The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?  (Read 55188 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8650
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage.
No; we would simply need to learn to understand it.
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKI
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."

and, since the reaction you cited is perfectly reversible it has an entropy change of exactly zero.
And, if you actually understood the nature of entropy, you would have understood that earlier and not tried to use that reaction as an illustration of entropy.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8650
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension generally, or is it just here?
You seem desperate to lump me in with Tim et al even though I have made it as clear as I can that I disagree with almost all of what they say.

That's why I think it's some sort of cognitive defect- like the D-K effect.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8650
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.

I think Tim is wrong.

(Is that clear enough?)

 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Now, in order to keep things simple for laymen that don't even have as much scientific background as me, I like to frame this argument in simple terms that anyone can easily understand, such as the statement, "Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels creates a great deal of heat and releases a great deal of carbon dioxide. The NET effect of that is a slight warming of the Earth's atmosphere." As you can clearly see, I did NOT "complicate the math and the explanations, bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference" as you stated above. I don't do that, until people like you force me to, like when you brought up 3D earthquake propagation in reference to the 2D wave mechanics of photons in Thebox's black hole thread.

This is very wrong thing to do for several reasons:

1) As this thread demonstrates it is remarkably easy to prove that waste heat are negligible. Therefore using this argument is nothing but an open invitation to be debunked by your opponent. Thus your credibility is diminished and your entire argument is weakened.

2) If you know the argument isn't actually correct and still use it you are being less than completely honest. In general people will see it as inherently unethical which again is bad for your argument as a whole.

3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Quote
At any rate, as I've said before, I didn't learn my science incorrectly. Yet, I have one group of people attacking me, saying the heat we produce from burning fossil fuels is negligible compared to the Sun's energy, and I have another group of people attacking me, saying the carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere in doing so has a negligible insulative effect compared to things like an eccentric orbit or the Sun drifting through a warmer part of the galaxy.

Sometimes you just have to accept that people are jerks and not get upset when the say/do jerky things to you or in your general direction. It just isn't worth the mental or physical energy.

Quote
Somehow, the NET arguments of your camp and the other camp seems to imply that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels really doesn't add up to much of a difference at all. Somebody is wrong, and it isn't me. All I'm saying is that the heat and the carbon dioxide are ultimately important in the equation to some degree, though I couldn't say for exact certainty what percentage is largest by how much, nor do scientists themselves even completely agree on that. Of course, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy and carbon dioxide is an experiment that has never been performed before, so we don't know exactly what to expect.

In this case there is no such thing as a net argument in the sense you seem to be using the term. Either anthropogenic climate change is happening due to CO2 or it isn't happening. It can be clearly demonstrated that the impact of waste heat is inconsequential while the impact of extra CO2 heat absorption is a major driving force of climate change through various feedback loops the most prominent of which is H20 concentrations. Every scientists agrees about exactly how much waste heat humanity generates because it is very easy to measure and therefore there is nothing to dispute about how much warming can be accounted for by waste heat once the numbers have been run.

Quote
I don't see how your arguments will convince people we need to stop applying combustion to so much fossil fuel. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying SOMEBODY is, because SOMETHING is responsible, and that something most likely comes from combustion on a massive scale, so you guys need to stop picking apart my general argument, the statement I put in quotation marks several sentences back, because it is generally correct, and you are smart enough to recognize that.

The logic is simple. Combustion of fossil fuels increases CO2 concentration and that drives several climatic feedback loops that increase the temperature of the planet. Doesn't get much simpler than that really. If someone brings up waste heat you just say it is too small to account for the observed trends and point to some reference like Skeptical Science.

The biggest issue is not if I or anyone else here is smart enough to recognize what is and isn't correct about your statement. There are two major issues and the first is that you are giving the climate science deniers an easy target that weakens the entire climate change argument. The second is that some impressionable proponent of climate change could pick up your argument and use it somewhere else without realizing that it is technically incorrect and easily refutable. Said proponent will have no way to defend his statements and at best damage the overall climate change argument. At worst finding themselves defeated our hypothetical proponent might find themselves convinced into being a denier because after all that seemingly logical argument they read supporting climate change was so obviously wrong. This worst case scenario is very very bad for climate science. On the whole of it allowing arguments that are only partially correct and generally weak to persist only weakens the arguments for climate change. These weak/incorrect arguments need to be jettisoned as soon as possible.
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.

I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.

I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.


For starters I've personally never considered the word denier as a pejorative term. Certainly I see no direct connection between the act of denying something and dishonesty. As far as I am aware a denier simply says that some statement is not true and there is nothing beyond that. I also certainly didn't imply anyone here was a denier. If we accept denier as a pejorative term certainly there is room on your side of the debate for those who share your views on climate change but are less than civil just as there is on my side. I certainly didn't mean for anyone to take umbrage at my remarks which should be rather clear from my rather reasoned tone.

Now seeing as you clearly have negative associations concerning the word denier I am willing to make an effort to use the word skeptic. Unless, that is, you have reasons to dislike that word as well. In which case I would have to ask you to provide me an acceptable term as those two words pretty much deplete my thesaural reserves in relation to this particular subject and I am not very keen of proceeding via trial and error.

I do wish to apologize again if I accidently gave you the impression I thought you were being dishonest or lying. That was absolutely not my attention although I do feel the need to point out that your reaction seems perhaps a bit on the harsh side. Not that we all haven't been guilty of that from time to time. It is always good to be reminded that everyone here is a human. That is unless AI has advanced much further than the public has been told.
 
The following users thanked this post: cheryl j

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
. I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.

Quote
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades.
I agree entirely - at least up to the point where NOAA keep "adjusting" the satellite data until it fits the hypothesis! There is plenty of good raw data since 1979. My point is that there is almost none of any value before 1920, and even the period 1920 - 1970 is mostly derived from airfields near habitation. The problem is that we have no truly global temperature data before 1979, just lots of proxies and models, all using the same implicit or explicit assumption that CO2 drives temperature. Only a fool would deny that climate changes, but the prevailing consensus of why it changes has no foundation in observation.



Quote
I suppose to be exact I should have said global mean temperature or monthly global mean temperature to be even more precise. It should be fairly obvious how one goes about calculating the mean of all temperatures on the Earth over the period of a month. It takes a lot of addition and some division but computers are good at that.
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.

Quote
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.

Actually generally speaking photosynthetic rates peak around late June to early July. As shown here:

http://www.gvsu.edu/rmsc/interchange/2013-september-connections-795.htm <-- you have to scroll a little

So at best you'd call the peak as in June-July. My bad I was slightly off. Add a couple of weeks to account for the time it will take the atmosphere to start responding (anyone that has used a PID system to control sample temperature knows the pain of delayed responses) and another couple of weeks for the changes to actually make it to Hawaii (all reasonable verifiable corrections) and you begin to see the causation. With something as big as the atmosphere it is clearly unrealistic to expect changes to propagate throughout its entirety instantaneously. There is also the competing impact of seasonal temperature fluctuations causing fluctuating amounts of CO2 to dissolve in the ocean which would clearly impact when the minimum occurs.

Quote
I agree entirely - at least up to the point where NOAA keep "adjusting" the satellite data until it fits the hypothesis! There is plenty of good raw data since 1979. My point is that there is almost none of any value before 1920, and even the period 1920 - 1970 is mostly derived from airfields near habitation. The problem is that we have no truly global temperature data before 1979, just lots of proxies and models, all using the same implicit or explicit assumption that CO2 drives temperature. Only a fool would deny that climate changes, but the prevailing consensus of why it changes has no foundation in observation.

All of this was addressed in the links I provided in the previous post. If you are not going to read the evidence your opposition provides then I have no choice but to question if you are actually willing to be convinced. Also, pretty much all the raw data is publically available in databases (some of which I linked). If you disagree with the methods of analysis you are free to do it for yourself starting from the raw data.

Quote
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
As long as those points are sufficiently spaced out they can still be a representative sample of the Earth's mean temperature. I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm[/i]]http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm shows a graph (fig 3) of allegedly measured global mean land surface temperatures since 1900, several years before anyone had actually measured anything inland in Antarctica - or indeed even been further south than the Antarctic coast. Which makes one wonder. "The mean of all the data you have" is not "the mean of what is actually happening", if you know that 20% of the data, itself known to be very different from the mean, is completely absent from your data set. Why 20%? Well it depends on your definition of "land": the north polar ice cap is solid surface, almost equally unexplored in 1900, and the source of much of the continental surface wind in the northern hemisphere, so  it's important.... And according to Shackleton and his colleagues, even the antarctic coastal winters around 1900 - 1917 were exceptionally cold compared with records from previous expeditions.

I'm impressed by the very close fit of all the curves, particularly given the apparent "noise". I wonder why there are such short, sharp peaks in a curve that is the average of several thousand data points, each one the average of at least twelve 2-hourly readings, of a system with enormous thermal inertia? What happened between 1957 and 1960?

The correlation between the different models suggests that either the "noise" is telling us something about the underlying mechanism, or the models are not, in fact, statistically independent. I dimly recall using chi-square analysis to review data where the fit was "too good to be true", and usually led to a discovering a fault in the measuring apparatus, but I think we can assume that umpteen thousand individual thermometers should give us a credible random sample at any moment, so what do you think is going on?       

It's a fascinating subject, and it's good to discuss at last with someone who thinks rather than shouts about it, but it's taking up too much of my time right now. I'll be back in a couple of days, and look forward to continuing!
 

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.

I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.


For starters I've personally never considered the word denier as a pejorative term. Certainly I see no direct connection between the act of denying something and dishonesty. As far as I am aware a denier simply says that some statement is not true and there is nothing beyond that. I also certainly didn't imply anyone here was a denier. If we accept denier as a pejorative term certainly there is room on your side of the debate for those who share your views on climate change but are less than civil just as there is on my side. I certainly didn't mean for anyone to take umbrage at my remarks which should be rather clear from my rather reasoned tone.

Now seeing as you clearly have negative associations concerning the word denier I am willing to make an effort to use the word skeptic. Unless, that is, you have reasons to dislike that word as well. In which case I would have to ask you to provide me an acceptable term as those two words pretty much deplete my thesaural reserves in relation to this particular subject and I am not very keen of proceeding via trial and error.

I do wish to apologize again if I accidently gave you the impression I thought you were being dishonest or lying. That was absolutely not my attention although I do feel the need to point out that your reaction seems perhaps a bit on the harsh side. Not that we all haven't been guilty of that from time to time. It is always good to be reminded that everyone here is a human. That is unless AI has advanced much further than the public has been told.

Thanks, Skeptic is fine.

Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKI
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."

and, since the reaction you cited is perfectly reversible it has an entropy change of exactly zero.
And, if you actually understood the nature of entropy, you would have understood that earlier and not tried to use that reaction as an illustration of entropy.
There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.

If you understood entropy, you wouldn't confuse an "idealized limiting case" with the way things actually work in the real world, and for the record, that would make you a crappy mathematician as well.

Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. You can't throw a stack of papers in the air and scatter them, then put them back in order without expending some energy. You can't just snap your fingers and watch all the carbon dioxide molecules in a room go swooshing back down into a bottle of cola and put the lid back on. Water doesn't flow like this:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1200x675/p02vkdfc.jpg

Cool image, but that's not how entropy works, and you clearly don't understand a damned thing about it if you are suggesting otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/ENTROPY-INTO-GREENHOUSE-WORLD-Book/dp/0553347179

I have read that book at least four times, and I took 16 hours of physics and biology in college. That's more than enough to have me running circles around an alleged chemist on this specific subject. Now, learn your science correctly, or shut the hell up. If you want to fart around with bogus science and information, at least pick a subject that isn't detrimental to the human race, you selfish lamebrain.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 15:44:40 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
Alas, this forum is plagued by a moderator that doesn't want us to see the forest for the trees.

Empirical evidence suggests: "This is a deciduous forest."

You: "No, I saw a couple of conifers in the valley, and I see some birds too. Birds aren't deciduous trees. Pesky facts getting in the way of your theory."
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Thanks, Skeptic is fine. Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.
Whatever, Liquid Drain-O.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
All of this was addressed in the links I provided in the previous post. If you are not going to read the evidence your opposition provides then I have no choice but to question if you are actually willing to be convinced. Also, pretty much all the raw data is publically available in databases (some of which I linked). If you disagree with the methods of analysis you are free to do it for yourself starting from the raw data.

Quote
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
Yes, thank you.
 


Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8650
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.

Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy.
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.

You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?

You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb.
And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.

You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?

You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb. And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).
The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.

From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."

In other words, that's like the energy you need to put ashes, smoke and heat back together to make a log. Unless we are talking about shortly after the Big Bang when the universe was incredibly hot and dense, pair production is not spontaneous, and requires a great deal of energy to accomplish. To suggest otherwise is foolish, as even a layman can understand that it takes enough power to run a city just to collide a couple of particles in an accelerator to make pair production possible, not to mention the energy needed to build a 25 mile long particle accelerator in the first place. You don't get to pretend that energy wasn't lost somewhere and all went into pair production. The VAST majority of that energy was wasted.

Again, this isn't some simplified version of entropy I read in a book. As you can see from the title of the book, "Entropy", the whole entire book is about entropy, which Rifkin discusses in excruciating detail with literally hundreds of footnotes and references.

It wouldn't matter if you DID read the book. You are clearly unteachable, as you refuse to learn.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 17:06:48 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8650
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.

From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 17:17:20 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8650
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
"On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point."
Well, I'm not grabbing at straws, so that's OK.
"You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements."
Plenty of the people on this site are real scientists.
The statements I have made have been factual- it's just that you don't understand them.

"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I'm afraid Bored Chemist is right Craig.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig3.png

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Tropics%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/seaice-anomaly-antarctic.png?w=720&h=585

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Fig8.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-1.png

http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image046.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01-ncdc-since-1979.png

Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that you provide some very strong evidence for that particular extraordinary claim.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm <-- The observed warming is within the projections.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm <-- A bit on the models.

Here is a quote of significance from the intermediate explanation tab of the previous link:

Quote
There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.

That kind of seems like the opposite of what you said. Another significant quote:

Quote
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).

Clearly climatic models are doing a pretty good job of getting things right.
 

Online puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino. 

Quote
El Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including off the Pacific coast of South America. El Niño Southern Oscillation refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called "La Niña" with SST in the eastern Pacific below average and air pressures high in the eastern and low in western Pacific. The ENSO cycle, both El Niño and La Niña, causes global changes of both temperatures and rainfall.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.

This El Nino affect was first discovered in 1795, centuries before manmade global warming. I think there confusion being created where these two affects; El Nino affects being blended with the new climate change branding for global warming. El Nino has been around since before the industrial revolution, yet its current climate affects are being treated, by layman activists, like it is due to CO2.

Quote
ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[26]

El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[27] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[28] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[29] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[30]

Quote
Many ENSO linkages exist in the high southern latitudes around Antarctica.[81] Specifically, El Niño conditions result in high pressure anomalies over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas, causing reduced sea ice and increased poleward heat fluxes in these sectors, as well as the Ross Sea. The Weddell Sea, conversely, tends to become colder with more sea ice during El Niño. The exact opposite heating and atmospheric pressure anomalies occur during La Niña.[82] This pattern of variability is known as the Antarctic dipole mode, although the Antarctic response to ENSO forcing is not ubiquitous.[82]

El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe.[83] The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season.[84]

What causes the cyclic oscillation between El Nino and La Nina is an upwelling of cold ocean water below the warm water; thermocline. This is shown below. How does CO2 cause cold water to upwell?

The new branding of climate change equals CO2, appears to cause many people to assume anything dramatic in weather and climate means climate change = CO2. But El Nino does the same thing even before there was the CO2 scare.



 
« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 12:24:18 by puppypower »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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