The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55733 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So let's put it very simply, once again.

Historically (Vostok), temperature leads CO2, therefore there is no evidence that CO2 controls temperature, at least up to 320 ppm CO2.

Recently (Mauna Loa), CO2 reaches a maximum in early summer (when anthropogenic emission is at its lowest) even at current concentration levels, so there is no evidence that the underlying mechanism linking temperature with CO2 has changed.

Until the temperature drops again, all we have is a correlation, not an indication of causation. Whatever natural process makes CO2 follow temperature, is still happening, and there has been an additional CO2 release from human agency that happens to coincide with a natural warming period. Or it may be that some other human activity is influencing temperature, but unless the rules have changed, the emission of CO2 can't be the driver.

Those with an appetitite for physics would do well to study the mathematics of photon absorption. For those who prefer it predigested, adding absorber becomes exponentially less effective as the waveband saturates. If the first 100 ppm absorbs half the incoming radiation, the next 100 ppm can only absorb 25%, then 12.5%, 6.25%.... and so forth. Adding 20% to a waveband that is almost fully saturated will have very little effect. CO2 has a very narrow IR absorption spectrum, which is almost saturated at ground level.

And we still don't have a consistent definition and credible historic measure of global mean temperature.

To summarise: yes, the climate is changing. Always has and always will, because it is inherently unstable. And it is likely to lead to a humanitarian disaster - that is the inconvenient truth. But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
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.
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.

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.

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
And that's reality for you.
The combustion is not a closed system (that's what you didn't understand)
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math...
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.


And what I have said (if you really want to paraphrase it in those sort of terms) 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?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
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?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

"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.
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.

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.

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

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?
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.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
There you go again with the insults Craig. As soon as someone challenges your view you have a tantrum.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The moderators and the professionals who participate in this forum don't have to be here. It is a very unique place where I personally learn something new every day. Maybe you should tone it down mate.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

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.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2016 23:46:43 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
BC: there is a caveat in your reference, which may be the cause of young Craig's confusion:

Quote
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).


In the case of CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O  there is a substantial (890 kJ/mol) release of energy (which is why we use it to cook our food). You either have to remove this energy, which raises the entropy of the rest of the universe, or contain it in adiabatic combustion, which raises the temperature and hence entropy of the product gases.

Were it not so, you would have the basis for a chemical perpetual motion machine!   
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

What does that H. stand for, Jeffrey? Is there a reason you post anonymously? Scared of retribution from the people you try to push into a tantrum? You're an anonymous piece of crap, pal. I know your kind.

Keep pushing, psycho.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

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.
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.

You say my argument is wrong, so let's see what the opposite of my argument would look like:

"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."

Okay, you converted me. Now what?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.
Excuse me, miss, but I'm not a lady.

You're the worst moderator ever, one thinly veiled insult after another.

Is that why you became a moderator? To legitimize skeptic science and discredit people who know what they are talking about? To kick out people who have been environmentalists for three decades like me?

Get off your power trip and face reality. Burning stuff produces heat (fact), carbon dioxide released during that reaction helps trap that heat (fact).

End of story, but you go ahead and obfuscate some more. People already can't see the forest for the trees. It's the middle of Fall, I'm pointing out all the pretty colors, you're the guy saying, "No, this isn't a deciduous forest, that's clearly a pine tree over there."
« Last Edit: 29/03/2016 15:08:05 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
"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.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2016 17:21:06 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Bored chemist

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


Specifically, extra CO2 is the biggest aspect of it.
By quite a long way.
 

Offline Bored chemist

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

"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.
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.

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.


"Well, somebody's wrong."
Yes and that somebody is clearly you.

"I didn't even take chemistry in college."
It shows.
I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist."
How nice.
But I'm not a pharmacologist and it's clearly not enough to debate (successfully) with me because you keep getting  it wrong
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.
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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.
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.
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.

You're right, the earth is not a COMPLETELY closed system, but it can be "rounded off" to a closed system for practical purposes. Of course, the only way to escape earth is by rocket, meteorites occasionally get through, that's about it. Other than that, it is essentially a closed system. In fact, there really is no such thing as a 100% closed system, not even a box you perform combustion in, not even a black hole with its Schwarzchild radius, not even a cell with a cell wall, not even you with your skin, but those are still more or less "closed" systems to a degree, being separated in part from the rest of the environment, much like the earth is separated in part from space by an atmosphere.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.

"More than not very much" is indeed a mathematical statement, but your argument would have more scientific credibility if you used numbers instead of adjectives.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
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.

Not compared to the amount of heat from the sun over that 150 years.

Quote
Again, I don't know why you guys feel the need to pick apart every argument I present.

It's called science. Or in fact any accademic field. You have to use language carefully and when you are worng it will be pointed out. That's rigor for you. Allowing drivel to pass by unchallenged is to allow humanity to slide down to the days before the enlightenment when idiocy ruled.

Quote
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.

We all completely agree with you there. There is nothing worng with that statement.

There is also nothing to worry about from the consequences of human produced CO2. At least as far as I can see.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4716
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality.

But causality is all about sequence. If A occurs before B, then B cannot be the cause of A. Hence my deep skepticism of CO2 as a driver of climate.

People who think cause always precedes effect are called "normal". People who make exceptions to that rule are either treated as insane, or promoted to high places in the "environmental movement", from which they insult the sane by using words like "denier" instead of "thinker".

We sometimes come across spurious sequences - post hoc sed non propter hoc - but never ante hoc et propter hoc.

Nobody is picking apart your argument. You have made a number of assertions, some of which you have refused to support by calculation, and others that are contradicted by the data on which they are allegedly based.
« Last Edit: 30/03/2016 20:29:22 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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