The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55291 times)

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

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.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 15:26:52 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
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.
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.

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.

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;

1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?

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.

3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
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.

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).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
And if you are wrong, it doesn't matter what you have studied
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.

Really?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65777.msg483855#msg483855
where 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"
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
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.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Ice sheet is not ice pack.

NASA says that the ice mass of Antarctica is gaining mass.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Again, Antarctica was the location of the ozone hole, and there is absolutely no CFC production or consumption in Antarctica. Obviously, local effects can differ from the entire atmosphere.

You approach science like Ronald Reagan. He wanted to take millions of people off welfare because a handful of people abuse the system, as if they represent the entire data pool and behavior across the system in general. Your argument is more damaging than helpful.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

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).
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?

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, ESPECIALLY those with science degrees who work for large corporations and have a slanted point of view to begin with.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 18:08:17 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
Indeed, and it didn't stop you pontificating about it.
But even that isn't the real problem.
The point was that you say  that you don't do that sort of thing. The evidence says otherwise.

Do you realise that nonsense like that undermines your other arguments.

So, it really doesn't matter how long you have been watching the weather.
You keep saying things that are clearly not true.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

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).
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?

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.
well, yes and no
Obviously the emerge together- you keep banging on about that as if anyone is saying anything else.
They are not.
So you ought to shut up about it and think harder.
Why is someone like me who is- whether you like it or not- actually quite bright repeating the assertion about the heat released not being a major factor?

Here's a hint; it gets cold at night, but the CO2 doesn't go away that quickly.
So, yes- as everyone agrees- the heat and the CO2 are released together .
And, as I pointed out a while back, the heat leaves, but the CO2 stays around.

Do you now understand why the heat that was released over 200 years or so- and which has all gone away- is less important the The CO2 released over the same period but which is still here?

Frankly I wonder what sort of climate study you might have been doing that didn't teach you about the importance of time scales.
Perhaps you should stop bragging about your college courses and go and ask for a refund.

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Again, in the simplest terms possible, applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does 2 things. It adds heat to the atmosphere, and it increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide.

You can haggle about the percentages involved and their significance all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and poses a real threat.

End of story.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

So, clearly, I have no problem appreciating the significance of time scales. That's YOUR problem, as you obviously didn't fully appreciate these statements of mine.

What is the deal with blowhards and posers telling lies about people in forums? I don't believe for an instant you have a degree in chemistry. Hooked on pharmacological products, maybe.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 18:23:00 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.

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?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

"Again, in the simplest terms possible, applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does 2 things. It adds heat to the atmosphere, and it increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide."

Actually it does three things: burning most stuff also adds water vapour to the air- lots of it.
And, of course, water vapour is a greenhouse gas too.
But the IPCC etc don't consider this factor so much, because water vapour in the air has a fairly short retention time.
And that's exactly the same reason why they don't consider the direct heating effect.

"You can haggle about the percentages involved and their significance all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and poses a real threat."
You seem to think that I disagree with that.
I don't disagree.
Can you possibly get that fact into your head?


« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 18:29:25 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
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.

1, Posession of an old maths book is noted. Well done.

2, Your inability to do any maths is also noted.

3, 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.

4, 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?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.

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?
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.

Yes, you are correct, though I don't know if you understand why. 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. Transform mass to energy, and you get disorder. The more mass to turn to energy, the greater the disorder. That's building up in the atmosphere. That's the carbon dioxide you're talking about. It used to be concentrated, safely stored away in fossil fuels. Now, it is diffuse. I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice. You know about Entropy right? We've released carbon dioxide from those chemical bonds, dissipating it throughout the atmosphere. But rest assured, some of that combustion heat is still there, being trapped by the carbon dioxide. That's how the atmosphere works.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

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

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?


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.
So we are talking about some "special" volcanoes you  have invented which erupt, but don't make lava.
OK
Glad we got that cleared up
 
The following users thanked this post: Tim the Plumber

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
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.

You need to do maths in order for you to understand the level of significance of such heat. If it was 2% of the earth's energy budget then it would be significant but it is not it is of the order of 1/15000 of the overall energy budget of the earth. So it does not matter.

The CO2 produced, it is argued, causes heating. Or more accurately causes heat retention by reflecting some of the IR from the ground back down.

It is further argued that this will cause increased water vapor in the air and that this will cause further heating. Can't see it myself but....
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
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.

1, If the ocean is absorbing so much CO2 (it is not) why is the amount in the air higher than expected?

2, Why has this not produced the expected warming?

3, If the prediction was of a car crash, which was ignored, scoffed at by the driver and the effect happened but rather than it being a terminal car crash was a bit of dust or smoke that the car drove through with no problem why would you expect the driver to panic when you told him that there was more to come?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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