The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55760 times)

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.

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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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".
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.

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?
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 14:27:11 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Some more numbers.

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.
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.

I also agree with your "aspirational figure" comment. I am very ambivalent about this issue. I am a Democrat because I want to see the Middle Class expand. When all the wealth is concentrated in just a few hands and masses of consumers don't have money to spend, consumer economies get bogged down and resource consumption slows. When Middle Class consumers have money, the economy reaches full steam and resource consumption increases drastically. Sharing the wealth is great in principle, but resource depletion is more likely that way. I don't know what to do about that.

I can stop myself from buying a lot of stuff I don't need, but I can't stop anyone else. That would require a change in the entire culture. In the US, "winners" make lots of money and buy lots of stuff, "losers" hug trees and eat granola. For most of my adult life, I've chosen to not own an automobile whenever possible. I'm paraphrasing here, but do you have any idea how many Americans have said to me over the years, "Yeah, sure you're an environmentalist. You probably don't own a car because you can't afford one, eat vegetables because you can't afford steak either, recycle because you need the spare change, and don't have kids because nobody wanted to have kids with a broke loser, hyuck hyuck." Surprisingly, that goes for Texas AND California. Sadly, that's just part of our materialistic culture. Low entropy lifestyles are mocked in the US, and discouraged in a capitalist society in general.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 17:19:19 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So we have some agreement on the figures.

It happens that the "aspirational figure" is equal to the average daily solar input on 2 square meters of the earth's surface. The earth's surface area is about 5 x 1014 sq m, so even if we had already achieved the aspirational figure (and remember that only one third of the population has actually done so) our net additional contribution from fossil fuel consumption would be equivalent to

7.4 x 109/2 x 5 x 1014 = 0.74 x 10-5

of the solar energy - less than one part in 100,000.

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.   
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

That's what's important. When your average body temperature increases by a couple of degrees in a relatively short period of time, you are probably getting sick. I don't see why the Earth would be any different. The Earth's atmosphere has maintained its temperature and carbon dioxide content between well defined parameters for at least 800,000 years, and in about 50 years, it is now 20% above the high spot for one of those parameters, and at the same time, there's visual evidence that glaciers around the world are dissappearing at an unprecedented rate, and lots of elderly people saying things like, "I remember when I was a kid, the lake used to freeze over every year, and we would go ice skating." That's not just a coincidence.

Now, let's talk about some basic physics. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence. So, when you apply combustion to a pile of coal or a barrel of oil, all you're doing is turning a teeny, tiny bit of mass into energy. However, in the overall context, part of that process is that the set of molecules you have after the reaction are a different set of molecules, with a different set of properties. Think about burning a solid log, which turns it into a wispy pile of ash, floating dust and soot particles, and dissipated heat. All those substances and their properties are absorbed by the environment; it is all part of the mass/energy transaction of combustion. One of the molecules created by processes like these is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide molecules have properties that make them especially good at absorbing heat radiation and re-emitting it, an insulative property in the context of the atmosphere.

So, long story short, combustion doesn't just supply you with energy. The mass left over after the chemical transformation has different properties than the mass before the combustion process. The warming caused by extra CO2 is a byproduct and a manifestation of that same combustion process, not some completely different, separate phenomenon. Extra warmth from extra CO2 is ultimately a byproduct of combustion on a mass scale, just another facet of the original mass/energy transformation that took place, plain and simple.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 17:54:25 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Even allowing for the fact that nobody has even defined, let alone measured, mean global temperature for the last 100 years, the IPCC assertion cannot be directly ascribed to heating from combustion of fossil fuels, by three orders of magnitude.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 19:02:01 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.

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.
Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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".
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.

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.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

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.
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.
The other difference is less subtle- there are no flames. or as WIKI puts it "Combustion  or burning is a high-temperature exothermic redox chemical reaction between a fuel and an oxidant, usually atmospheric oxygen"
Well, 37C isn't high a temperature.

There's a fairly close analogy but my point was that while the body's use of food might figuratively be described as combustion it can't be (legitimately) described as "literally" combustion- because the two process are different.

If you want to put a word into a sentence, make sure it's the right word.
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.


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
I remember it- it wasn't relevant then, and it isn't relevant now.
"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?
I don't think that humans can't affect the planet.
In fact I'm perfectly convinced they have done, and are doing so.

And I have never said otherwise.
And that's why your point has no relevance here.

If I pointed out that the old story about "if all the Chinese jumped in that air at the same time it would cause an earthquake" was nonsense- because the energy release simply isn't big enough and the uncorrelated waves wouldn't reinforce anyway- would you somehow think that I'm saying that we can't do anything?

Are you beginning to understand what you got wrong yet?
It's not that humanity has not had an effect.
It's just that the effect isn't the direct one you think it is, but the much bigger one caused by CO2.
(I have a lot of patience in this sort of discussion- around 8000 posts compared to your less than 200. If I was as daft as you think, do you not realise they would have kicked me off the site before now?)

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.

 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
When I first became concerned about global warming, like many others associated heat from fossil fuels as a potential culprit.  So I did some research on the Internet.  Been a few years ago (somewhere around 2007) when I did this, but I was kind of shocked.  I might have been a little biased one way or the other, can't remember...

This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).  The 2nd number is the 1st divided by 1 trillion divided by 1000 (quadrillions).  The spreadsheet didn't paste as nicely as I would have liked.


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
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.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2016 04:44:58 by JoeBrown »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
FALSE. 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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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".
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.

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.
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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.
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.
Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite.

(shrugs)
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.

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.
No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Again, I've posted a graph several times in this thread. Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parameters for at least 800,000 years, moving in lockstep. Just like your body temperature, the earth's temperature goes up and down a little bit. Just like your body temperature, that's entirely random and unpredictable, but what is predictable is that it will stay within certain boundaries. When it steps outside those parameters, it is sick, just like you. We are like a bacterial infection.

I've never said carbon dioxide is "the" driver of climate change. It is "a" driver of climate change. As I keep pointing out, carbon dioxide content and temperature are inextricably linked, as evidenced by 800,000 years worth of ice core samples.

It takes a dedicated liar or ignorant nonscientist to propose that carbon dioxide is NOT a driver of climate change, or that the heat produced by combustion is ALSO NOT a driver of climate change. I have now heard both of those opinions in this thread. I feel like the only voice of reason right now. Am I at the wrong site? Is it too early and I'm still half asleep? I think I might be posting at FOX news site.

Here's the most basic physics I can come up with for you deniers. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. 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.

Here's some slightly more advanced physics for you. The first law of thermodynamics says it is possible to get energy from fossil fuels, the Second Law says there are going to be consequences, known as "entropy." Carbon dioxide is part of the entropy.

End of story.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2016 14:41:23 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.

 

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
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.

Perhaps a chemist shouldn't worry about that.  e=mc˛ which is applicable to fusion.

Burning hydrocarbons is a chemical reaction which is more subtle than e=mc˛, although there are similarities.

If fusion were a problem here, the conversation would have ended.

In 97 I came up with 0.90% heat of the earth generated by fossil fuel consumption.  I can't attest to the accuracy of the numbers because I used various undocumented sources on the Internet, but I was diligent.

That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

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]
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.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.

No. 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.

Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.


What argument do you think I'm trying to support?
Chemists do take account of the mass change, it's tacitly included in the relative atomic mass.
Since you seem very keen on the "bacteria" analogy let's try it.
If you get an infection, and it leads to a fever, do you think that the raised body temperature is due to the metabolic heat of the bacteria?

Re "Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment "
Why should I take it back?

"FALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics."
Nope, I'm not doing anything on their behalf. I'm pointing out errors in your posts. It would be better if you made fewer.
And I remind you that you are the one who said, after I pointed out that someone was actually correct (and you had said he wasn't) that you didn't care if he was right or not.
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.
 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.

Quote
Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parameters
Temperature and CO2 content are parameters. A parameter is not a limit.

Quote
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.

Quote
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! 
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.

Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
blah blah blah
Again, 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.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 11:31:34 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums