.
We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.Yes, thank you.
It should be very clear that water is not being ignored by climatologists and in fact is a large part of their models.Yes, thank you.
If I was arguing with Craig about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .Global warming IS entropy, flat earther. Heat and carbon dioxide used to be in concentrated forms like coal deposits and oil reserves. We have now dissipated that heat and carbon dioxide into the environment. That's entropy. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to school, and try to learn this information correctly next time.
However he is unable to accept that he's wrong about other things.
He is, for example, still shrieking that he understands entropy.
Well, for a start it's not really relevant- not least because the sun/ Earth system isn't closed.
For an encore he has totally failed to grasp how stupid his choice of example was. (Nobody who understands it would choose to illustrate entropy with a reaction where the entropy change is exactly zero)
When humans use energy, it gives off heat. Whenever we burn fossil fuels, heat is emitted. This heat doesn't just disappear - it dissipates into our environment. How much does waste heat contribute to global warming? This has been calculated in Flanner 2009 (if you want to read the full paper, access details are posted here). Flanner contributes that the contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Waste heat is about 1% of greenhouse warming.
So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.I am trying to keep this simple.
So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.I am trying to keep this simple.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels produces both heat and carbon dioxide.
SOMETHING about that is causing anthropogenic climate change.
Can we at least agree on that?? Unlike some other discussions I had with you at physforum.com, I appreciate your comments this time. However, I don't care so much about nitpicking the details. I'm concerned about the overall trend.
How is ignoring variables that have no actually measurable impact less simple than including them? If you include them you complicate the math and the explanations bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference. That just doesn't seem simpler to me at all. Also, we have fairly conclusive evidence the CO2 is the source of anthropogenic climate change from models that completely ignore human waste heat. Why should we complicate those preexisting models with extra parameters that have no measurable impact on the results? The trend clearly comes from the CO2 and any correlation to total human energy use is because a majority of our energy use also results in the release of CO2.I don't know how to explain this to you any differently than I already have, so let me repeat my stance.
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.I think the people arguing in the forum are the type of people who "can't see the forest for the trees." Not to sound egotistical, but I think I might actually understand things better than some real scientists because they are highly specialized, which narrows their view. For example, Bored Chemist claims he spent 10 years studying hydrology, while I claim to understand the basics of chemistry, biology and physics in general.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.
I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage.No; we would simply need to learn to understand it.
Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.
Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.
I think Tim is wrong.
(Is that clear enough?)
Now, in order to keep things simple for laymen that don't even have as much scientific background as me, I like to frame this argument in simple terms that anyone can easily understand, such as the statement, "Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels creates a great deal of heat and releases a great deal of carbon dioxide. The NET effect of that is a slight warming of the Earth's atmosphere." As you can clearly see, I did NOT "complicate the math and the explanations, bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference" as you stated above. I don't do that, until people like you force me to, like when you brought up 3D earthquake propagation in reference to the 2D wave mechanics of photons in Thebox's black hole thread.
At any rate, as I've said before, I didn't learn my science incorrectly. Yet, I have one group of people attacking me, saying the heat we produce from burning fossil fuels is negligible compared to the Sun's energy, and I have another group of people attacking me, saying the carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere in doing so has a negligible insulative effect compared to things like an eccentric orbit or the Sun drifting through a warmer part of the galaxy.
Somehow, the NET arguments of your camp and the other camp seems to imply that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels really doesn't add up to much of a difference at all. Somebody is wrong, and it isn't me. All I'm saying is that the heat and the carbon dioxide are ultimately important in the equation to some degree, though I couldn't say for exact certainty what percentage is largest by how much, nor do scientists themselves even completely agree on that. Of course, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy and carbon dioxide is an experiment that has never been performed before, so we don't know exactly what to expect.
I don't see how your arguments will convince people we need to stop applying combustion to so much fossil fuel. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying SOMEBODY is, because SOMETHING is responsible, and that something most likely comes from combustion on a massive scale, so you guys need to stop picking apart my general argument, the statement I put in quotation marks several sentences back, because it is generally correct, and you are smart enough to recognize that.
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.
Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.
I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.
Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.
I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
. I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades.I agree entirely - at least up to the point where NOAA keep "adjusting" the satellite data until it fits the hypothesis! There is plenty of good raw data since 1979. My point is that there is almost none of any value before 1920, and even the period 1920 - 1970 is mostly derived from airfields near habitation. The problem is that we have no truly global temperature data before 1979, just lots of proxies and models, all using the same implicit or explicit assumption that CO2 drives temperature. Only a fool would deny that climate changes, but the prevailing consensus of why it changes has no foundation in observation.
I suppose to be exact I should have said global mean temperature or monthly global mean temperature to be even more precise. It should be fairly obvious how one goes about calculating the mean of all temperatures on the Earth over the period of a month. It takes a lot of addition and some division but computers are good at that.Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.
I agree entirely - at least up to the point where NOAA keep "adjusting" the satellite data until it fits the hypothesis! There is plenty of good raw data since 1979. My point is that there is almost none of any value before 1920, and even the period 1920 - 1970 is mostly derived from airfields near habitation. The problem is that we have no truly global temperature data before 1979, just lots of proxies and models, all using the same implicit or explicit assumption that CO2 drives temperature. Only a fool would deny that climate changes, but the prevailing consensus of why it changes has no foundation in observation.
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.As long as those points are sufficiently spaced out they can still be a representative sample of the Earth's mean temperature. I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.
Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.
I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.
Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.
For starters I've personally never considered the word denier as a pejorative term. Certainly I see no direct connection between the act of denying something and dishonesty. As far as I am aware a denier simply says that some statement is not true and there is nothing beyond that. I also certainly didn't imply anyone here was a denier. If we accept denier as a pejorative term certainly there is room on your side of the debate for those who share your views on climate change but are less than civil just as there is on my side. I certainly didn't mean for anyone to take umbrage at my remarks which should be rather clear from my rather reasoned tone.
Now seeing as you clearly have negative associations concerning the word denier I am willing to make an effort to use the word skeptic. Unless, that is, you have reasons to dislike that word as well. In which case I would have to ask you to provide me an acceptable term as those two words pretty much deplete my thesaural reserves in relation to this particular subject and I am not very keen of proceeding via trial and error.
I do wish to apologize again if I accidently gave you the impression I thought you were being dishonest or lying. That was absolutely not my attention although I do feel the need to point out that your reaction seems perhaps a bit on the harsh side. Not that we all haven't been guilty of that from time to time. It is always good to be reminded that everyone here is a human. That is unless AI has advanced much further than the public has been told.
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKIThere is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."
and, since the reaction you cited is perfectly reversible it has an entropy change of exactly zero.
And, if you actually understood the nature of entropy, you would have understood that earlier and not tried to use that reaction as an illustration of entropy.
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.Alas, this forum is plagued by a moderator that doesn't want us to see the forest for the trees.
Thanks, Skeptic is fine. Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.Whatever, Liquid Drain-O.
All of this was addressed in the links I provided in the previous post. If you are not going to read the evidence your opposition provides then I have no choice but to question if you are actually willing to be convinced. Also, pretty much all the raw data is publically available in databases (some of which I linked). If you disagree with the methods of analysis you are free to do it for yourself starting from the raw data.Yes, thank you.QuoteAgreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.
Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy.
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess, you read in a book.
"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.
You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?
You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb. And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).
You do indeed need that much energy.
The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.
From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."
On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.
You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.
And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
"On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point."On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.
You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.
And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig3.png
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Tropics%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/seaice-anomaly-antarctic.png?w=720&h=585
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Fig8.jpg
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-1.png
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image046.jpg
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01-ncdc-since-1979.png
Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.
There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).
El Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including off the Pacific coast of South America. El Niño Southern Oscillation refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called "La Niña" with SST in the eastern Pacific below average and air pressures high in the eastern and low in western Pacific. The ENSO cycle, both El Niño and La Niña, causes global changes of both temperatures and rainfall.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.
ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[26]
El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[27] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[28] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[29] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[30]
Many ENSO linkages exist in the high southern latitudes around Antarctica.[81] Specifically, El Niño conditions result in high pressure anomalies over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas, causing reduced sea ice and increased poleward heat fluxes in these sectors, as well as the Ross Sea. The Weddell Sea, conversely, tends to become colder with more sea ice during El Niño. The exact opposite heating and atmospheric pressure anomalies occur during La Niña.[82] This pattern of variability is known as the Antarctic dipole mode, although the Antarctic response to ENSO forcing is not ubiquitous.[82]
El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe.[83] The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season.[84]
If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino.QuoteEl Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including off the Pacific coast of South America. El Niño Southern Oscillation refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called "La Niña" with SST in the eastern Pacific below average and air pressures high in the eastern and low in western Pacific. The ENSO cycle, both El Niño and La Niña, causes global changes of both temperatures and rainfall.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.
This El Nino affect was first discovered in 1795, centuries before manmade global warming. I think there confusion being created where these two affects; El Nino affects being blended with the new climate change branding for global warming. El Nino has been around since before the industrial revolution, yet its current climate affects are being treated, by layman activists, like it is due to CO2.QuoteENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[26]
El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[27] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[28] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[29] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[30]QuoteMany ENSO linkages exist in the high southern latitudes around Antarctica.[81] Specifically, El Niño conditions result in high pressure anomalies over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas, causing reduced sea ice and increased poleward heat fluxes in these sectors, as well as the Ross Sea. The Weddell Sea, conversely, tends to become colder with more sea ice during El Niño. The exact opposite heating and atmospheric pressure anomalies occur during La Niña.[82] This pattern of variability is known as the Antarctic dipole mode, although the Antarctic response to ENSO forcing is not ubiquitous.[82]
El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe.[83] The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season.[84]
What causes the cyclic oscillation between El Nino and La Nina is an upwelling of cold ocean water below the warm water; thermocline. This is shown below. How does CO2 cause cold water to upwell?
The new branding of climate change equals CO2, appears to cause many people to assume anything dramatic in weather and climate means climate change = CO2. But El Nino does the same thing even before there was the CO2 scare.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fscitable%2Fcontent%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2F13286620%2Fstevens_figure7_climate_ksm.jpg&hash=a748bd33f8ee7b30446b01f16d751c90)
I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.
"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.
That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.
That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.
I'm not the one sweeping it under the rug as you put it."No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.
That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.
I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.
Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.
The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.Well, I think you should talk to the people at CERN. You should tell them that you have a new entropy-free process for accelerating particles. Instead of wasting several cities worth of energy to accelerate particles to near the speed of light, you can merely drop an apple on them. That sounds way more efficient.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."
Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.
It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.
Craig,That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.
Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.Yes, I am not a bad writer:
Craig,I find this one especially amusing.
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
Oops; typoCraig,That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.
"Screw you."It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.
Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?
Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.
Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.Yes, I am not a bad writer:
http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/
Are YOU good at anything?
Craig,I find this one especially amusing.
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.
You can find the ice core data here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html). With respect to my previous post the most recent data is likely to be the most accurate. If we look at the graph for the last 2000 years it is methane that stands out more prominently then CO2. Although the last two gases are recorded in parts per billion that does not take away from the fact that methane increase has outstripped that of CO2. At that level I am unable to say what effect this increase would have.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdiac.ornl.gov%2Fimages%2Fthree_gases_historical.jpg&hash=935088d0f3d72582b5b2945ac9592c44)
I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W ThomsonFalse:
Well, you just proved my point about three thingsI can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W ThomsonFalse:
See the I.D.?
I posted that for a different troll a couple of years ago when he questioned my identity.
At least he had a real name and a real master of physics degree.
You're just a sock puppet.
Just in case you still don't understand.Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?
How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?Just in case you still don't understand.Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?
I knew that several weeks ago. Why do you think I'm still arguing with you?
You lie about people and identities just like you lie about climate change.
You're just like every other liar--suspicious that everyone else is lying.
How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.
How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.
How long have you had this cowardice problem, trolling people anonymously?
Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.
You are a twit, aren't you?Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.
Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.
That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.
Actually, though, isn't it possible to describe both weather and climate using a set of equations to construct a chaotic fluid dynamics model? Weather I would say yes, climate I'm not sure but am tempted to say yes. I'm pretty sure I remember that from James Gleick's book Chaos, but I'd like to hear what you think.
Unless you can disprove the observation that CO2 absorbs IR there's no way round the fact that more CO2 will give rise to more trapped heat.CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.
Wherever he is, let's try.
There are no perfect records of past temperature or past CO2 content of the atmosphere.
However we can, today, make measurements of the spectroscopic properties of CO2.
Those properties indicate that it would act in in a way that has become known as the "greenhouse effect".
There is little or no doubt that temperatures are currently rising.
There is no doubt that mankind has added roughly a third to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last century or two- and much of that addition has been recent.
Setting aside the issue of proving that the temperature rise has been due to the excess CO2.
How could you explain that the additional CO2 would not give rise to a temperature increase?
Unless you can disprove the observation that CO2 absorbs IR there's no way round the fact that more CO2 will give rise to more trapped heat.
Given that thewhole IR absorption/re-emission thing is beyond my science I'll take your and others word for all that.
The IPCC has a figure that they use as the basis for the heatimg from the effect of CO2 which they then add an additional amount to due they say because of feedback effects of additional water vapour.
Since there is already lots of water vapour up there why would this happen and if it does not what fogure of temperature rise would you expect from a doubling of CO2?
You seem to have tacitly assumed that the absorption bands have infinitely steep sides- they don't.That's why I quoted the weighted mean over the entire NIR spectrum. In places it's over 20 cm-1.
So, as you say, it's all down to the numbers.
There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2 concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.
I would appreciate not having to link these again.By all means save yourself the trouble. A reference that includes graphs of global mean temperature back to 1850 is a work of fiction, not science.
Over 50% of the energy that comes from the sun, that reaches the earth, is in the form of infrared; IR. Since CO2 is sensitive to IR, doesn't that mean the CO2 will also trap heat in space; CO2 will keep some of the solar IR heat out in space?
As an analogy, water is also a very important greenhouse gas. A cloudy night in the fall will prevent frost, due to the greenhouse affect trapping heat.
If you look at a cloud of water. A cloud can block and reflect solar energy entering the earth, away from the surface. A cloud gives us shade so it feel cooler. Water can also trap heat at night, so there is no frost on cool fall nights.
If we have a dry day, more solar heat will reach the surface, while at night the lower water content in the air allows the heat to escape faster; desert. The greenhouse gas, water, creates a two way affect. I would expect the same of CO2.
A one way greenhouse assumption of CO2; only traps heat in, could explain why all the computer model predictions are always higher than experimental. They appear to assume CO2 can only trap heat in, but not keep heat out, like water does. If the models are 100-1200% to high in terms of temperature predictions, the trap out affect, appears to be very significant.
The affect should be similar to thermal pane glass. This keeps the heat out in the summer and it also keeps the heat in during the winter. It blocks IR with no direction preferences. It appears the greenhouse affect of CO2 makes use of thermo pane glass.
By all means save yourself the trouble. A reference that includes graphs of global mean temperature back to 1850 is a work of fiction, not science.
I would appreciate not having to link these again.By all means save yourself the trouble. A reference that includes graphs of global mean temperature back to 1850 is a work of fiction, not science.
ok, if you write off the graphs of temperature vs date because they go back too far (Though in post 407 you were perfectly happy to cite the Vostok cores that go back a lot further) you are left with the spectroscopy.
How do you respond to that?
People with absolutely no affiliation to each other and no ulterior motive have analyzed the data using different methodologies and got the same result. Independent temperature records have been analyzed and produced the same result.Alas, the sources you cite talk about reconstructions, not measurements. If we all use the same hypotheses and extrapolate from the same data set, it would be surprising if we came up with different extrapolations.
I have never suggested that Vostok or Mauna Loa data gave us the absolute mean global surface temperature. What they provide is utterly credible records at two single points, over a time scale in which they were actually collected. Both sets of data unequivocally show that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, so CO2 cannot be the controller of temperature.
If I extrapolated my bank account to a time before I was born, would you consider that to be a reasonable proxy for your grandfather's bank balance, never mind the world average? So how can anyone dare to assert what the mean temperature of the globe was, fifty years before anyone visited the poles and a hundred years before anyone made any accurate measurements on land, let alone at sea?
Alas, the sources you cite talk about reconstructions, not measurements. If we all use the same hypotheses and extrapolate from the same data set, it would be surprising if we came up with different extrapolations.
The temperature increase is not an artifact of the GHCN adjustment process
Most of the analyses shown above actually use the raw (unadjusted) GHCN data. Zeke Hausfather has done comparisons using both the adjusted and raw versions of the GHCN data set, and as shown in fig. 5, the results are not substantially different at the global scale (though 2008 is a bit of an outlier).
The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations
While it is true that the number of stations in GHCN has decreased since the early 1990s, that has no real effect on the results of spatially weighted global temperature reconstructions. How do we know this?
Comparisons of trends for stations that dropped out versus stations that persisted post-1990 show no difference in the two populations prior to the dropouts (see, e.g., here and here and here).
The spatial weighting processes (e.g., gridding) used in these analyses makes them robust to the loss of stations. In fact, Nick Stokes has shown that it's possible to derive a global temperature reconstruction using just 61 stations worldwide (in this case, all the stations from GISTEMP that are classified as rural, have at least 90 years of data, and have data in 2010).
Other data sets that don't suffer from GHCN's decline in station numbers show the same temperature increase (see below).
One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong.
The temperature increase is present in other data sets, not just GHCN
All of the above studies rely (mostly or entirely) on monthly station data from the GHCN database. But it turns out that other, independent data sets give very similar results.
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades. Figure 7 shows a comparison of land, ocean, and global temperature data from the surface reconstructions (averaging the multiple analyses shown in figs. 3 and 4) and from satellites (averaging the results from RSS and UAH):
Reanalysis data sets also show the same warming trend. A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations. Reanalysis comparisons by Vose et al. (2012) and Compo et al. (2013) find nearly identical global surface warming trends as in the instrumental record (Figure 8).
A paper by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link to global surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two (0.76; Figure 9).
We know for a fact that the only actual measurements of mean global surface temperature come from satellites, post-1970. Everything else, whether you call it proxy, model, or extrapolation from airfield data, is guesswork over the 90% of the planet for which we have no credible previous data.
We also know that whenever the satellite data is "corrected", the new curve is a better fit to the CO2 curve, and the "corrections" now exceed the error bars in the original data. Funny, that.
Beware of the straw man. Only a fool would pretend that the climate hasn't changed, and I'm quite happy to accept that mean global temperature has indeed risen during my lifetime
BUT
Historically and by recent measurement, temperature leads CO2
AND
the discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under a retreating glacier tells us unequivocally that Canada, at least, was significantly warmer 500 years ago than it is today.
These rather boring facts get in the way of the prevailing consensus of anthropogenic global warming. Which is a pity, because the consensus implies that we could do something to prevent it, whereas the observation sugests that we need to do something to mitigate its effect.
Not that it matters, as politicians have decided on your behalf to do nothing anyway.
Stratospheric Temperature Change
As the lower atmosphere warms due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, the upper atmosphere is expected to cool as a consequence. The simple way to think about this is that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Since less heat is released into the upper atmosphere (starting with the stratosphere), it cools.
Jones et al. (2003) investigated the changes in temperature over the past 4 decades at both the near surface (troposphere) and stratosphere layers, and compare them to changes predicted by a coupled atmosphere/ocean general circulation model, HadCM3. They concluded as follows.
"Our results strengthen the case for an anthropogenic influence on climate. Unlike previous studies we attribute observed decadal-mean temperature changes both to anthropogenic emissions, and changes in stratospheric volcanic aerosols. The temperature response to change in solar irradiance is also detected but with a lower confidence than the other forcings."
Precipitation
Zhang et al. (2007) showed that models using natural + anthropogenic forcings do a much better job of matching observed precipitation trends than either natural or anthropogenic alone. The correlation with natural forcings alone is extremely weak - only 0.02. With anthropogenic alone is 0.69, and with both combined is 0.83 over the past 75 years.
"We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation"
Infrared Radiation
Increase in downward longwave radiation
Anthropogenic global warming is caused by an increase in the amount of downward longwave infrared radiation coming from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Philipona et al. (2004) measured the changes and trends of radiative fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas increases and temperature and humidity changes measured from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network. They concluded as follows.
"The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the "theory" of greenhouse warming with direct observations."
Evans et al. (2006) took it a step further, performing an analysis of high resolution specral data which allowed them to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The study went as far as to conclude,
"This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
Decrease in upward longwave radiation
As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, we expect to see less infrared radiation escaping at the top of the atmosphere. Satellite observations have confirmed that the decrease in upward longwave radiation matches well with model predictions, including in Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, and Chen 2007, the latter of which concluded:
"Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra."
And, as I said, if you don't like the historic temperature (and/ or CO2) data forget it. Just address the issues about spectroscopy raised by those posts.ok, if you write off the graphs of temperature vs date because they go back too far (Though in post 407 you were perfectly happy to cite the Vostok cores that go back a lot further) you are left with the spectroscopy.
How do you respond to that?
I have never suggested that Vostok or Mauna Loa data gave us the absolute mean global surface temperature. What they provide is utterly credible records at two single points, over a time scale in which they were actually collected. Both sets of data unequivocally show that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, so CO2 cannot be the controller of temperature.
If I extrapolated my bank account to a time before I was born, would you consider that to be a reasonable proxy for your grandfather's bank balance, never mind the world average? So how can anyone dare to assert what the mean temperature of the globe was, fifty years before anyone visited the poles and a hundred years before anyone made any accurate measurements on land, let alone at sea?
Beware of the straw man. Only a fool would pretend that the climate hasn't changed, and I'm quite happy to accept that mean global temperature has indeed risen during my lifetime
BUT
Historically and by recent measurement, temperature leads CO2
AND
the discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under a retreating glacier tells us unequivocally that Canada, at least, was significantly warmer 500 years ago than it is today.
These rather boring facts get in the way of the prevailing consensus of anthropogenic global warming. Which is a pity, because the consensus implies that we could do something to prevent it, whereas the observation sugests that we need to do something to mitigate its effect.
Not that it matters, as politicians have decided on your behalf to do nothing anyway.
Therefore, geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles and cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer even though future halogen concentrations will be significantly reduced.
You're forgetting geoengineering. Solar geoengineering may destroy the ozone layer and lower temperature by injecting sulfate aerosol in the troposphere. Ozone and temperature are strongly correlated.QuoteTherefore, geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles and cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer even though future halogen concentrations will be significantly reduced.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108/meta
Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.
Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.
Wrong. Geoengineering IS happening right now. You have to be plain silly to ignore this fact. Again, on what planet do you live? Is it the same planet where unicorns live? Geoengineering is a real world attempt to reduce global CO2 levels by injecting sulfate aerosols in the troposphere and so far it's not working out.
You have been making these wild assertions for some time now.Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.
Wrong. Geoengineering IS happening right now. You have to be plain silly to ignore this fact. Again, on what planet do you live? Is it the same planet where unicorns live? Geoengineering is a real world attempt to reduce global CO2 levels by injecting sulfate aerosols in the troposphere and so far it's not working out.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
You have been making these wild assertions for some time now.
Have you noticed that this is a science forum? Assertions, if they are to be given serious consideration, must be supported by evidence, or reasoned argument. So far you have provided neither.
As Bored Chemist says, simply repeating the same mantra over and over, means nothing.
And to answer your question: I live on a planet where well educated, thoughtful people prefer facts over fantasy, evidence over emotion, and rationality over rants. Perhaps you would like to join us.
The notion that solar geoengineering is happening currently isn't an assertion, it is a *fact*. You have to be foolish to deny the evidences that we're attempting to cool the planet by injecting (sulfate) aerosols in the troposphere.I cannot deny the evidence, because so far you have failed to provide any evidence. Go ahead. Present it now.
It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
Without the context of the next sentence which says " Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".
That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.
The notion that solar geoengineering is happening currently isn't an assertion, it is a *fact*. You have to be foolish to deny the evidences that we're attempting to cool the planet by injecting (sulfate) aerosols in the troposphere.I cannot deny the evidence, because so far you have failed to provide any evidence. Go ahead. Present it now.
Aluminium (Al), an environmentally abundant and immobile element, has been studied for its mobility in the Gomati River Basin, a part of the Ganga Alluvial Plain, northern India. The dissolved Al concentrations in the Gomati River water and the Lucknow ground-water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb. In the Gomati River water, Al is classified as a moderately mobile element. Nearly 19% of Lucknow groundwater samples and all the Gomati River water samples have Al values above
the permissible limit (200ppb) recommended by the World Health
Organization. Systematic multi-disciplinary study is urgently required to understand the geological association of high Al mobility with human health in the Ganga Alluvial Plain, one of the densely populated regions of the world.
Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."
The elevated concentrations of dissolved aluminium in the Gomati River Basin water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb:1. Finally, some evidence. It just happens to be very poor evidence: sound research whose significance has been entirely misinterpreted by you.QuoteAluminium (Al), an environmentally abundant and immobile element, has been studied for its mobility in the Gomati River Basin, a part of the Ganga Alluvial Plain, northern India. The dissolved Al concentrations in the Gomati River water and the Lucknow ground-water range over three orders of magnitude, from 14 to 77,861ppb. In the Gomati River water, Al is classified as a moderately mobile element. Nearly 19% of Lucknow groundwater samples and all the Gomati River water samples have Al values above
the permissible limit (200ppb) recommended by the World Health
Organization. Systematic multi-disciplinary study is urgently required to understand the geological association of high Al mobility with human health in the Ganga Alluvial Plain, one of the densely populated regions of the world.
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/03/0434.pdf
One may ask from where did this aluminium concentration originates? Aluminium oxide simply don't naturally exist in the atmosphere. This is an evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity may increase this aluminium concentration in rainwater by dumping coal fly ash leachates in the troposphere.
Yogi Berra once observed, apparently paraphrasing Niels Bohr, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.” ButWhich do you consider to be weasel words?QuoteRather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."
has the concatenation of five weasel words in one sentence.
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/03/0434.pdfOne might well ask that.
One may ask from where did this aluminium concentration originates? .
Which do you consider to be weasel words?The ones I highlighted in color.
Incidentally what is says is something more like the equivalent of- "We don't know whether there will be a white Christmas in London next year, but we can at least model whether that's more likely than one in Sydney."It isn't nearly that specific. It says we hope to develop an ensemble of models that might just tell us the probability distribution of the possibility that Sydney is not London.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
Without the context of the next sentence which says
" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".
That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
WellllWithout the context of the next sentence which says
Next sentence? This sentence below" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".
He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote
"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.
Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?
Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.
However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?
Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.
It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"
I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.
I saw that you highlighted some words.Which do you consider to be weasel words?The ones I highlighted in color.QuoteIncidentally what is says is something more like the equivalent of- "We don't know whether there will be a white Christmas in London next year, but we can at least model whether that's more likely than one in Sydney."It isn't nearly that specific. It says we hope to develop an ensemble of models that might just tell us the probability distribution of the possibility that Sydney is not London.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
WellllWithout the context of the next sentence which says
Next sentence? This sentence below" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".
He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote
"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.
Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?
Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.
However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?
Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.
It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"
I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.
I take it that you realise you completely missed the point.
He quotes part of this report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
But he quotes a cherry picked part of it
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"
out of the context which says
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "
The next sentence obviously isn't void at all.
But, if it were then a bright guy like him would have pointed that out.
What you don't seem to understand is that most of life is based on predictions that are not exact- but they are still helpful.
or. more likely, you do understand it,but you are pretending that it doesn't apply here in order to try and bolster your position.
Nice try.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.What I find interesting about these curves is that both the predicted and actual effects of s single eruption (admittedly quite a big one) of a load of particulates were larger than the underlying annual trend, whatever the cause of that.
However, when Mt. Pinatubo went off climate modelers sprung into action and did make predictions about the impact it would have on climate.What I find interesting about these curves is that both the predicted and actual effects of s single eruption (admittedly quite a big one) of a load of particulates were larger than the underlying annual trend, whatever the cause of that.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q
it ejected an estimated 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2.That's less than one sixth of the annual anthropogenic emission of SO2, which has been going on for hundreds of years, mostly from the combustion of coal.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q
Thanks for that.
I presume you were unable to actually address the issue I raised.
That's less than one sixth of the annual anthropogenic emission of SO2, which has been going on for hundreds of years, mostly from the combustion of coal.
What really distinguishes volcanic eruptions from anthropogenic gases is the stratospheric distribution of ash particles rather than gases. It's the gross reflection of the subsequent clouds (cloud cover being increased by dust nucleation of supercooled water) that controls surface temperature.
In particular SO2 (and sulfur compounds in general) have a residence time of about a day and at the most 2 days
If we allow a halflife of 2 days, 10 days after the eruption there will be less than 1/1000 of the initial concentration, and less than one billionth after a month. You wouldn't expect to see an effect over 5 years, surely?
However this still isn't quite fair because the human emissions don't end up in the same place as the eruption emissions.
It is actually well understood the SO2 is very important because it rapidly forms particulates when in the atmosphere which is part of the reason SO2 doesn't stay in the troposphere for much longer than a day. The SO2 from the eruption did what SO2 does and formed a haze of sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere. These droplets were easily the biggest factor in the decrease in solar radiation reaching the ground. The fact that the droplets formed in the stratosphere rather than the troposphere means they stuck around for much longer because they couldn't be washed out by rainstorms.
the two types of emissions end up in very different parts of the atmosphere which have very different residence times. (That is not to say some human emitted SO2 doesn't make it into the stratosphere just that most of it doesn't and certainly not as large a percentage as from an eruption.)
CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.Explain how this is not unparliametary:
You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.Explain how this is not unparliametary:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2016 19:54:52 "You are a twit, aren't you?"
Shove your temporary ban up your ass, flat earth moron. I'M banning this site permanently after this post. You people have zero integrity. I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow braindead halfwits to be moderators, but have fun with your little gang of scientifically ignorant, politically biased corporate shills while spreading misinformation.
I've got news for you, blockhead. The laws of physics work the way they work no matter what words I choose. I shouldn't be kicked out of a science forum for unparliamentary language. You should all be kicked out for unscientific language and skeptical nonsense.
Combustion produces heat, and it produces carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere trap that heat.
Those are the facts, alan. Now, go fu ck yourself, parliamentarily or otherwise. I'm way too smart for you and your cronies. Banning me is the ONLY power you will EVER have over me, so enjoy it.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?
Any chance of you answering mine?
What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?
Any chance of you answering mine?
What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?
I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.
It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
If I ask you what the population of America is, I don't expect you to count them, I expect you to find an answer that someone else has counted.Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?
Any chance of you answering mine?
What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?
I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.
It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Another none answer.
YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.
I am asking YOU why?
That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.
If I ask you what the population of America is, I don't expect you to count them, I expect you to find an answer that someone else has counted.Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Life is not based on predictions
Where, in science, is failing to answer questions good practice?
Any chance of you answering mine?
What degree of warming do you expect given the last 18years of data?
I can't see where you asked that before.
But anyway, If I had seen you asked me that I'd probably have ignored it. I am not, after all, a climatologist so it wouldn't make much sense asking what I think the temperature change would be.
It would be much more sensible to ask a group of specialists for their opinion. So, it makes a lot more sense to look at something like the IPCC's reports on their predictions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Another none answer.
YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.
I am asking YOU why?
That you do not answer is very telling. If the top half of the IPCC's predictions are out then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. You will have to find another doomsday cult.
So, if you said " about 320 million" and I asked how you knew that you would say you checked Google.
By your reckoning that's not answering the question.
There's even a web site dedicated to people who ask dumb questions where the answer is better obtained elsewhere
http://bfy.tw/5Xkt
So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.
However, you seem to have grasped that and decided to ask a marginally more sensible question
"YOU are telling us all that we should regard CO2 as a danger and change the whole basis of the world's industry.
I am asking YOU why?"
Well, because that's what the people who know about it say and also
Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,
1, Scientifically justifiable
and
2, Actually scary
Thanks.
You were not thrown off the site for bad language, or even for being rude.I don't care. You spent weeks trolling me, insulting me and posting bad science. I would enjoy slapping your face clean off your head. It's unfortunate that I can never actually pose that threat because, unlike me, you are too cowardly and deceitful to use your real identity when you're flaming people.
You were thrown off after making threats of physical violence.
I don't think you will find many sites where that's acceptable.
Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.
It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.
You had two choices; you could address the errors you made or you could be rude to people.Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.
It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.
You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.
What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.
And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.
Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,
1, Scientifically justifiable
and
2, Actually scary
Thanks.
"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.
So the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.
Since you have seen fit to repeat that threat I suspect you won't be here for much longer.I already told you, I don't care if I get kicked out. That's why I even said that. I honestly thought it would be my last post and I would be banned this morning.
It might have been more productive for you to address some the the well over a hundred mistakes you made.
That you didn't says a lot about you.
You guys are losers. You think I care if losers accept me into their club? That's a clear indication that you don't know anything about me at all.
What I actually DO care about is humanity, and climate change. You skeptics don't have any business gambling with the future of the entire human race, flat earther.
And once again, just for the record, you have to reveal your actual identity before I can threaten you, jughead. Your failure to do so and your willingness to troll people anonymously says a lot about you. I dare you to grow a pair of balls so I can make a real threat, cybertrash.
I have answered he question several times.
Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,
1, Scientifically justifiable
and
2, Actually scary
Thanks.
"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.
You said;QuoteSo the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.
So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!
For what it's worth, I care a great deal about climate change and its effect on humanity, which is why I take a very skeptical stance on the bad science that underpins current governmental responses to the problem (such as giving taxpayers' money to windmill manufacturers).
As I see it, climate change is inevitable, the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, and the effect will be disastrous in the next 50 years as the worst-affected populations take up arms to migrate to more habitable areas. Blaming western industry isn't going to help, particularly if the same treaties allow uninhibited expansion of coalburning industries in the east, and taxing travellers is just political cynicism.
Craig: mend your manners.
I have answered he question several times.
Given that you consider your own opinion worthless can you tell me what these other people say that you find,
1, Scientifically justifiable
and
2, Actually scary
Thanks.
"Given that you consider your own opinion..."
Straw man, since it's not a given.
You said;QuoteSo the question of my personal opinion on the extent of the warming makes no difference. There's no meaningful reason for you to ask for it.
So can you try to find some way to actually answer these questions!!
My answer was (and remains)" It's not my field; go and ask the experts".
I even gave you a link to their web page.
Incidentally
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks
You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.
This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.
Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;
Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....
You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.
This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.
Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;
Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....
What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?
Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?A small rise in temperature may be no big deal, except where the behavior of plants and animals is strongly linked. That is, pretty much the entire temperate zone. Crop sprouting from seeds, bulbs and tubers is determined by temperature change, but animal migration and reproduction (including birds, bees and wild mammals) is also directed by day length.
I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.
That is why YOU think this.
From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.
It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations.
Which areas do you see as having negative effects from a small rise in temperatures?A small rise in temperature may be no big deal, except where the behavior of plants and animals is strongly linked. That is, pretty much the entire temperate zone. Crop sprouting from seeds, bulbs and tubers is determined by temperature change, but animal migration and reproduction (including birds, bees and wild mammals) is also directed by day length.
A warm spring can produce early flowering that is not consummated by pollination from migratory insects. However those insects that hibernate or hatch in the spring may reach maturinty and die before the migratory insectivorous birds arrive. It's a remarkably delicate balance that gets in and out of kilter from year to year, but a steady trend can produce an unforseeable change, with medium-term potential for crop failure or insect devastation.
Small changes in temperature can be associated with very large changes in tropical rainfall patterns or seasonal melts in the sub-arctic and mountains. Whilst relatively sophisticated agronomies like Egypt can cope with a degree of flood variation, more marginal and population-stressed areas in the Indian subcontinent cannot tolerate much change in monsoon patterns.
It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations.
I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.
That is why YOU think this.
From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.
He very clearly stated this already. He understands the scientific processes and therefore trusts the what must be several thousand (if not tens of thousands) of qualified climate scientists that have dedicated their lives to the study of climate. The science behind human caused climate change is well established and widely available. In fact it is well established and supported that anyone that disagrees needs a very good reason for that disagreement (and conversely there is no real need to justify agreement beyond trust in the scientific method). Asking someone to justify their belief in the scientific method and the results derived from it is akin to asking them why they believe in gravity.
But by all means if you have specific criticisms concerning the science I am sure they can be addressed. In fact I've been doing just that for quite some time in this thread. Though it could potentially save as all some time if you simply looked for your question here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
As it has probably already been addressed.It is important to remember that temperature (and in my opinion CO2 level) is the effect, not the cause. The cause is redistribution of water, which is necessarily the essence of life. A small, nomadic population can follow the water, but the migration of a large, urban population will be resisted by other large, urban populations.
It is demonstrably false that CO2 is not the cause of climate change and that has been fairly well established in this thread.
You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.
This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.
Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;
Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....
What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?
I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.
That is why YOU think this.
From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.
Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?
Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.
As to urban populations these do not rely upon the local food production to live they live by international trade. As such they are indeed suffering as a result of the use of food as fuel increasing prices by 70% but that will be the same where ever they go. The supension of international trade due to the restriction of the use of fossil fuel would of course bring very dire consequences.
A couple of years ago I was thrown off another science forum because I pointed out that Greenland was not melting to any great degree. That talk of 660Gt mass loss per year was drivrel.
The last figure I saw in a scientific paper was of 12.9Gt per year anual mass loss of Greenland's ice.
Linking to the not skeptical not science site you love is just the same as go away and read this vast load of gibberish used by other religious types.
This is a science forum. If the science of Global warming cannot be debated here then it something is very wrong.
I ask you to answer the thread about what it would take for you to consider the CAGW hypothesis dead. If your answer is that you need to wait for the high priests of Climate ScienceTM to say so then you are, in this area, not doing science but have moved to religion.
Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?
Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.
You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.
This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.
Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;
Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....
What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?
I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.
That is why YOU think this.
From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.
Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?
Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.
As to urban populations these do not rely upon the local food production to live they live by international trade. As such they are indeed suffering as a result of the use of food as fuel increasing prices by 70% but that will be the same where ever they go. The supension of international trade due to the restriction of the use of fossil fuel would of course bring very dire consequences.
Characterizing the projected impacts of climate change as slight changes in temperature and rainfall is a grave disservice. Here is a slightly more comprehensive but still brief list of impacts:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Impacts/ProjectedEffectsGlobalWarming.html
I cursory google search on your part would reveal much more in depth information. That's all I'd do and frankly it isn't my job to do basic research you should have done before ever forming an opinion one way or another.
A couple of years ago I was thrown off another science forum because I pointed out that Greenland was not melting to any great degree. That talk of 660Gt mass loss per year was drivrel.
The last figure I saw in a scientific paper was of 12.9Gt per year anual mass loss of Greenland's ice.
Please source your 660 Gt claim. I cannot find reference to it and I suspect you misunderstood, misremember, or were fed misinformation. Real figures from the relevant scientific literature can be found below:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmQuote
Linking to the not skeptical not science site you love is just the same as go away and read this vast load of gibberish used by other religious types.
This is a science forum. If the science of Global warming cannot be debated here then it something is very wrong.
This is how debate happens. Evidence is presented in the form of observations and peer reviewed articles from experts in the field. They and thus anyone that cites them have presented their evidence and made their case. It is now your turn to respond with specific criticisms of the already presented evidence.Quote
I ask you to answer the thread about what it would take for you to consider the CAGW hypothesis dead. If your answer is that you need to wait for the high priests of Climate ScienceTM to say so then you are, in this area, not doing science but have moved to religion.
This is ridiculous. Trusting experts and peer reviewed science is not the same as religion. It would take an extraordinary amount of evidence in the form of observations to disprove anthropomorphic climate change but only because there is an extraordinary amount of evidence supporting it. Evidence that is by and large in the public domain and freely accessible. I don't have the time, expertise, or resources to do an in depth study of the climate but I can judge the credibility of climate research by looking at the data and arguments presented.
Apparently you have no interest in actual rational discourse on the matter based on your blanket dismissal of climate experts and their experimental verification.
Well, to try to get to something more specific, which bits of the world do you see as suffering greatly due to a slightly warmer/wetter or dryer year than last?
Given the normal level of variation of anual climate I don't see the expected changes as anything beyond the scope of this variation. That nature is used to a level of surprise in the weather and will cope.
One year makes little difference. Indeed a self-styled climate scientist would dismiss it as "weather". But it's worth looking at phenomena like tree lines. Even in temperate areas like western Ireland, Wales and Scotland, there's a marked change in vegetation with altitude. Normal temperature lapse rate is around 3 degrees per 1000 ft, and we find a significant variation in natural vegetation and crop yelds over 500 ft, so a remorseless change of the order of 1.5 degrees over 100 years would indeed make a significant change in the agriculture of these islands.
Freezing water is hugely important. A slow freeze produces large ice crystals that can damage unadapted living tissue. The critical mean winter temperature range between alpine and lowland crops is only about 2 degrees. Again, vegetation will recover over one or two years, but a small shift in mean winter temperatures in these islands can alter the longtgerm viability of many species not only of plants but also insects.
Oddly, it's the temperate/sub arctic areas, what we consider stable, fertile and productive land like the British Isles and Northern Europe, that would see the most dramatic changes as the snow line retreats. We have already seen an increase in English wine production since 1950, not just a matter of taste and fashion, but a significant northward march of the potential for producing white and now even red wine in my lifetime. It may even return to Scotland before I'm too old to drink Scottish champagne.
Several species of wood-boring beetles have appeared in southern England from warmer climates. Previously, occasional imports in bulk timber did not survive their first winter, but the lack of freezing conditions (and, admittedly, the increase in domestic heating) have turned these curiosities into pests.
You might care to speculate on the mean isotherm around, say, the Sahara desert, or consider what would happen in India if three successive monsoons failed. Or read up on Icelandic history - marginal agriculture that has flipped from boom to bust a few times.
I will not look at any link you post unless you quote the actual bit you wish to refer to. I suggest that if you do want to look at a specific issue within the whole AGW thing such as Greenland's ice loss you start a thread about it so we can keep the thread in some way concise.
Your attitude is to close down any discussion of any herasey against the global warming religion.
If you don't wish to take part don't.
this is getting tiresome.
You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.
This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.
Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;
Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....
What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?
I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.
That is why YOU think this.
From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.
Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
I have studied it.
You have, I hope, studied it.
Can you cite some actual science that says that there is a significant danger of something significant happeneing? Some sort of problem that would justify all the panic? That would do as a start.
But, I asked first, so why do you think there is something to worry about?
this is getting tiresome.
You will understand that not presenting anything which supports your view is not at all persuasive.
This is a science forum. There are people here who are good at science. By presenting the actual arguments you think/say are out there they could be thrashed through. Those who are wrong would be hammered by those in the know.
Your approach is the same as the religious when I challenge them;
Go and read a vastly long winded thing and go away.....
What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?
I want to know why you think there is something to worry us.
That is why YOU think this.
From there we can try to convince each other of our view. But to just pass the buck and avoid doing this means that I will continue to have my view. I think you wish to change my view. To do so will involve putting yourself into the position of possibly being convinced the other way.
Tim, you may remember saying something about the importance of answering question.
Well, it works both ways, as I said
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
I have studied it.
You have, I hope, studied it.
Can you cite some actual science that says that there is a significant danger of something significant happeneing? Some sort of problem that would justify all the panic? That would do as a start.
But, I asked first, so why do you think there is something to worry about?
I think there is something to worry about because a whole bunch of people who know about it think there is a problem
And also, while much of the science on which they base that isn't my field, some bits of it are.
Notably the (so called) greenhouse effect.
It's not clear why you think that all the climatologists are wrong.
However, perhaps you would like to answer my question.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
Here is my position;
That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about, that temperature increases will not be much, or much in the way of trouble and that there will generally be benefits from a slightly warmer world.
If you want me to think that there is indeed stuff to worry about what is it? And please don't just link to a alarmist blog but actually, in your own words actually say what it is you think is the threat. Otherwise I will have to consider you a sheep, not a thinking person.
During summers, thermal pane windows block heat entering into the house, and during winters, heat from inside is prevented from going outside. This helps in saving the energy used to cool and heat the house.
Here is my position;
That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about, that temperature increases will not be much, or much in the way of trouble and that there will generally be benefits from a slightly warmer world.
Citation required.Quote
If you want me to think that there is indeed stuff to worry about what is it? And please don't just link to a alarmist blog but actually, in your own words actually say what it is you think is the threat. Otherwise I will have to consider you a sheep, not a thinking person.
That restriction is frankly idiotic. The Bored Chemist is not qualified to make predictions about future climatic changes and thus relies on the work of actual experts. There is no compelling reason for anyone here to paraphrase the work of climate scientists to you. Doing so can only potentially introduce errors and frankly it would take far too much time.
Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.
Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.
And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.
But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.
Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.
Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.
To ignore those risks and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.
And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
1, I do not need to have a citation for my own position!!! I can think for myself even if you cannot!
2, Appealing to authority is not, normally, in science, a very convincing way to support an argument.
That the actual science produced by all but a very few, well M.Mann, says that there is nothing to worry about
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
Given I am asking for BChemist's reasons for believing what he says he does or indeed yours what is wrong with you answering?
It is the same as getting any reply to a question from a Born again Christian. Avoidance, appeal to authority and the go away and read this load of very long winded drivel.
There is a link between CO2 levels and temperature. However, the assumed assumptions, about this link, appear to be exaggerated, as inferred by the observation that all the computers models are all predicting a temperature change that is too high. The greenhouse is not getting as hot as the assumptions predict.
The windows of a greenhouse have two sides. However, only one side of the window is included in the assumptions. In the spring, a greenhouse allows the warmth from the sun to become trapped inside the greenhouse. However, say you are using a greenhouse to grow a cool weather plants, like lettuce, in the summer. The windows used in that greenhouse will allow light to pass, but will also help insulate the lettuce from the IR of the summer heat. These use thermal pane windows.QuoteDuring summers, thermal pane windows block heat entering into the house, and during winters, heat from inside is prevented from going outside. This helps in saving the energy used to cool and heat the house.
Over 50% of the energy from the sun comes to the earth as IR, which is the wavelength that CO2 blocks. The current assumption only traps the heat from the surface of the earth; spring green house. The assumptions appear to assume these windows are transparent to the solar IR that drives the heat cycle of the earth. It is assumed impossible to grow lettuce in the summer in their greenhouse. If you use cheap windows, in your greenhouse, you will get what you pay for.
Water is a greenhouse gas and works using the principles of thermal pane windows; two way. Clouds will cause shade from the summer sun, which cools the surface of the earth. While clouds will also trap the heat on the earth's surface, during the night, when the sun is gone. This can prevent frost on crops. CO2 cannot tell the difference between solar IR and earth IR and will block both. Below a useful graph of the solar energy and the earth's surface energy that the two way windows of the greenhouse affect will face.
Over 50% of the energy that comes from the sun, that reaches the earth, is in the form of infrared; IR. Since CO2 is sensitive to IR, doesn't that mean the CO2 will also trap heat in space; CO2 will keep some of the solar IR heat out in space?
As an analogy, water is also a very important greenhouse gas. A cloudy night in the fall will prevent frost, due to the greenhouse affect trapping heat.
If you look at a cloud of water. A cloud can block and reflect solar energy entering the earth, away from the surface. A cloud gives us shade so it feel cooler. Water can also trap heat at night, so there is no frost on cool fall nights.
If we have a dry day, more solar heat will reach the surface, while at night the lower water content in the air allows the heat to escape faster; desert. The greenhouse gas, water, creates a two way affect. I would expect the same of CO2.
A one way greenhouse assumption of CO2; only traps heat in, could explain why all the computer model predictions are always higher than experimental. They appear to assume CO2 can only trap heat in, but not keep heat out, like water does. If the models are 100-1200% to high in terms of temperature predictions, the trap out affect, appears to be very significant.
The affect should be similar to thermal pane glass. This keeps the heat out in the summer and it also keeps the heat in during the winter. It blocks IR with no direction preferences. It appears the greenhouse affect of CO2 makes use of thermo pane glass.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html
The most basic of basic things about the greenhouse effect is that visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the surface of the Earth and then reemitted by the surface as infrared light. This is the infrared light that is trapped by clouds and greenhouse gases. No reputable climate scientist would ever make the mistake of assuming that greenhouse gases only absorb IR light coming from the surface.
The reason we call this the greenhouse effect is because this is exactly how greenhouses work. The glass of the greenhouse lets in visible light. The stuff in the greenhouse absorbs the visible light and emits IR light. The IR light is then trapped inside the greenhouse by the glass because the glass is much more reflective to IR than visible light. In short, visible light comes in and is converted to IR light which can't get out.
Then you need to learn to read.Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.
Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.
And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.
But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.
Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.
Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.
To ignore those risks and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.
And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
Thank you for your reply.
I take it you see increased variability of weather as the main problem with climate change.
One problem with science is, science is beholden to others for its resources and funding. There are very few scientists who afford their own resources, so they are beholden to nobody. When one is beholden, truth does not always win out over necessity. One has to weigh the options. For example, a scientist working for a tobacco company will find it necessary to go along with the company line about cigarettes. This is part of being a good company man. In fact, in that company, a consensus of science will form based on the person who writes the checks. The same is true in climate science, which is funded by left wing priorities. One will expect the consensus to follow the money and needs of the deep pockets.
If someone like Trump becomes President of the USA, he may well alter the funding priorities when it comes to climate science. What you all see are many scientists changing their tune, based on the new funding priorities. It is like leaving cigarettes for oil, now oil is the best; new company consensus.
As an example, of mercenary science, which may have well been a trial ballon, consider the science of homosexuality. I am not making any value judgement, I am jus looking at how science is behaving. Today, you will not be able to find any science that does not blow warm air up the skirt of this issue. Any science that does not go along is taboo and will be deemed hate science; instead of denier science used for climate change. This is not how science is supposed to work. One can't come to the truth this way. This assumes truth is important to science.
If what is allowed to be studied and publish is decided for in advance, the layman might get the impression the science is settled. In truth, it is about political pressure and who has the resources; carrot and stick, deciding the consensus in mercenary science. Real science is not about catering to politics, it is about being objective to all the possibilities. This is not easy when science is beholden; carrot and stick. With climate science, the carrot is a lot of funding, while the stick is peer pressure for suggesting an alternative outside the politics.
To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure. This would allow career needs to correspond with unspoken hunches, so we can get to the truth.
I commend those who look at science as the search for truth, in nature, and not just a career path or company politics. Many had to work in the underground, at their own peril and expense. This is where we find the truth.
Oh and if you have to say you aren't making a value judgement when making a statement that should be a giant red flag that what you are about to say is potentially prejudiced. If you think you aren't prejudiced but still fell the need to say it then you probably need to reevaluate your position.
Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
Then you need to learn to read.Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.
Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.
And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.
But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.
Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.
Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.
To ignore those risks and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.
And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
Thank you for your reply.
I take it you see increased variability of weather as the main problem with climate change.
And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
I see the increased variability as something so obviously bad the the fact that I'm not qualified to discuss it professionally in detail as a non-issue.
However, exactly which bits of it are worst isn't really important, since it's pretty much all bad.
Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?
If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there wouldn't be scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?
But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.
The Right (note the capital letter btw) is trying to avoid teaching logic at all.I think you have it backward with respect to teaching critical thinking. The left teaches feeling first, not logic first. The result are expensive social problems.Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?
If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there wouldn't be scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?
But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.
First of all, about 50% of the energy given off by the sun is in IR. This means extra CO2 not only keeps the heat in the earth, but it also IR out. My prediction is temperature should rise slower than all the models predict. This is what the hard data says.
One question to ask is, why did man made global warming rebrand itself into climate change? It was like Coke brand becoming the New Coke brand. One likely reason is the temperature rise has been less than what is being predicted by the models, thereby lending doubt about other predictions and the strength of the CO2 affect. There is a door open in the greenhouse, that is really due to some CO2 cloth shrouded, keeping out heat.
Climate change was chosen as the new branding, because this is less quantitative and more qualitative. Anything can be called climate change. There is no clear objective standard, like temperature. This means if children see a rainbow for the first time, it could be due to climate change.
Another problem, that is more subtle is, modern weather and climate is monitored, in real time, globally. Whereas the weather and climate, more than 150 years ago, has to be inferred from things like ice core samples and tree rings. This type of data does not show the same variety, day to day. Modern tools will always show more stuff.
As an example of how this can impact optics and perception, for fun, I would like to make the prediction that man made global warming is responsible for more rainbows. If you do a Google search, "rainbows", under images, you can see all types of pictures of rainbows, nearly all of which were taken in the past 10 years. In fact, of the pictures of rainbow you will find, may correlate to the invention of the cell phone?
Next, try to find a picture of a rainbow from 500 years ago or say 100,000 year ago. There is no pictorial evidence that rainbows ever existed before the invention of color photography.
We all know my fun claim is false and misleading. We can infer that rainbows existed in the distant past, based on the physics of light and water bubbles. But to convince the laymen, you will need to teach them the basic physics needed to allow them to make this inference. Good luck with that, if the paid consensus says the preponderance of the hard data says more rainbows in the past 100 years, compared to any time in the history of the earth.
Technically this is correct, since all we have before the invention of photography, is wives tales, anecdotes and inference that rainbows occurred, which is not hard data, per se. If you can't agree there is more hard data, today, then you are not a real scientist. I got you on a technicality of science.
Even if critical thinking people can accept the inference o rainbows before first color photo in 1861, how would quantify the inference, so you can compare the numbers to refute my claim? This is where we need to go even farther away from the layman. It is so much easier to count photos. Climate change was chosen because like rainbows, modern tools will have more hard data. While the path of inference days is riddled with holes that only experts can appreciate, who can be easily discredited.
This is why I suggested doing a comparison using only the crude tools that are used for ancient climate. Both will be limited in the same way, so we have apples to apples.
I saw a study where a scientists did just this and compared the last 1200 years. He found that the modern trends were within the parameters of the larger trend. I forgot where I saw it but this is recent. I don;t have time now, but I will try to find it.
The researchers from Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have for the first time reconstructed the variations in water availability across the Northern Hemisphere seamless for the past twelve centuries. This allows for comparisons between various parts of Europe, Asia, and North America.
The study shows that hydroclimate extremes have been stronger and covered larger areas in some earlier centuries than during the twentieth century, explains lead author Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist from Stockholm University.
The scientists compared their reconstructed hydroclimate variations with a new temperature reconstruction they also developed, to understand links between the two. It turned out that only a few regions showed clear correlations between changes in temperature and hydroclimate. For instance, drought was most widespread during both the relatively warm twelfth century and the relatively cold fifteenth century.
Let me discuss one more aspect of the optics for manmade global warming, that is more subtle and seems to fool even top notch scientists. The human brain is the most important tool of science. However, there is no rule in science that requires that the this brain instrument needs to be calibrated. What would happen if the GC of the chemist was not properly calibrate. He would see things that are not there and miss things that are there, even if he has the best of intent.It might be better for you if you typed less.
To show how one aspect needed for mind calibration, let me first compare pure science to applied science. I am more of an applied scientist, which is why I have so many theories for the same thing; contriver. Pure science faithfully collects data, from which the laws of science appear; correlate. Applied science is different. This type of science begins with the laws of science, as a platform, to create new things, that may not part of nature, but nevertheless may have practical use; tools.
A classic example is of the difference between the two is metallic aluminum. Aluminum cannot be found as a pure metal in nature. This is because aluminum will oxidize with so much heat output, there is hardly any natural process that can reverse this. The pure scientist will not find aluminum metal in nature. Applied science, on the other hand, can make metallic aluminum using electricity.
Say a pure scientists, gathering natural data, found some metallic aluminum. He is not passing any judgment, but systematically collecting the data. He brings it back to his colleagues and all assume this was natural. They are not aware this is a product of applied science, because this invention is new and still secretly protected by patents.
If this was a real natural discover, this discovery could have a ripple effect in terms of how pure science thinks the earth works. In other words, to get to metallic aluminum, the earth will need to be governed by some new laws, such as have a source of electricity. This need, could then lead some to think the iron core is sending out sparks to the surface. This could explain the return stroke of lightning, etc. I am just making this up, as an illustration of the ripple affect, that assuming applied science is natural.
A pure scientist is not trained to extrapolate pure science, to serve the needs of industry and culture. His mind is more set around collecting natural data and correlating this to what we know to about the natural universe. The applied scientist, is cut from a different cloth, and is not concerned about natural, other than to using this as a platform, for adding the human touch to nature. Anything is possible beyond that.
Certain problems can appear if either overlaps the other too much. The applied scientist can think he just invented something, only to find out this is natural. The applied chemistry may spend years synthesizing a new molecule that wakes you up, only to find out this is already in coffee; whoops! Or the pure scientist may think he found a new phenomena, that can change how we view nature, only to find out this is not natural. There is synthetic mechanism, and not any big ripple in natural science.
The latter is interesting, because this is how magic works. Magic is based on science, which extrapolate natural laws, by contrivance. The object of any trick is do what appears to extend the laws of nature. If his lovely assistant flies around the stage, then the laws of gravity, have just been blown wide open.
This magic tricks requires extrapolation of the known laws science; physical and psychological, so the output data of the experiment (trick) appears to generate data for the pure scientist, in each of us. The magician places metallic aluminum in the woods of the mind so it looks to belong there. The hope is the audience of layman pure scientists will extrapolate this to the logical natural limit; flying around the stage is possible.
The layman can understand basic science, but he may not understand how to invent from this. Magic only needs you to understand the basics, such as gravity pulls downward. They don't expect the audience to be full of applied scientists working on an anti-gravity device and has eliminated many options. That person knows what to look for and will try to find the secret, if it does exist, to help his own research. This is not a guy the magician wants in the audience, especially if he is spoils the trick. It works better with layman natural scientists.
"You are asking me to believe that there is something very bad about this global warming thing but are not at all willing to discuss it's problems. "
It's hard to discuss them when you refuse to accept that they exist.
"I do not see a variability that is, so far, less than normal and at most slightly higher than today according to the models that don't work. "
I can't help what you do, or don't see. But even a few years ago there was enough evidence to fill an hour of television about it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x
http://acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-reveal-risks-for-water-supply/
“The study showed that modern climate records, which are available for the past one hundred years at best, do not capture the full range of rainfall variability that has occurred,” Dr Tozer said.[/size][/color]
"The overall effect of a slightly warmer world will definately be a slightly wetter world. I think that is not in question(?). This, combined with the effect upon plant fertility of increased CO2, will, and is, produce a far greener world. Surely this definate benefit is more than the possible negative of a slightly more variable climate?
"
Not, it's not at all sure.
I already addressed that and you are complacently ignoring it.
" would very much like you to reply to the question of what it would take for you to nolonger believe that CO2 realese by humanity was a trouble."
And I'd very much like you to answer the question I have asked repeatedly.
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"
Why do you think you are right and all the experts are wrong?
The problem is the inter-connectedness of everything. What Tim doesn't appreciate is the delicate balance in the natural world. Ecosystems can be devastated by even subtle changes that seem too small to matter. Civilisations can be overturned by such changes.
The Right (note the capital letter btw) is trying to avoid teaching logic at all.I think you have it backward with respect to teaching critical thinking. The left teaches feeling first, not logic first. The result are expensive social problems.Manmade global warming and climate change are even more politically charged and divided. I bet you, I can ask people their political orientation, and infer their position of this subject, and be right 90% of the time. Culture is not that science literate to be so opinionated on climate science.Indeed, and the political side that doesn't "believe" in AGW is the one that explicitly opposes teaching critical thinking in schools.
What does that tell you?
If yo were right about the idea that only the "politically supported" science got funding then there wouldn't be scienticic reasearch on both sides- but there is.
So your idea is wrong.
But seeing that requires critical thinking...
And this "To me, since it is important for science to come to the truth, I would split the resources in half and give half to each POV; pro and con. Allow both sides to give it their best, so we can come to the truth, independent of political pressure." is obviously stupid for two reasons.
Firstly, why give 50% to each? If there were two research groups : one believes in unicorns and it trying to save them from extinction, and the other is trying to do the same for giant pandas, would you allocate the same resources to both?
But the bigger problem is what you are proposing to do is fund the antithesis of science.
In true science there are no groups who are "for" or "against" AGW. There are groups trying to find out the truth.
Just fund those and we will actually get an honest answer.
However if you think your point is true please supply some evidence for it- but obviously, not in this thread.
But, on the subject of " you have it backwards" perhaps you can explain something
There is no doubt that there's more CO2 in the air.
There's no doubt that we put it there (we know how much oil we burned essentially because we know how much profit the oil companies made; the figures tally).
So, how can AGW not happen?
It's like the people who don't believe in eveolution.
When you ask them how come it doesn't happen they start to look at their shoes and mumble.
Unless you say "God resets it every night" there's no way round the fact of evolution- never-mind the evidence that it happens; what could stop it doings so?
Well, in the same way,
Given the fact that CO2 absorbs IR as it does; what stops it being a greenhouse gas.
What stops more of it being a more effective greenhouse gas?
(and please don't waste time talking about saturated transitions- I'm a spectroscopist).
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
2
Answer;
1, Water vapour does almost everything that CO2 does already.
2, The effect of CO2, even if we ignore the water vapour thing, is not enough to warrant any panic. The IPCC et al add strange positive feedback effects to the initial figures to push them upwards.
3, Even with these add-ons the numbers that come out of the IPCC do not scare me at all. The effects seem to be well within the capacity for humans to cope with with tiny changes to livestyle. Changes like taking the jumper off and buying a new garden chair.
2
Answer;
1, Water vapour does almost everything that CO2 does already.
2, The effect of CO2, even if we ignore the water vapour thing, is not enough to warrant any panic. The IPCC et al add strange positive feedback effects to the initial figures to push them upwards.
3, Even with these add-ons the numbers that come out of the IPCC do not scare me at all. The effects seem to be well within the capacity for humans to cope with with tiny changes to livestyle. Changes like taking the jumper off and buying a new garden chair.
It's true that water vapour absorbs IR- but not at the same wavelengths as CO2 so the effects both drive independently in the same direction.
2 if we don't ignore the water (and it seems we agree that's the sensible approach- since you raised it) then you have to account for what the effect will be.
You haven't even tried to show that additional CO2 doesn't cause additional warming- so let's assume that the denialist fairy doesn't undo that warming.
We add CO2 to the air- it gets a bit warmer.
That encourages the evaporation of more water - that increases the concentration of water in the air.
And, since (as we both agree) that is a potent greenhouse gas, we get even more warming.
Why do you try to write that off as "strange positive feedback effects" when it's pretty much the obvious outcome?
3
Extreme weather events already kill lots of people every year.
Your complacency threatens even more lives.
Don't you consider people's lives to be important- as long as you can still waste energy as you always have?
And, at the end of the day, you still haven't answered my point.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
I already did.
It would also be nice if you were to comment on the what it would take for you to consider the AGW thing dead in the thread about it.[/color]
I already did.
It would also be nice if you were to comment on the what it would take for you to consider the AGW thing dead in the thread about it.[/color]
As I said.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
Saying it doesn't exist "I don't see that it has over the last 18 years" doesn't make you look good when the data disagrees with you.
You say "Just because a pretty theory says that the obvious result of increased CO2 says that the temperature will rise does not trump the fact that it has not risen during the period when we have vastly increased the amount we produce and thus the amount of CO2 in the air. Data trumps theory."
well, it sure does.
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/14/december-of-2015-at-1-4-c-above-1890-is-a-terrifying-new-jump-in-global-temperatures/
Pretending that reducing carbon emission vehicles from vehicles will somehow increase pollution doesn't make a lot of sense.
Just to inject a hint of sanity,
every attempt to predict the change from anthropogenic causes, seems to fail.
There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.
A paper led by James Risbey (2014) in Nature Climate Change takes a clever approach to evaluating how accurate climate model temperature predictions have been while getting around the noise caused by natural cycles. The authors used a large set of simulations from 18 different climate models (from CMIP5). They looked at each 15-year period since the 1950s, and compared how accurately each model simulation had represented El Niño and La Niña conditions during those 15 years, using the trends in what's known as the Niño3.4 index.
Each individual climate model run has a random representation of these natural ocean cycles, so for every 15-year period, some of those simulations will have accurately represented the actual El Niño conditions just by chance. The study authors compared the simulations that were correctly synchronized with the ocean cycles (blue data in the left frame below) and the most out-of-sync (grey data in the right frame) to the observed global surface temperature changes (red) for each 15-year period.
...[There was a figure here please actually follow the link]
The authors conclude,
When the phase of natural variability is taken into account, the model 15-year warming trends in CMIP5 projections well estimate the observed trends for all 15-year periods over the past half-century.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). More on predicting the future...
You seem to be claiming that almost the only thing killing people is increased diesel use.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/02February/Pages/Air-pollution-kills-40000-a-year-in-the-UK-says-report.aspx
The data I posted isn't supposed to terrify you: just stop you lying.
"You have not made any comment on this thread. I would like you to make your comment."
OK, here's a comment .
This thread would be shorter if you didn't ask me to provide the same reply in different threads.
If you want to convince me that AGW isn't happening, you need to explain what's stopping it.
More than 500,000 Europeans a year may be dying from conditions related to air pollution, the European Union’s environmental watchdog said in a new report Monday. The report is likely to further stoke the emissions controversy plaguing the continent’s automakers.
Just to inject a hint of sanity, life expectancy in civilised countries (and in the USA) has increased steadily since 1960, and respiratory disease as a cause of death has become less significant over the same period, which suggests that "diesel fumes are killing everyone" is a bit short of the truth.
And for the sake of clarity, it would be foolish to suggest that the climate isn't changing, since it always has done and is inherently unstable, but every attempt to predict the change from anthropogenic causes, seems to fail. The only question is whether this failure is due to excessive enthusiasm of the doomsayers, or an absence of any scientific basis for their predictions.
Let's not forget carbon trading schemes. The new capitalist currency.Wonderful stuff, which has allowed Iceland to import smokestack industries it never had before.
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.Interesting statistic, and worth putting in context.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Yes, and I'm not alone in saying that.One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Are you saying that the amount of flooding there has been in the 21st century has been above the expected norm?
Your point is valid to the extent that sheep are the only things affected.Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.Interesting statistic, and worth putting in context.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
2000 sheep dead or missing. There are 22,000,000 sheep in the UK, and we eat about one third of them each year, so the number killed or missing in floods roughly equals the number we would eat in 2 hours.
Tough luck on individual small farmers (the sheep would have been killed anyway) but big deal? I think not.
I was under the impression that there had in fact been less such extreme weather events recently. Certainly around the world.Yes, and I'm not alone in saying that.One thing that is not addresses is the good side of global warming. For one thing, a warmer earth will mean more water in the atmosphere and therefore more purified drinking water; rain, for the growing world populations. Warming also means longer growing seasons, which when combined with higher CO2 means more food production to feed the higher world populations. It also means new land may open, providing more space for the world's growing population. New land can also make it easier to find natural resources to feed the industry that will be needed to support a growing population.Or, then again, we could consider what actually hapens in the real world.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/thousands-of-livestock-now-feared-dead-in-floods.htm
Are you saying that the amount of flooding there has been in the 21st century has been above the expected norm?
I was under the impression that there had in fact been less such extreme weather events recently. Certainly around the world.
And while we are at it, lets do some actual numbers on this claim " You must have missed something. Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal."
OK I really don't think there's anything I can have missed here.
You say (twice) they are using two square metres of mirrors.
Well, that can't collect more power than falls on two square metres.
So that's two times the solar constant
which is 2 m^2 times 1.35 KW/m^2
which is 2.7 KW
And then there's your second unsupported claim there
"you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal"
That sounds more credible, but it's no great challenge to run the numbers.
Lets assume you are using an imperial gallon, rather than the smaller US gallon.
That's about 4.5 litres and you say "several"
Well, that's not very scientific, but lets pick a number and say 10, which I think is generous.
So that's 45 litres of "metal".
Again, I'm going to have to make an assumption or two here- firstly that the metal is steel and secondly that the heat of fusion of steel is comparable with that for iron.
So 45 litres of steel is (measured near room temp- which introduces an error- but it's in your favour) is about 350kg
And, the data from here
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fusion-heat-metals-d_1266.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fusion-heat-metals-d_1266.html)
tells me that it takes 272 KJ to melt each Kg of metal
So that's about 100,000 KJ of energy.
Sounds a lot.
Now lets also consider a 1 bar electric fire
That's 1KJ per second or about 85000 KJ per day.
But that's hardly going to heat your home.
To do that you need the sort of boiler they use for central heating.
This sort of thing
https://www.mrcentralheating.co.uk/boilers/boilers-by-type/combi-boilers/35kw-42kw (https://www.mrcentralheating.co.uk/boilers/boilers-by-type/combi-boilers/35kw-42kw)
And it seems tha a typical boiler draws something like 30 KW
Which is about 25 times more energy each day than is needed to melt ten buckets of steel.
So, while I have no doubt that you were "certain", it doesn't detract from the fact that you are wrong.
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
And I think that's going to make more difference to the debate than randomly TYPING in all CAPS.
Also, please look up the meaning of the word "literally" because this
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is just plain ignorant.
So what does everyone think about this:-I think it is one dissenting voice compared to a consensus of thousands of scientists.
"The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html)
As far as atmospheric CO2 is concerned, there is no difference between fossil fuel and biomass.
"Extreme weather" depends on how you measure it. A growing population with increasing expectations of security, is living in increasingly marginal land, in increasingly flimsy buildings. 100 years ago the only people who lived near the sea were professional seafarers with stone huts and wooden boats. Nowadays the coast is littered with pensioners in highrise flats and weekenders with plastic yachts, so an onshore Force 8 which used to mean a couple of days' lost work now means massive devastation and injury. Flood plains and water meadows are now concrete housing estates, so a few wet cows have been replaced by an economic disaster. Most of Australia and California caught fire from time to time, and the natives made the most of fleeing animals and new growth on the ashes, but modern farming methods (and farmers' bankers) are much less tolerant of nature.
Tree ring data is interesting but far too convoluted by rainfall, sunshine, other trees, and CO2 level, to provide unequivocal temperature records of the required precision.
Did you notice that almost all of this ........
wasn't actually about weather.
Fairly silly.
Did you notice that almost all of this ........
wasn't actually about weather.
No, it was about wind, rain and forest fires. Weather must be about something else. Silly me.
This difference is grounded in ...
The point is, the vast majority of the people, who discuss and have an opinion on climate science, are not climate experts.
Let me go back to CO2. Greenhouse gases should be able to block heat in two directions, since the insulation affect is IR dependent, which is the same in both directions.
You have missed the key point about "extreme weather". This journaliststic term ...Your decision to introduce journalism to the discussion of weather is, at best, unhelpful.
Snow is now very rare in England,
...
we haven't had a decent hurricane for a very long time,
Glad to hear it.
I'm not relying on a fading memory, but looking at the thickness of dust on my crosscountry skis. I often skied to work and around the suburban parks at lunchtime in the 1970s, but they haven't been used since 1980.
The photos were taken 8 and 10 years ago, and show not quite enough loose snow to even make a footprint. You need a good inch of packed snow to ski safely.Ok, so the weather has changed: it snows less than it used to.
Whilst the article has a ring of truth, that driving in falling snow or on loose snow is dangerous, the stuff that falls from a cold sky onto a warm pavement rarely lasts a day. You need several days of sub-zero surface air temperature followed by a good day's snowfall to make any sort of lasting impression. The Norwegians say "three falls before it lies", and that rarely happens in England nowadays.
I am surprised the weight that some correspondents give to the small amount of heat given of by the burning of fossil fuels (2TW)which is infinitesimal compared to the amount we receive from the sun or even to the amount given of by the Earths radioactivity.The argument s that CO2 causes IR to be absorbed and then emitted back to the surface whilst allowing the higher frequency sunshine to pass through.
Ok, so the weather has changed: it snows less than it used to.
We also know that we did something which affects heat transfer through the atmosphere- we added rather a lot of CO2 to it.
Is it reasonable to contend that the two facts are related?
OK, lets start by asking what the error margins are on that 30% but, setting that aside for the moment, you accept that most of the additional CO2 is down to us.
Ok, so the weather has changed: it snows less than it used to.
We also know that we did something which affects heat transfer through the atmosphere- we added rather a lot of CO2 to it.
Is it reasonable to contend that the two facts are related?
Almost. Except for a few facts.
1. There is a 30% discrepancy between the amount of CO2 generated from fossil fuels and other human activity, and the amount present in the atmosphere. Something else is adding it.
2. Historically, CO2 levels follow the temperature curve, they don't lead it. You can see the same behavior in the Mauna Loa data: CO2 peaks in early summer, when temperature is high but anthropogenic emission is low. The reason is obvious to biologists but not to climate "scientists".
3. The CO2 IR absorption bands in the atmosphere are saturated at about 300 ppm so adding more doesn't make a difference
4. The invisible elephant in the room is water. We know it dominates heat transfer by all possible mechanisms, by orders of magnitude, and has a positive feedback characteristic at low atmospheric concentrations, and an inverse positive feedback as surface snow and ice, but we have no idea of how much there is, where it is, or how heat is distributed in most of the oceans.
The scientific response to these facts is to consider CO2 to be an effect rather than a cause of global surface temperature. The correlation is obvious, but the causation is complicated.
One of us certainly isn't a meteorologist.
One of us certainly isn't a meteorologist.It hardly matters if we are both gave-diggers or politicians.
A quick google search hasn't turned up the infrared absorption coefficient for CO2, so I'm relying on the memory of other people's data. Can you produce a figure? I'd like to review the maths. AFAIK there are only two significant bands in the IR, but I don't have Landolt-Bornstein or whatever standard text you use.Here's a copy of the spectrum.
Now here's a well-known and widely published set of transmittance spectra for atmospheric gases, including all the pressure broadening and actual parital prsssures - i.e. actual data from the real atmosphere.. The transmittance of CO2 around 4 nm is zero. So adding more won't change anything.What has 4nm got to do with anything?
Not a lot, admittedly. Try 4 microns* instead! That's the critical wavelength quoted in the paper you cited. Must have had a senior moment.
Also worth noting that at the longer wavelengths the CO2 band around 12 - 15 microns is also saturated. Atmospheric behavior in the "thermal IR" region, as everywhere else, is dominated by the nonsaturated H2O absorption. Plus of course reflection and a whole lot of far more complicated absorption from liquid and solid H2O in clouds.
*Note for US readers: 0.00015748 inches.
Not a lot, admittedly. Try 4 microns* instead! That's the critical wavelength quoted in the paper you cited. Must have had a senior moment.
Also worth noting that at the longer wavelengths the CO2 band around 12 - 15 microns is also saturated. Atmospheric behavior in the "thermal IR" region, as everywhere else, is dominated by the nonsaturated H2O absorption. Plus of course reflection and a whole lot of far more complicated absorption from liquid and solid H2O in clouds.
*Note for US readers: 0.00015748 inches.
The whole point about the lack of saturation is that absorption isn't at a wavelength, it's over a band of wavelengths.
How wide that band is depends on how hard you look.
The whole point about the lack of saturation is that absorption isn't at a wavelength, it's over a band of wavelengths.
How wide that band is depends on how hard you look.
By all means read my earlier point.
The whole point about the lack of saturation is that absorption isn't at a wavelength, it's over a band of wavelengths.
How wide that band is depends on how hard you look.
Then, since I originally said "around 4 microns", by all means look at all the infrared bands of CO2 absorption. They are all saturated in the atmosphere except for the 10.6 micron laser band. The 4 or 12 micron figure refers to the band center frequency. Pressure broadening has merged the fine spectrum into a fairly continuous band, but doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere won't have much effect as the broadening is mostly due to interactions with oxygen, nitrogen, argon and of course water, whose pressure won't be much affected by adding 400 ppm of anything else.
Compared with the water spectrum, the CO2 spectrum edges are indeed vertical.Compared to vertical; they aren't.
Compared with the water spectrum, the CO2 spectrum edges are indeed vertical.Compared to vertical; they aren't.
So, the absorption will still increase with concentration.
Obviously, it's not linear (It never is), but it's still an increasing function.
More CO2 means more absorption of IR.
Are you trying to claim otherwise?
Because, if you are not, then the saturation isn't just not true, it's not relevant.
http://www.randombio.com/co2.html (http://www.randombio.com/co2.html) gives a very cogent and readable account of CO2 "saturation" and some credible spectra (they are pretty much the same as everyone else's published spectra).And...?
What I would do with the data is: publish a credible estimate of the effect of CO2 variation on mean atmospheric temperature based on a priori calculation, not a posteriori modelling. Then wait and see what happens.
If my prediction turns out to be correct, we have a rational basis for reducing CO2 emissions, or ignoring them, depending on the magnitude and sign of the predicted effect.
If my prediction turns out to be incorrect, then we have a rational basis for doing something positive about mitigating the effects of climate change rather than worrying about a non-cause.
Is this the right room for an argument?"Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "
I've told you once.
No you haven't...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)
I must be missing something.
You want the spectra of pure CO2 at 1 atm pressure measured with 2 metre and 4 metre path lengths?
Same temperature, same pressure, no other gas present?
You don't understand why nobody has done this and published the results?
Is this the right room for an argument?"Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "
I've told you once.
No you haven't...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)
Thanks for citing NASA's observation that, while CO2 makes things worse, water vapour makes them worse by a factor of 2.
Give that we can't directly control water vapour...
Sorry, but I'm not that bored and I hope I never will be.I must be missing something.
You want the spectra of pure CO2 at 1 atm pressure measured with 2 metre and 4 metre path lengths?
Same temperature, same pressure, no other gas present?
You don't understand why nobody has done this and published the results?
What interests me is a measurement of the effect of doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, with no confounding effect from water. The spectral detail doesn't matter greatly: what matters is the change in total transmittance over the infrared region.
It seems that there are two ways of approximating this, either to measure the effect of doubling the path length through pure carbon doxide at atmospheric pressure (given that 300 ppm distributed through the entire atmosphere is roughly equivalent to 2 m of pure gas at 1000 mb pressure) or to simply double the concentration in a reasonable sample of dry ambient air and extrapolate the Beer-Lambert equation to 50 km path length. That would be a more realistic approximation as it takes into account the true pressure broadening due to nitrogen, oxygen and argon rather than just carbon dioxide, but it needs to be at least 50,000 times more accurate so might not be feasible.
Now the first experiment is obviously feasible with kit you can find in a decent undergraduate laboratory, and the second may need a bit of instrumentation development. Alas, I don't have the facilities or the time at hand right now to do either, but it's the kind of project that could entertain a bored chemist!
I strongly recommend you to review your undergraduate notes on absorption and practical spectroscopy.OK I did. It turns out that I got rid of them decades ago.
Perhaps they missed this bit out at Oxford, but there are plenty of elementary texts on the internet.
When light passes through a selective absorber, fewer photons of the selected energies remain. That is how stained glass works (and there's no shortage of that in the college chapels). So the spectrum changes along the path length. Suppose we had a filter that absorbed red but not blue light. If you increase the thickness of the filter, the red part of the spectrum weakens but the blue part is unaffected. At some thickness, adding more path length has very little apparent effect because there isn't much red left.
The Beer-Lambert equation applies to each and every frequency individually.
Carbon dioxide is a frequency-selective ("comb") filter.
So the question is, at what thickness of filter, whether you measure it as path length through pure carbon dioxide or mean atmospheric concentration, does adding more have a negligible effect? Or, if you like, what would be the effect on the incident and radiated IR spectra, of doubling the present concentration?
Your help would be greatly appreciated in answering this question.
Excellent! You say that the experiment will provide no additional information, so I presume that you already have the information I seek.Why make that presumption?
... the people who have studied these things, as distinct from the people who have attempted to model them from historic "adjusted" data. I haven't judged anything as ...I think you have judged it.
You will recall that the change of CO2 absorption spectrum with temperature and pressure can be calculated for any given spectral line, and both broadening effects are proportional to absolute T & P. It is quite clear that atmospheric pressure won't change by more than 100 ppm if we double the quantity of CO2, and a surface temperature change of less than 5 degrees isn't going to affect the total absorption measurably. I'm more than happy to look at these second-order effects, but we need the first-order data first!
Heat transfer in the atmosphere is dominated by the condensation and freezing of water, as you well know. Problem is that nobody has a global model because of the singularities inherent in a rotating atmosphere. But we can at least calculate the radiant inputs and outputs of an idealised dry, stationary atmosphere if we know the linear attenuation coefficients of the filters.
The actual spectrum can be found here- it's a JCAMP file which isn't that commonly used.
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC (http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC)
Sorry, but I'm not that bored and I hope I never will be.I must be missing something.
You want the spectra of pure CO2 at 1 atm pressure measured with 2 metre and 4 metre path lengths?
Same temperature, same pressure, no other gas present?
You don't understand why nobody has done this and published the results?
What interests me is a measurement of the effect of doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, with no confounding effect from water. The spectral detail doesn't matter greatly: what matters is the change in total transmittance over the infrared region.
It seems that there are two ways of approximating this, either to measure the effect of doubling the path length through pure carbon doxide at atmospheric pressure (given that 300 ppm distributed through the entire atmosphere is roughly equivalent to 2 m of pure gas at 1000 mb pressure) or to simply double the concentration in a reasonable sample of dry ambient air and extrapolate the Beer-Lambert equation to 50 km path length. That would be a more realistic approximation as it takes into account the true pressure broadening due to nitrogen, oxygen and argon rather than just carbon dioxide, but it needs to be at least 50,000 times more accurate so might not be feasible.
Now the first experiment is obviously feasible with kit you can find in a decent undergraduate laboratory, and the second may need a bit of instrumentation development. Alas, I don't have the facilities or the time at hand right now to do either, but it's the kind of project that could entertain a bored chemist!
You probably don't realise it, but you are proposing an experiment to determine whether or not photons have a memory.
Since there's no plausible mechanism for that, and no evidence to suggest that it's true, there's no point doing the experiment.
OK, but saying I must have had a bad night when I was perfectly correct is still doubting my ability.The actual spectrum can be found here- it's a JCAMP file which isn't that commonly used.
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC (http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC)
Many thanks for that! I've seen the graph before but not the key facts of partial pressure and path length. Up to my ears in business today but I'll work on the numbers ASAP.
I've never doubted your qualifications or integrity, which is why I suggested you might have had a bad night.
A model of heat transfer in the atmosphere? It's inherently chaotic, for the reasons I gave earlier, and I have no intention of attempting to model it - there are more profitable walls to bang one's head on. The only answerable question is, given no other changes, what would be the effect of increasing CO2 concentration if the atmosphere was dry and momentarily stable?
Reality doesn't know or care what your gut thinks.
My gut tells me manmade global warming is an applied science affect being sold as natural. If that had been my assignment I could have come up with other applied applied tricks. But nobody asked me.
A close friend of mine has suggested that this whole "Global Warming" debate is a deliberate attempt to divert public attention from mass third-world immigration into western countries.
Is this credible, do you think?
"The only answerable question is, given no other changes, what would be the effect of increasing CO2 concentration if the atmosphere was dry and momentarily stable? "
Who cares?
It has sod all to do with the topic.
"The only answerable question is, given no other changes, what would be the effect of increasing CO2 concentration if the atmosphere was dry and momentarily stable? "
Who cares?
It has sod all to do with the topic.
If increasing the CO2 concentration would have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature, then there is a link and the skeptics, in terms of the topic, would be wrong. I think a direct yes/no answer is always relevant to a simple question.
I've had a lousy day with more grief to come tomorrow, so I'll put off the promised calculations for a while, but I will be back!
Well, if a simple yes or no is helpful then the answer is no. They are wrong. There is a clear link.
"The only answerable question is, given no other changes, what would be the effect of increasing CO2 concentration if the atmosphere was dry and momentarily stable? "
Who cares?
It has sod all to do with the topic.
If increasing the CO2 concentration would have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature, then there is a link and the skeptics, in terms of the topic, would be wrong. I think a direct yes/no answer is always relevant to a simple question.
Because the suggestion that I was implying photon memory was unworthy of you.As I said; you were implying that photons had a memory- you just didn't understand what you were talking about and thus were unaware of this implication.
Anyway the question is misleading. There is obviously a link. But the link is not obvious, and that's why model-based predictions have fallen short of any useful accuracy.
Obviously (to a physicist) any photon that had interacted with a CO2 molecule in the first pass, would not be present in the second pass. That's quantum mechanics. The experimental measurement is to determine is how many photons survive the first pass and are absorbed in the second, because that it the determinant of additional heating due to doubling the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Nothing to do with memory.
Asserting that the probability of a photon making it through the second pass depends on whether it had previously made it through the first pass require the photon to have memory.
And again...Asserting that the probability of a photon making it through the second pass depends on whether it had previously made it through the first pass require the photon to have memory.
Quite. Which is why I haven't asserted it.
Until I read the small print in the reference you so kindly provided, I hadn't seen any usefully accurate data on the absorption spectrum of CO2 under realistic atmospheric conditions. There's a lot of handwaving on the internet about pressure broadening and metastable hydrates, but a surprising dearth of numbers. Now we (or at least I) seem to be getting somewhere but I'd still prefer to see "real world" experimental data rather than extrapolate from a somewhat idealised atmosphere.
I think, that so many scientists have committed themselves to the idea that global warming is caused by humans, that they can never retreat, without a disastrous loss of face.You can't understand science if you think that.
I think, that so many scientists have committed themselves to the idea that global warming is caused by humans, that they can never retreat, without a disastrous loss of face.
[MOD EDIT]
[MOD EDIT]
This is a very complex subject, and also somewhat politically charged. I would ask that everybody follow the rules of the forum and restrain themselves from ad hominem attacks.It's also a fairly simple question
Isn't this the problem - so many scientists have publicly committed themselves to the idea that climate-change is caused by humans, that they could never admit they got it wrong?No. That couldn't be the problem.
Actually Bc, I do remember the 1970s . Then "Global Cooling" was all the rage, There were TV programmes about the imminent global freezing catastrophe.
Climate scientists came on the telly and foretold chilly doom. But when the doom didn't happen, they didn't admit they were wrong. They just went quiet. Or died.
These theories in Science sometimes exhibit a cyclic tendency, don't you think. Especially when no-one really knows what they're talking about.
OK, today it's all "Global Warming". But what odds would you offer that by, say 2030, it'll be "Global Cooling" that's the threat, and we must pump up CO2 production to ward off the new Ice-Age?
Recent global warming is an obvious fact. The cause isn't. It would come as no surprise to me if the trend reversed in my lifetime, nor if it continued upward.That would make sense if there was no evidence that CO2 causes warming.
I just think it is a shame that, having found a convenient scapegoat, the Powers that Be have reverted to the old Judiac tradition of blaming the scapegoat for their woes and hoping they will go away if they release the goat, or at least tax it. It's certainly a lot easier than fixing the real problems that (a) human society cannot accommodate significant climate change and (b) western civilisation is controlled by a few scum who own oilfields.
There are far more serious concerns to do with more than just the climate.False dichotomy.We should look after those caught out by famine and strife.However that doesn't mean we should lose sight of our obligation to future generations not to wreck the planet for short term gain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39238808 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39238808)
We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?Good question. Perhaps you should start a thread about it.
A thread on a forum wouldn't make a dent.It might make just as big a dent as an off topic post in a thread.
We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?
Famine is caused by politics, war and cli.ate change in that order. It is pointless debating the effects of climate change and what to do about it when it is far less of a problem than the other two. Sorting the divisive issues out will go a long way to resolving all our problems. However human nature flies in the face of resolutions. There are no grown ups in charge.800 million people live in cronic malnourishment today.
Bihar 1966, Maharashtra 1973, Iceland 1783, Sahel every so often since time began....one could list hundreds of really lethal famines caused by climate change in relatively stable political conditions.If it happened in a particular year it's called "weather" not "climate".- it's a very common mistake among those who seek to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
War is not a particularly efficient killer compared with disease and hunger.
Politics and religion are a definite menace to humanity, however. The political imperative to "grow the economy" and religious demands to outbreed the worshippers of a lesser god, ensure that various bits of the world from time to time cannot sustain their human population. The zero-cost, zero-effort solution, of course, is to make fewer babies, but there's no industrial or political profit in that, so it won't happen.
That's a nice fantasy. How are we supposed to find petrochemicals in asteroids?We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?
The price of almost all materials is lower now than ever. This in spite of all that drivel a few years ago about peak oil.
The reserves of extractable resources are also still going up as they have been ever since humans found the first rock that would split and leave a sharp edge.
Soon we, humans, will start bringing asteroids into earth orbit where they will be mined for the materials they have in them in abbundance which are often scarce down here.
This will lead to heavy industry being located in space where energy is plentiful and polution not a problem.
The availibility of resources is going to be massively more than today for ever.
If it happened in a particular year it's called "weather" not "climate".- it's a very common mistake among those who seek to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
But otherwise you have a good point.
I was hoping to add some reference to the ecological consequences of the PETM global warming event, but it seems that the warming spike preceded the increase in CO2 level by some 2000 years, so I won't mention it here in case it upsets the faithful!The only thing disturbing is your commitment to cherry-picking scientific results in the service of denying the science as a whole. Well, OK, your commitment to accepting mythology that seems to superficially support your claims is also disturbing. And your bigotry.
Bihar 1966, Maharashtra 1973, Iceland 1783, Sahel every so often since time began....one could list hundreds of really lethal famines caused by climate change in relatively stable political conditions.
War is not a particularly efficient killer compared with disease and hunger.
Politics and religion are a definite menace to humanity, however. The political imperative to "grow the economy" and religious demands to outbreed the worshippers of a lesser god, ensure that various bits of the world from time to time cannot sustain their human population. The zero-cost, zero-effort solution, of course, is to make fewer babies, but there's no industrial or political profit in that, so it won't happen.
Well there is lots of carbon in them so processing it into petrol and plastic should not not be tricky given the free power of continious sunshine.That's a nice fantasy. How are we supposed to find petrochemicals in asteroids?We are in an era of almost instantly redundant technology where marketeers promote the latest model incessantly. How long do you think it will be before the over consumption of resources wrecks the planet?
The price of almost all materials is lower now than ever. This in spite of all that drivel a few years ago about peak oil.
The reserves of extractable resources are also still going up as they have been ever since humans found the first rock that would split and leave a sharp edge.
Soon we, humans, will start bringing asteroids into earth orbit where they will be mined for the materials they have in them in abbundance which are often scarce down here.
This will lead to heavy industry being located in space where energy is plentiful and polution not a problem.
The availibility of resources is going to be massively more than today for ever.
Well there is lots of carbon in them so processing it into petrol and plastic should not not be tricky given the free power of continious sunshine.Why do so many people have so much faith in the assumptions of simple economics model and so little knowledge of physics?
Although why would we want to ship in stuff from space that is hugely abundant down here?
So, you don't think sunshine in July and snow at Christmas are weather (n the North, at any rate).
If it happened in a particular year it's called "weather" not "climate".- it's a very common mistake among those who seek to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
But otherwise you have a good point.
The Icelandic famine lasted several years and significantly altered the agronomy of Iceland. It was precipitated by a volcanic eruption whose effects were noticeable all over northern Europe. Now, being British, I consider weather to be a day-to-day variable phenomenon, but a trend that spans more than a season looks like something else. If it isn't climate, perhaps you'd care to suggest another name?
I was hoping to add some reference to the ecological consequences of the PETM global warming event, but it seems that the warming spike preceded the increase in CO2 level by some 2000 years, so I won't mention it here in case it upsets the faithful!
Sushine in July and snow at Christmas are climate. Snow in July is weather, and the recent disappearance of winter snow is climate change.
Vocanic ash clouds are in fact relevant because they may or may not be cognate with very large historic releases of CO2.
Sushine in July and snow at Christmas are climate. Snow in July is weather, and the recent disappearance of winter snow is climate change.
Vocanic ash clouds are in fact relevant because they may or may not be cognate with very large historic releases of CO2.
So, it's only most of the stuff that you introduced that's irrelevant.
Nobody has claimed that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.
If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.
If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.
Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.
You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?
If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.
Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.
Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.
I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?
The lives and livelihoods of our ancestors were alternately wrecked and enhanced by climate change, though since it can't have been anthropogenic, I guess the Little Ice Age just counts as a sustained period of bad weather, as did the transformation of the once-fertile Sahara region.Nature can be bad, but people can make things better, or they can make them worse.
The problem with nature is its complete indifference to humans.
When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?
If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.
Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.
Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.
I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?
When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.It strikes me that two wrongs don't make a right.
I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.
This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.
When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.It strikes me that two wrongs don't make a right.
I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.
This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.
Feel free to spread the word about the misuse of land and the fact that people are starving. Who knows- I would probably back you up because it's a valid point.
But why pretend that it's the only problem?
Why pretend that we are just talking about "nothing at all scary about such a warmer world. "?
You didn't "present an opportunity..." you just showed that you haven't been paying attention, while attempting a thread hijackWhen ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.It strikes me that two wrongs don't make a right.
I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.
This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.
Feel free to spread the word about the misuse of land and the fact that people are starving. Who knows- I would probably back you up because it's a valid point.
But why pretend that it's the only problem?
Why pretend that we are just talking about "nothing at all scary about such a warmer world. "?
Well thanks for the agreement over the use of food as fuel killing people to make already rich western farmers richer but..
I serve up an idea opportunity for you to vent fourth about all the threats of a slightly warmer world and you dodge again. Please say what you think is going to be so scarry that we must change the basis of our economy.
You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?
If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.
Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.
Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.
I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?
It's impossible to "shout someone down" on a web page; I can't stop you posting, I can't stop people reading what you post.You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?
If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.
Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.
Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.
I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?
It is through the observation that all other factors are much less backed up by any hypothesis that stands up to even the briefest scrutiny even more than the never going to happen rising of the oceans.
Do you consider shouting an opponent down the way a scientific debate should go or do you think that the traditional, although outdated in climate science, idea of presenting evidence to support your points should be the way to go?