The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55220 times)

Offline Tim the Plumber

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

LOL! I am unsure whether to reply in kind with an attack on your ideas and your person, to keep it in the same style as the rest of the thread, or to try to point out useful stuff. I'll do the latter just to be alternative;

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.

It is never OK to allow a science forum to become a platform for drivel. Not only will this legitimize the drivel for the mad but it does not allow the inportant points of the thread to be hammered out. In this thread B.Chemist is on the warmist side of the argument. I would like to quiz him about why he considers all this to be at all dangerous to humanity. Because he is legitimately spending his time defending his good science from a nutter he is able, or even is forced to, avoid the more difficult questions. The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.
Yes, and the loudest nutter has a penchant for posting in blue.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

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 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 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.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 15:42:50 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Tell me Craig when did you last see any environmental data close up? Ever done any base flow regression analysis? Selected any storm events from rainfall data. Or maybe contributed to the 100 year flood assessment? Our MD was the president of The British Hydrological society. He organised international conferences not only on hydrology but climate change. Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

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.
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.

I'm still waiting for you to address this
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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
I'm still waiting for you to address this
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.
See? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.

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?

« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 16:52:40 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

« Last Edit: 02/04/2016 17:12:45 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

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 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 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.

The word industry, today, refers to the organised use of labour to make stuff and to provide services.

Before the industrial revolution it was used to refer to working hard.

Industry and technology are separate ideas.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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"?
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
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.

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bored chemist, jeffreyH

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

I'm still waiting for you to address this
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.
See? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.

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?


Yes, I'd like you to answer the question I asked.
(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)
Please calculate the entropy change for the annihilation reaction you showed the diagram for.
(as a hint, I have already told you twice)

I'm really looking forward to you posting the result of the calculation.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.

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.
Thanks for doing the maths for us.
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.
Of course, some won't accept that it's the greenhouse effect, even though we have trebled the amount of one of the two biggest greenhouse effect gases (the other is too variable to model well)- but that's a different problem.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
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

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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2016 14:29:34 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
The word industry, today, refers to the organised use of labour to make stuff and to provide services.

Before the industrial revolution it was used to refer to working hard.

Industry and technology are separate ideas.
Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
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?
« Last Edit: 03/04/2016 14:49:41 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
(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.

Make up your mind.
You are the one who said entropy is important to the topic and you are the one who introduced the Feynman diagram.
If it's not relevant, why did you do that?
Anyway, since you claim to be such an expert on entropy, and it's a trivial calculation why don't you just answer the question and tell us what the entropy change for the reaction actually is?

Also, I already answered it twice.
I'm just checking if you have any idea what the answer is.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.


You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.
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.


 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8654
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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?
Way to go on missing the point there.
it's as if you do it deliberately.
Anyway, the CO2 traps heat from all sources- not just the tiny bit produced by burning fuels.
So, yes it does trap all heat.
I didn't say it trap "all the heat" that's something you made up and pretended I said.
You really need to stop strawmanning or you will end up looking like this guy
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
« Last Edit: 03/04/2016 15:21:45 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
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've quite severely missed the point. The numbers I calculated were a very large overestimate. For starters only about 60% of the energy humans use ends up as waste heat. Therefore the numbers I gave are at least two times bigger than they actually are in reality. 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. I purposefully overestimated so badly to conclusively demonstrate that the impact of direct heating is so small that it is literally not measurable. For example try and find a commercially available thermometer with a precision of 0.01 K (or C as they are equivalent) that works above cryogenic temperature ranges. There are several very expensive units designed for cryogenic temperatures that are specifically marketed to scientists but no one would ever use these to measure ambient temperature and if you did they wouldn't be nearly as accurate as when measuring cryogenic temperatures. At best the thermometers used to measure ambient temperatures have an accuracy of 0.1 K (which again is the same as C) so the impact of direct heating due to human energy use literally is not measurable which means scientifically speaking it is completely ignored in all climate models and calculations.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.
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.
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?

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.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
For starters only about 60% of the energy humans use ends up as waste heat.

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.
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.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2016 15:40:39 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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