Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 12:00:36
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2021 12:19:47
PS does anyone have an authoritative atmospheric infrared absorption spectrum (i.e. one based on verifiable recent measurements) that doesn't show the CO2 bands as saturated?Yes.
Any spectrum which is at least half-competent will do that.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 19:32:56
Now either all the published papers on CO2 absorption are wrong or plagiarised from two flawed sources, or the hypothesis that increasing p[CO2] will increase surface temperature is nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2021 20:00:26
So here's a rubbish drawing to explain it to you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: chiralSPO on 27/10/2021 20:10:34
Now either all the published papers on CO2 absorption are wrong or plagiarised from two flawed sources, or the hypothesis that increasing p[CO2] will increase surface temperature is nonsense.The atmosphere absorbs effectively 100% of the radiation at these wavelengths (if you're looking down the whole length of the atmosphere), but the % absorbance or % transmittance or however you choose take your IR spectrum has very little bearing on the greenhouse effect (it's mechanism, magnitude or cause).
Even if the atmosphere is treated as 100% opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, it is straightforward to see that changing the concentration of CO2 will still change the mean free path of the photons that are interacting with CO2.
We can think of a photon emitted from the ground and needing to reach "space". It will start out going straight until it runs into a CO2 molecule and gets absorbed, hangs out for a time before being re-emitted in a random direction until it bumps into the next CO2 molecule or escapes to space. Essentially it have to take a random walk from the surface to some altitude sufficiently high. And the time it takes has nothing to do with the speed of light (we can assume it is c for this), but rather in how many stops it has to take (each one being a significant delay compared to whizzing by at c), and how much time is being spent traveling the "correct" way.
The higher the CO2 concentration, the shorter the mean free path of the photons.
The shorter the mean free path of the photons, the more hops need to be taken to escape (exponentially so!)
The more hops needed to escape the slower the rate of energy transfer through the atmosphere.
Post by: chiralSPO on 27/10/2021 20:35:18
Let, play a game. I have a pile of quarters ($0.25 coins), let's assume they are fair. You can take one and flip it. If it comes up heads you can keep it. If it comes up tails, you owe me a quarter. Once you accrue $1.00 of winnings, you may walk away with it. How many flips will it take you to get $1 of winnings?
Here is one simulation:
THTHTHTTHTHHHHTTHTHTHTHHHTHTTHTHHTHH 36 flips
Ok, now let's play the same game, but with dimes ($0.10 coins). How many flips will it take you to get $1 of winnings?
Which game would you rather play?
The difference here is that we have decreased the mean free path from 1/4 of the way to the target to 1/10 of the way to the target. By increasing the carbon dioxide concentrations from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, we have reduced the mean free path from 1/4000 (24 m of 100 km) of the way up to 1/6250 (16 m of 100 km) (ish)
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2021 20:51:02
Think of it this way:To be fair, there's an upper limit to the extent of that effect too. Eventually you reach a point where the energy is carried by the random movement of excited CO2 molecules rather than by radiation.
Let, play a game. I have a pile of quarters ($0.25 coins), let's assume they are fair. You can take one and flip it. If it comes up heads you can keep it. If it comes up tails, you owe me a quarter. Once you accrue $1.00 of winnings, you may walk away with it. How many flips will it take you to get $1 of winnings?
Here is one simulation:
THTHTHTTHTHHHHTTHTHTHTHHHTHTTHTHHTHH 36 flips
Ok, now let's play the same game, but with dimes ($0.10 coins). How many flips will it take you to get $1 of winnings?
Which game would you rather play?
The difference here is that we have decreased the mean free path from 1/4 of the way to thee target to 1/10 of the way to the target. By increasing the carbon dioxide concentrations from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, we have reduced the mean free path from 1/4000 (24 m of 100 km) of the way up to 1/6250 (16 m of 100 km) (ish)
But we aren't there yet.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 20:51:58
So here's a rubbish drawing to explain it to you.Now show me an authoritative atmospheric absorption spectrum that doesn't look like that in the range 10 - 20 microns.
Post by: chiralSPO on 27/10/2021 22:01:40
background.png (78.73 kB . 754x415 - viewed 4632 times)The large feature around 2350 cm–1 is from CO2 the other major peaks are from H2O (it appears there may also be some organics in there too... I see stuff around 2900...
There was a time when I saw some form of this every day (I always subtracted it out as background, because I was interested in what was on the sample holder, not what was in the air. But I always needed to make sure that this is what the background looked like)
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/10/2021 22:56:10
I wonder; is that spectrum from a Perkin Elmer system 2000 FTIR?
Now show me an authoritative atmospheric absorption spectrum that doesn't look like that in the range 10 - 20 microns.I can't show you one that doesn't look like that, because, as I said, even a half competent one will look like that.
They all look more or less like that somewhere in that range
10 to 20 µM is 500 to 1000 cm^-1 (The units used on Chiral's spectrum)
The big absorption in the middle is about 4.25 µM
And here's what the spectrum looks like at a much higher resolution From here
https://wiki.anton-paar.com/fi-en/infrared-spectrum-of-carbon-dioxide/##data-imagegroup-64300
better spectrum.JPG (84.16 kB . 1482x546 - viewed 4471 times)And I took a clip of it zoomed in and labelled it for Alan
Big better spectrum.jpg (30.14 kB . 444x762 - viewed 4386 times)
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/10/2021 23:39:00
Why is this graph not flat? Or at least linear? Does the sun do a particularly good job in issuing IR around the peak?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2021 01:45:31
The anthropogenic problem as I see it is that every emission of CO2 is accompanied (apart from burning clean coal) by an emission of H2O, whose absorption bands are very broad and generally not saturated. This is particularly bad news because substituting methane for town gas or coal generates a lot more H2O per molecule of CO2,and likewise diluting heavy alkanes like gasoline or diesel with ethanol similarly increases the H2O/CO2 ratio and the total H2O emission per joule of useful energy generated.
I've often cautioned against doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but it looks as though some intermediate "carbon reduction" processes may actually be doing the wrong thing for an irrelevant reason. Funny that all the scary populist images of power stations show plumes emanating from stacks and cooling towers, and condescending scientists snort and say "it's only water - you can't see the CO2". But AFAIK water is indeed the problem, and as the ice core data shows, always has been.
Post by: chiralSPO on 28/10/2021 04:30:24
But what we need is the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere, i.e. showing how much of the surface black body radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere per wavelength. All the plots I have seen indicate that damn near 100% of 10 - 20 micron photons are absorbed by a 60 km air column containing 300 ppm of CO2, i.e. the bands are saturated and have been for at least 100 years Now what happens to total absorption if you add stuff to a mixture that is already saturated at that wavelength? Not a lot, IIRC.
Yes, the top maximum of the absorption is saturated if you take the whole column of air. But, as Bored chemist points out, there's also the bits of the peak that are not the maximum, and will continue to increase in inensity.
And, as I mentioned, and you conveniently ignored, the total absorption of the atmosphere is not actually relevant. It also happens to increase with increasing CO2 concentration, but is not the cause of greenhouse effect:
Even if the atmosphere is treated as 100% opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, it is straightforward to see that changing the concentration of CO2 will still change the mean free path of the photons that are interacting with CO2.
We can think of a photon emitted from the ground and needing to reach "space". It will start out going straight until it runs into a CO2 molecule and gets absorbed, hangs out for a time before being re-emitted in a random direction until it bumps into the next CO2 molecule or escapes to space. Essentially it have to take a random walk from the surface to some altitude sufficiently high. And the time it takes has nothing to do with the speed of light (we can assume it is c for this), but rather in how many stops it has to take (each one being a significant delay compared to whizzing by at c), and how much time is being spent traveling the "correct" way.
The higher the CO2 concentration, the shorter the mean free path of the photons.
The shorter the mean free path of the photons, the more hops need to be taken to escape (exponentially so!)
The more hops needed to escape the slower the rate of energy transfer through the atmosphere.
I know you're no dullard Alan... but you seem to have a particularly strong mental block on this topic. It's not water.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2021 08:29:21
water is indeed the problem, and as the ice core data shows, always has been.Got evidence?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2021 08:31:58
The anthropogenic problem as I see it is that every emission of CO2 is accompanied (apart from burning clean coal) by an emission of H2O,Which falls out of the sky almost immediately as rain.
Or, in the case of my condensing boiler, it doesn't even reach the atmosphere
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/10/2021 12:10:39
If carbon dioxide has increaced 25 percent in 100 years, the temperature of the earth was 300k in 1900, why has earth not increaced in temperature to 400k?But what we need is the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere, i.e. showing how much of the surface black body radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere per wavelength. All the plots I have seen indicate that damn near 100% of 10 - 20 micron photons are absorbed by a 60 km air column containing 300 ppm of CO2, i.e. the bands are saturated and have been for at least 100 years Now what happens to total absorption if you add stuff to a mixture that is already saturated at that wavelength? Not a lot, IIRC.
Yes, the top maximum of the absorption is saturated if you take the whole column of air. But, as Bored chemist points out, there's also the bits of the peak that are not the maximum, and will continue to increase in inensity.
And, as I mentioned, and you conveniently ignored, the total absorption of the atmosphere is not actually relevant. It also happens to increase with increasing CO2 concentration, but is not the cause of greenhouse effect:Even if the atmosphere is treated as 100% opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, it is straightforward to see that changing the concentration of CO2 will still change the mean free path of the photons that are interacting with CO2.
We can think of a photon emitted from the ground and needing to reach "space". It will start out going straight until it runs into a CO2 molecule and gets absorbed, hangs out for a time before being re-emitted in a random direction until it bumps into the next CO2 molecule or escapes to space. Essentially it have to take a random walk from the surface to some altitude sufficiently high. And the time it takes has nothing to do with the speed of light (we can assume it is c for this), but rather in how many stops it has to take (each one being a significant delay compared to whizzing by at c), and how much time is being spent traveling the "correct" way.
The higher the CO2 concentration, the shorter the mean free path of the photons.
The shorter the mean free path of the photons, the more hops need to be taken to escape (exponentially so!)
The more hops needed to escape the slower the rate of energy transfer through the atmosphere.
I know you're no dullard Alan... but you seem to have a particularly strong mental block on this topic. It's not water.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2021 13:02:38
If carbon dioxide has increaced 25 percent in 100 years, the temperature of the earth was 300k in 1900, why has earth not increaced in temperature to 400k?This sort of thing is the reason why his signature says "For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist"
He posts stuff that shows he's clueless, and then complains when people point it out.
Post by: chiralSPO on 28/10/2021 18:08:59
If carbon dioxide has increaced 25 percent in 100 years, the temperature of the earth was 300k in 1900, why has earth not increaced in temperature to 400k?
One reason is that it is not a linear relationship between average temperature and CO2 concentration. (the relationship is complex enough there is not just one equation that can be used to model it well, but we can know for sure that it isn't linear)
Another major issue is that the Earth's average temperature is still increasing because of the excess carbon dioxide put out last century, and even if the carbon dioxide concentration were to suddenly stop and remain constant right now, temperatures would still continue to increase for decades (the earth is a big place and it takes a while for it to warm up)
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/10/2021 19:06:47
In that case there must be more more than co2 responsible for the vast majority of heat retention.If carbon dioxide has increaced 25 percent in 100 years, the temperature of the earth was 300k in 1900, why has earth not increaced in temperature to 400k?
One reason is that it is not a linear relationship between average temperature and CO2 concentration. (the relationship is complex enough there is not just one equation that can be used to model it well, but we can know for sure that it isn't linear)
Another major issue is that the Earth's average temperature is still increasing because of the excess carbon dioxide put out last century, and even if the carbon dioxide concentration were to suddenly stop and remain constant right now, temperatures would still continue to increase for decades (the earth is a big place and it takes a while for it to warm up)
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2021 19:24:38
In that case there must be more more than co2 responsible for the vast majority of heat retention.Not really.
Post by: chiralSPO on 28/10/2021 20:42:10
In that case there must be more more than co2 responsible for the vast majority of heat retention.Well, the sun plays an important role too... (it's where the retained heat comes from)
But a sudden change in one parameter can often lead to a slow change in others. Like plugging the drain of a running shower. The water keeps flowing in at a steady rate, and the drain stopper was only added once, a few minutes ago, so why does the water level continue to rise?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2021 22:56:47
The ice core data. Plenty of images available on the internet. They all show that for the last 400,000 yearswater is indeed the problem, and as the ice core data shows, always has been.Got evidence?
1. The CO2 curve lags some 500 years behind the temperature curve - effects usually follow causes
2.The temperature increases very rapidly then decreases slowly - indicating a strong positive feedback which CO2 does not exhibit
3. The temperature peak is remarkably consistent between cycles, consistent with cloud cover (i.e. water) being a limiting factor for insolation. If CO2 is the primary driver there is no reason why the peaks should be consistent nor why the temperature should decrease after reaching a short-duration peak
I know of no mechanism that can generate regular rapid rises followed by slow declines of CO2 apart from a cycle of plant/animal interactions mediated by temperature. Vulcanism has been offered but the associated ash deposits do not coincide with the major rises in CO2 concentration which follow the temperature curve.
CO2 is a convenient scapegoat because it is easy to measure and, to a very limited extent, is controllable, but there is no evidence that sending a goat into the wilderness ever solved a problem.
There are many good reasons to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emission, but it is foolish to think that this will bring about a substantial change in the temperature cycle.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2021 08:40:25
So that's a "No" thenThe ice core data. Plenty of images available on the internet. They all show that for the last 400,000 yearswater is indeed the problem, and as the ice core data shows, always has been.Got evidence?
1. The CO2 curve lags some 500 years behind the temperature curve - effects usually follow causes
2.The temperature increases very rapidly then decreases slowly - indicating a strong positive feedback which CO2 does not exhibit
3. The temperature peak is remarkably consistent between cycles, consistent with cloud cover (i.e. water) being a limiting factor for insolation. If CO2 is the primary driver there is no reason why the peaks should be consistent nor why the temperature should decrease after reaching a short-duration peak
I know of no mechanism that can generate regular rapid rises followed by slow declines of CO2 apart from a cycle of plant/animal interactions mediated by temperature. Vulcanism has been offered but the associated ash deposits do not coincide with the major rises in CO2 concentration which follow the temperature curve.
CO2 is a convenient scapegoat because it is easy to measure and, to a very limited extent, is controllable, but there is no evidence that sending a goat into the wilderness ever solved a problem.
There are many good reasons to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emission, but it is foolish to think that this will bring about a substantial change in the temperature cycle.
You do not have ice core evidence that says that water is responsible.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 11:01:10
Determination of responsibility is a matter of interpreting the evidence. I cannot find a rational interpretation consistent with CO2 being the driver of historic climate change.
Given the data we have, either water is the driver or some hitherto unknown agent decides that temperature should follow a sawtooth cycle and carbon dioxide should follow the same cycle 500 years later.
You are welcome to provide a different interpretation as long as it accounts for the data and identifies the driver.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2021 13:29:59
Evidence is one thing,And what you presented is another; at least in regard to what you said.
You actually said this
water is indeed the problem, and as the ice core data shows, always has been.
The ice core record (ironically) does not tell you about water levels in the air.
If you really think it does then please give us a link.
I cannot find a rational interpretation consistent with CO2 being the driver of historic climate change.Good point- sort of.
But inevitable and meaningless.
It is true that the historical record does not show CO2 leading a temperature rise.
But that's because, prior to mankind getting in on the act, there was no plausible source of CO2 that could materially affect the concentration in the atmosphere.
You will not see, at any point in Earth's history a record of what happened when mankind suddenly raised CO2 levels roughly 10 times faster than they have every risen before.
Because mankind never did it before.
That's more or less the point of anthropogenic climate change. Nobody ever did it before.
So it makes no real sense to look at the historical record for a precedent for "today's" events - say the last 200 years.
Historical climate change was not driven by anthropogenic CO2.
Nobody said it was.
But here's the actual explanation of the link between CO2 and climate.
TLDR version, it's not been the cause in the past; it has been an amplifier- a positive feedback mechanism enhancing changes due to orbital effects.
But it still has the effect of creating warming, even if the initial source isn't orbital variation, but mankind.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 15:06:34
prior to mankind getting in on the act, there was no plausible source of CO2 that could materially affect the concentration in the atmosphere.So why did it fluctuate so much, just 500 years behind the temperature graph? There must have been a mechanism, and I think it tautologous that it must be a plausible one!
Quote
in the past; it has been an amplifier- a positive feedback mechanism enhancing changes due to orbital effects.So you assert that all the major temperature fluctuations in the last 400,000 years were due to sudden orbital shift followed by a gradual return to the preceding orbit, and that the "amplifier" that made it worse turned up 500 years afterwards. That's stretching plausibility a bit, to say the least.
Why do I think "water"? Because it is known to be the most significant greenhouse gas, its absorption spectrum is very broad and not saturated, it exists in all three states in the atmosphere with huge latent heat changes between them, and there is (uniquely) a hell of a lot of it on the surface of this planet. "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras".
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2021 18:32:09
o why did it fluctuate so much, just 500 years behind the temperature graph? There must have been a mechanism, and I think it tautologous that it must be a plausible one!Do you recognise that CO2 is less soluble in warm water?
Do you understand this idea?
it has been an amplifier- a positive feedback mechanism
So you assert that all the major temperature fluctuations in the last 400,000 years were due to sudden orbital shiftWhy tell that lie?
It just makes you look foolish.
Anyone reading this thread knows that I never asserted that, did I?
Post by: chiralSPO on 29/10/2021 18:47:17
I cannot find a rational interpretation consistent with CO2 being the driver of historic climate change.
CO2 is probably NOT a driver of climate change historically until we look way back to time periods FAR predating ice cores (ie last time the atmosphere had significantly more CO2 there was no ice at the poles...
And unless there was some non-anthropogenic process capable of putting 1016 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere in 150 years (practically instantaneous on geological timescale), there isn't likely another such event in the "historic" climate change
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2021 00:08:45
Do you recognise that CO2 is less soluble in warm water?Absolutely. But why did the water get warm? Obviously not because of atmospheric CO2: you have to distinguish between cause and effect, and most people think cause always precedes effect. If the water warmed by whatever cyclic magic you imagine, and emitted CO2 that then accelerated the warming process, why did the temperature decrease whilst the CO2 concentration was at its maximum?
If CO2 is the principal driver, can you explain why the temperature has remained within a 12 degree band for the last 500,000 years? What determines the bounds?
The most rapid increase in temperature seems to have occurred between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, with a similar characteristic to the cycle between 135,000 and 125,000 years previously. The shape of the curves suggests a common cause and even if you ascribe the recent one to pre-Stonehenge agriculture, you'd have a problem blaming the early neanderthals for raising the CO2 concentration above today's level.
Post by: Zer0 on 30/10/2021 01:03:40
But Yes, knowing the Exact reason behind it is equally as important as tackling it.
Ps - even humans running around on the surface of the planet must be contributing to heat.
Like excited particles in a hot cuppa coffee.
☕
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2021 01:57:01
Why tell that lie?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2021 10:29:03
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2021 10:34:38
CO2 is probably NOT a driver of climate change historicallySo when did the laws of physics change? The current warming cycle began about 20,000 years ago and so far looks pretty much like all the others, with CO2 following around 500 years behind a steeply rising temperature until very recently when the CO2 graph has accelerated.
Quote
Here's how saturation was described in the 2001 IPCC report (AR3):
"Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm [sic] band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated.....
but that's just physics, apparently confirmed by every published graph of atmospheric transmittance at 15 μm. Since said graphs all seem to date back to the 1950s and are politically inconvenient, why can't I find a more recent measurement consistent with the CO2-driver hypothesis?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2021 11:36:03
Not a lie, but the rational interpretation of what you did say.No, a deliberately irrational interpretation.
So when did the laws of physics change?When CO2 no longer caused warming.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2021 13:10:11
Anyway, rather than argue the toss, I want to measure the intensity of outgoing 15 μm radiation as a function of altitude at night. Can anyone direct me to a suitable commercially available detector? Most of those advertised seem to cut off at 14 μm!
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2021 13:24:31
Improbable, and unpopular. Most people think the laws of physics haven't changed since a few milliseconds after the Big Bang.And yet the laws of physics would need to change for the greenhouse effect not to work.
So which is it?
Do you believe in the greenhouse effect or do you think the laws of physics have changed?
Incidentally, on a tangentially related note, do you know how a neon oscillator works?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2021 13:48:27
What is interesting and odd about the earth's climate is that the mean temperature of the atmosphere is cyclic, with very sharp rises followed by slow declines, within quite wide (± 2.1%) but very definite bounds. As the CO2 infrared absorption is saturated in the long wave region in our atmosphere, it cannot be the driver of climate change and even if it were significant, we need a more powerful and nonlinear driver to explain the cycles.
Milankovich is all very well but orbital shifts and axial tilts tend to be sinusoidal, or at least time symmetric, not sawtooth.
Why do I care? Because a lot of effort is being expended on minimising the harmless effect (CO2) without considering the cause. Climate change is going to be hugely damaging to humanity, and pissing into the wind may be good for a few political and pseudoscientific careers but won't make life tolerable for my grandchildren.
The only explanation of climate change that makes sense to me is that water is the driver. This means that it is wholly out of our control, so instead of tilting at the CO2 windmill we need to reform society to become resilient to the inevitable. Politicians do not like reforming society on the scale required for the survival of a decent standard of living.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2021 14:01:50
I presume you mean a relaxation oscillator using a neon tube. It is one of those neat circuits that fascinated me as a kid and is still fundamental to a whole bunch of robust devices - including radiation detectors that I use every day.
The circuit consists of a resistor and capacitor in series, with a neon lamp in parallel with the capacitor. If you apply a constant voltage V to the series elements, the voltage across the capacitor increases asymptotically towards V. At some critical voltage Vi less than V, the neon gas ionises and effectively short-circuits the capacitor which discharges until the lamp extinguishes at a lower voltage Ve. Thus the voltage across the capacitor becomes a cyclic sawtooth with a slow rise and rapid fall, with a repetition time of about 0.63 RC.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/10/2021 15:39:31
If it was not a driver historically, why should it be now. The greatest current potential driver of co2 is the peatbogs of siberia, methane and co2. If they warmed and dried historically due to temperature change that would release humungous a mounts of CO2, afterwards the temperature crashed into an ice age for some reason.I cannot find a rational interpretation consistent with CO2 being the driver of historic climate change.
CO2 is probably NOT a driver of climate change historically until we look way back to time periods FAR predating ice cores (ie last time the atmosphere had significantly more CO2 there was no ice at the poles...
And unless there was some non-anthropogenic process capable of putting 1013 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere in 150 years (practically instantaneous on geological timescale), there isn't likely another such event in the "historic" climate change
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2021 15:57:24
So why can't you apply the same idea to the rate of change of global temperature, a slow smooth input from orbital variation and CO2 release as the positive feedback element?
Imagine driving a neon oscillator with a voltage that slowly varies between a bit less than the strike voltage of the neon and a bit more.
Do you see how the brightness of the lamp would vary suddenly?
Now, can you explain why you thought that this was a sensible claim?
So you assert that all the major temperature fluctuations in the last 400,000 years were due to sudden orbital shift
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/10/2021 21:31:36
What is interesting and odd about the earth's climate is that the mean temperature of the atmosphere is cyclic, with very sharp rises followed by slow declines, within quite wide (± 2.1%) but very definite bounds. As the CO2 infrared absorption is saturated in the long wave region in our atmosphere, it cannot be the driver of climate change and even if it were significant, we need a more powerful and nonlinear driver to explain the cycles.Just to play devil's advocate, one could read that if co2 reaches critical levels it causes a global ice age.
Post by: chiralSPO on 31/10/2021 06:49:34
Quote from: chiralSPO on 29/10/2021 18:47:17QuoteCO2 is probably NOT a driver of climate change historicallySo when did the laws of physics change? The current warming cycle began about 20,000 years ago and so far looks pretty much like all the others, with CO2 following around 500 years behind a steeply rising temperature until very recently when the CO2 graph has accelerated.
Are you being intentionally daft? (I hadn't pegged you for a troll)
Nobody said the laws of physics changed (that's a straw man argument). Human activities changed. Most importantly, starting about 250 years ago, and accelerating nearly exponentially since then (is this the "fairly recently when the CO2 graph has accelerated" bit?): we have been extracting carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for several million years (ie orders of magnitude longer ago than the timespan of ice core histories), and converting it into carbon dioxide with great efficiency.
You might never believe it, but the amounts of coal, oil, and gas that have been extracted over the course of history have actually been documented quite well. (something about book-keeping, I dunno...) It also turns out that the 12C/13C/14C ratios in fossil fuels is different from that which was in the atmosphere up until we started burning them (ie in the ground, is old carbon, so is depleted in radioactive 14C, and 12C and 13C are fixed by photosynthesis at slightly different rates, and 100% of C in fossil fuels is from biological organics). Though nuclear weapons testing also disrupted atmospheric 14C levels a bit so...
So we can actually see (using CO2 from the ice cores) how this isotope ratio has varied historically. And wouldn't you know it! It's been quite constant* for eons and only when we started digging up the other stuff and burning it did the concentration of CO2 change significantly, AND the isotope ratio shifted. And, here's the really cool part. We can see from how much the concentration of total CO2 has changed, and how much the 12C/13C/14C ratio has changed, and knowing the original atmospheric ratio ratio and the ratio in the ground, we can see that we are responsible for essentially 100% of the increase in CO2, in the form of burnt fossil fuels.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
RubinoCO2Isotopes.jpeg (54.01 kB . 750x462 - viewed 4737 times) F1.large.jpg (126.41 kB . 1280x803 - viewed 4658 times)*Isotope ratios associated with other changes in historical CO2 concentration do not appear to be the same in magnitude nor flavor. (for example, the last deglaciation: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/13/3465)
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2021 14:34:15
You might never believe it, but the amounts of coal, oil, and gas that have been extracted over the course of history have actually been documented quite well. (something about book-keeping, I dunno...)On the whole, governments have been quick to latch on to the idea of taxing fossil fuels one way or another- they tax the companies that produce it and they tax the consumers too.
And so the tax records are a good indicator of fossil fuel use.
And, of course, the mines and drilling rigs were all happy to say how successful they are at producing oil, coal and gas.
Since practically all of it gets burned, that's good measure of the CO2 we put into the air.
Unsurprisingly, it tallies with the carbon isotope ratio evidence.
There really is no way round it; we put the CO2 into the air.
We know this, and can prove it.
We have the receipts.
And the laws of physics- which Alan insists have not changed- tell us that CO2 contributes to the green house effect.
So the only thing that needs "magic", is his view that we aren't responsible for the green house effect (and the fastest rise in temperature in at least 20,000 years)
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Post by: Petrochemicals on 31/10/2021 22:05:54
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Not just cold, record cold in the midst of man-made co2 increace.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/11/2021 08:33:23
The trouble is with co2 is things like this.More CO2 traps more heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
That drives more extreme weather and that's what we observe.
From our point of view, more extreme weather is certainly "trouble".
We even have a term for it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/global_weirding
Post by: chiralSPO on 01/11/2021 22:44:12
The trouble is with co2 is things like this.Um.... this graph is in PERFECT agreement with global warming!
Not just cold, record cold in the midst of man-made co2 increace.
According to this graph, in the mid 20th century, it looks like between 1 and 6% of locations around the world would break its local cold record, and <1% of localities broke heat records. These neatly trade off during the last bit of the 20th century, and now virtually no places are break cold records (<1%), and 5–10% are breaking heat records!
It's important to note that these "records" are things like: "the coldest March 3rd in Berlin" (since records began a couple hundreds years ago), so it's not like 1955 was an ice age "in the midst of a man-made CO2 increase"
Even if the average temperature and standard deviation were unchanged, we would still periodically expect records to get broken as time goes on (with more and more time between records). The fact that cold records are effectively stopped getting beaten, and heat records are getting broken more and more often (and by larger margins) means that the mean temperature has moved UP!
Post by: alancalverd on 01/11/2021 23:31:54
So why can't you apply the same idea to the rate of change of global temperature, a slow smooth input from orbital variation and CO2 release as the positive feedback element?Because (a) the waveform of a relaxation oscillator is the inverse of the temperature cycle and (b) effects usually follow causes.
Even if CO2 were a plausible driver of historic temperature, we still need to find a reason why its concentration varied in the way it did. The ash deposits rule out volcanic activity as a significant contributor.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/11/2021 23:37:35
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 00:06:45
Only an idiot would pretend that the climate hasn't changed. But a scientist would ask why, and seek an answer that explains previous changes.
You know, traffic accidents kill millions per year globally, and the rate has been increasing more or less exponentially over the last 80,000 years. The trend is most obvious over the last century or two. "Only an idiot would pretend that it hadn't. But a scientist would ask why, and seek an answer that explains previous changes."
Please, with millions of lives on the line, can't any scientist provide an answer that explains the extreme recent uptick in roadside mortality AND also explains the the millennia of migratory misery? Of course, by Occam's Razor, the causes MUST be one and the same because that's the simplest explanation! (besides, otherwise, if we considered multiple causes, a slippery slope would require us to come up with a different cause for each death, and that's just not practical)
Oh, wait sorry, what's that? That doesn't make sense?
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 00:48:37
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/11/2021 00:59:38
I said CO2, I did not say global warming. It does not support cow being the source of global warming. It would be in agreement with global warming starting at the 1980s. You must look elsewhere for the cause, it is not co2The trouble is with co2 is things like this.Um.... this graph is in PERFECT agreement with global warming!
Not just cold, record cold in the midst of man-made co2 increace.
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 02:34:31
Again, it appears that you are forgetting about the significant lag time between CO2 emissions and the associated temperature increase due to the greenhouse effect of that CO2. Even if the concentration of CO2 stopped growing right now, temperatures would likely still increase for at least a century. Again, I would point you to this previous argument of mine:
But a sudden change in one parameter can often lead to a slow change in others. Like plugging the drain of a running shower. The water keeps flowing in at a steady rate, and the drain stopper was only added once, a few minutes ago, so why does the water level continue to rise?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/11/2021 07:40:48
I am glad you agree that this graph represents a rapidly warming climate. But I don't think it indicates that things started in the 1980s. One can clearly see that cold weather records are decreasing across the whole of the chart and heat records are increasing across the whole of the chart.Yes cold records reducing, but the key word is "record", I would be hard pressed to say cold records is a signifier of warming, a record is an increace on before, such as athletics, usain bolt did not set a less fast time, he increased the speed of the record. Up u til 1980 cold records are still being made and hot records have not increaced. The cross over seems to be around 1986.
It cannot be animals, animals have been here for ever, co2 and methane in con parable numbers, the only thing that seems to shadow this curve is human population.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 08:40:12
It is a greenhouse gas. (and as has been explained, it doesn't matter if the transitions are saturated- though, in fact, they aren't)
How would you expect anything other than a temperature rise?
It can't just be Milankovitch cycles because
Milankovich is all very well but orbital shifts and axial tilts tend to be sinusoidal, or at least time symmetric, not sawtooth.So Alan has ruled out the only plausible external driver.
And since we have found a rise over the right timescale and about the right range, why not accept that it's cause and effect?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 08:45:49
Because it falls out of the sky when there's too much of it.
This is not news to anyone in the UK.
It did it a thousand years ago, and it still does it today.
So the amount of water in the air is essentially fixed .
It can, of course, be "driven", but it can't be the driver.
Post by: Origin on 02/11/2021 11:54:08
Even if CO2 were a plausible driver of historic temperature, we still need to find a reason why its concentration varied in the way it did.Historical causes of warming are beside the point, what humans are doing is a unique situation.
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 13:03:43
I am glad you agree that this graph represents a rapidly warming climate. But I don't think it indicates that things started in the 1980s. One can clearly see that cold weather records are decreasing across the whole of the chart and heat records are increasing across the whole of the chart.Yes cold records reducing, but the key word is "record", I would be hard pressed to say cold records is a signifier of warming, a record is an increace on before, such as athletics, usain bolt did not set a less fast time, he increased the speed of the record. Up u til 1980 cold records are still being made and hot records have not increaced. The cross over seems to be around 1986.
It cannot be animals, animals have been here for ever, co2 and methane in con parable numbers, the only thing that seems to shadow this curve is human population.
Again, look up what those records actually are. They are highly localized in time and space, like "this is the lowest temperature recorded on a November 2nd in Cardiff since 1863" Also, note that our records extend only very far back. We are NOT saying that the Earth reached the lowest (or highest) temperatures ever in it's multi-billion year history.
Because the weather has a lot of randomness to it, we expect that this kind of record highs and lows would be set with some frequency, even if there was no overall change.
Now, there IS an overall change, and we can see that because the ratio of record highs to record lows is changing.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/11/2021 18:01:54
Quote from: chiralSPO link=topic=83465.msg659442#msg659442
.Yes.
Now, there IS an overall change, and we can see that because the ratio of record highs to record lows is changing.
Carbon dioxide is a gas that by your own admission has been rising for a lot longer than mid 80s. Co2 is also a gas that is easily returned from the atmosphere. You can use co2 in agriculture to increase plant growth, there must be some other potent gas that man has been producing collectivley in vast quantities, a gas that dwells after discharge and does not get removed from the atmosphere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 18:18:11
there must be some other potent gas that man has been producing collectivley in vast quantities, a gas that dwells after discharge and does not get removed from the atmosphere.OK
Here is the list of possible suspects.
Which one are you blaming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gases
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 19:20:41
https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/
https://climatechangeconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/GWP_AR4.pdf
SF6 is one of the most concerning because it is so effective at trapping heat and is virtually invincible. Luckily, current atmospheric levels have only reached parts per trillion levels so far.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/sf6-worries-the-most-potent-and-persistent-greenhouse-gas/
At this point CO2 is still the primary emission responsible for the greenhouse effect observed so far. This is for three reasons: (1) we have been emitting it far longer than any of the other gases, (2) we are releasing many orders of magnitude more of it than any other gas (≈1012 kg in 2020; that's about the mass of water in one million olympic swimming pools!), and (3) much of the difference in global warming potential of the gases comes from how long they stay in the atmosphere. (SF6 is predicted to have a half-life of >3,000 years, and CF4 is >50,000!!!)
So, even though one kg of SF6 is listed as being at bad as 20,000 kg of CO2, most of that difference will only be observable after many decades (or centuries), and at 420 ppm vs 10 parts per trillion, even counting the whole 20,000:1 ratio up front would mean that the total greenhouse warming potential of the SF6 is still more than 2000 times greater.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2021 19:51:40
Unique but probably irrelevant. As the CO2 absorption bands are saturated and the climate over the last 50,000 years has followed the same pattern as 100,000 years previously and several times before that, it seems logical to begin with the premise that the laws of physics haven't changed, so whatever precipitated the rise in temperature (and thus the rise in CO2) in the past, is still functioning. All we have done is to add a bit of CO2 to an already saturated spectrum.Even if CO2 were a plausible driver of historic temperature, we still need to find a reason why its concentration varied in the way it did.Historical causes of warming are beside the point, what humans are doing is a unique situation.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/11/2021 20:06:24
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 20:34:06
Unique but probably irrelevant. As the CO2 absorption bands are saturated and the climate over the last 50,000 years has followed the same pattern as 100,000 years previously and several times before that, it seems logical to begin with the premise that the laws of physics haven't changed, so whatever precipitated the rise in temperature (and thus the rise in CO2) in the past, is still functioning. All we have done is to add a bit of CO2 to an already saturated spectrum.Even if CO2 were a plausible driver of historic temperature, we still need to find a reason why its concentration varied in the way it did.Historical causes of warming are beside the point, what humans are doing is a unique situation.
Can you read?
All of these points have been thoroughly debunked in previous posts within this thread (by me in reply #4, quoted again for your convenience in reply #12, since you apparently didn't read it then, and again below just for you, and #27)
Now either all the published papers on CO2 absorption are wrong or plagiarised from two flawed sources, or the hypothesis that increasing p[CO2] will increase surface temperature is nonsense.The atmosphere absorbs effectively 100% of the radiation at these wavelengths (if you're looking down the whole length of the atmosphere), but the % absorbance or % transmittance or however you choose take your IR spectrum has very little bearing on the greenhouse effect (it's mechanism, magnitude or cause).
Even if the atmosphere is treated as 100% opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, it is straightforward to see that changing the concentration of CO2 will still change the mean free path of the photons that are interacting with CO2.
We can think of a photon emitted from the ground and needing to reach "space". It will start out going straight until it runs into a CO2 molecule and gets absorbed, hangs out for a time before being re-emitted in a random direction until it bumps into the next CO2 molecule or escapes to space. Essentially it have to take a random walk from the surface to some altitude sufficiently high. And the time it takes has nothing to do with the speed of light (we can assume it is c for this), but rather in how many stops it has to take (each one being a significant delay compared to whizzing by at c), and how much time is being spent traveling the "correct" way.
The higher the CO2 concentration, the shorter the mean free path of the photons.
The shorter the mean free path of the photons, the more hops need to be taken to escape (exponentially so!)
The more hops needed to escape the slower the rate of energy transfer through the atmosphere.
Or, if you would prefer: by Bored chemist in replies #9, #14, and especially #24 , again, I'll quote it below, just for you, so it's easier to find)
Now either all the published papers on CO2 absorption are wrong or plagiarised from two flawed sources, or the hypothesis that increasing p[CO2] will increase surface temperature is nonsense.The atmosphere absorbs effectively 100% of the radiation at these wavelengths (if you're looking down the whole length of the atmosphere), but the % absorbance or % transmittance or however you choose take your IR spectrum has very little bearing on the greenhouse effect (it's mechanism, magnitude or cause).
Even if the atmosphere is treated as 100% opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by CO2, it is straightforward to see that changing the concentration of CO2 will still change the mean free path of the photons that are interacting with CO2.
We can think of a photon emitted from the ground and needing to reach "space". It will start out going straight until it runs into a CO2 molecule and gets absorbed, hangs out for a time before being re-emitted in a random direction until it bumps into the next CO2 molecule or escapes to space. Essentially it have to take a random walk from the surface to some altitude sufficiently high. And the time it takes has nothing to do with the speed of light (we can assume it is c for this), but rather in how many stops it has to take (each one being a significant delay compared to whizzing by at c), and how much time is being spent traveling the "correct" way.
The higher the CO2 concentration, the shorter the mean free path of the photons.
The shorter the mean free path of the photons, the more hops need to be taken to escape (exponentially so!)
The more hops needed to escape the slower the rate of energy transfer through the atmosphere.
"Evidence is one thing,And what you presented is another; at least in regard to what you said.
You actually said thiswater is indeed the problem, and as the ice core data shows, always has been.
The ice core record (ironically) does not tell you about water levels in the air.
If you really think it does then please give us a link.I cannot find a rational interpretation consistent with CO2 being the driver of historic climate change.Good point- sort of.
But inevitable and meaningless.
It is true that the historical record does not show CO2 leading a temperature rise.
But that's because, prior to mankind getting in on the act, there was no plausible source of CO2 that could materially affect the concentration in the atmosphere.
You will not see, at any point in Earth's history a record of what happened when mankind suddenly raised CO2 levels roughly 10 times faster than they have every risen before.
Because mankind never did it before.
That's more or less the point of anthropogenic climate change. Nobody ever did it before.
So it makes no real sense to look at the historical record for a precedent for "today's" events - say the last 200 years.
Historical climate change was not driven by anthropogenic CO2.
Nobody said it was.
But here's the actual explanation of the link between CO2 and climate.
TLDR version, it's not been the cause in the past; it has been an amplifier- a positive feedback mechanism enhancing changes due to orbital effects.
But it still has the effect of creating warming, even if the initial source isn't orbital variation, but mankind.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 20:37:49
Unique but probably irrelevant.No.
It's probably not irrelevant.
As the CO2 absorption bands are saturated\The grown ups explained why
(1) this is not true
(2) why it would not be relevant, even if it was.
the climate over the last 50,000 years has followed the same pattern as 100,000 years previouslyNo It has not, we currently have the fastest rising levels of CO2 ever.
It's not "the same pattern".
, it seems logical to begin with the premise that the laws of physics haven't changedYes.
Those laws say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause the world to warm up.
Why do you keep ignoring them?
All we have done is to add a bit of CO2 to an already saturated spectrum.Why do you keep telling that lie?
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 20:43:58
Improbable, and unpopular. Most people think the laws of physics haven't changed since a few milliseconds after the Big Bang.
Anyway, rather than argue the toss, I want to measure the intensity of outgoing 15 μm radiation as a function of altitude at night. Can anyone direct me to a suitable commercially available detector? Most of those advertised seem to cut off at 14 μm!
like this? https://www.excelitas.com/product/pys-3198-single-channel-pyrodetector
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 20:46:06
the switch from good old fashioned hydrogenWe never used "old fashioned hydrogen".
We did use coal gas which is about 50% hydrogen, but it's also about 30% methane.
I have just been informed by the telescreen that half of global warming is atributable to methaneAs ChiralSPO pointed out, that comparison is meaningless unless you include a time scale.
Post by: chiralSPO on 02/11/2021 20:50:49
I have just been informed by the telescreen that half of global warming is atributable to methane, this mainly coming from fossil fuels,this would of course tally with the cool records, the switch from good old fashioned hydrogen and increased drilling/population
Methane is a significant factor in global warming (and is getting worse, though I'm not sure it's up to 50% just yet...), and is nearly entirely attributable to:
• oil and gas exploration/extraction
• livestock
• decomposing organic waste (garbage heaps)
• and more recently, outgassing of permafrost and clathrates. (this is how climate change will get us—if we warm up enough to significantly thaw the permafrost in Siberia and Canada, methane may well become the dominant driver (for a time).
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 21:00:21
Anyway, rather than argue the toss, I want to measure the intensity of outgoing 15 μm radiation as a function of altitude at night. Can anyone direct me to a suitable commercially available detector? Most of those advertised seem to cut off at 14 μm!Good luck.
It's a bit like measuring water at the bottom of the ocean.
Everything (including your detector), unless it is very well cooled, will be emitting radiation in that range.
Did it occur to you that there might be a reason that the market was a bit thin?
It's perfectly possible to measure in the mid IR, but it isn't trivial.
You may recall the spectrum posted here earlier.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659000#msg659000
This is the relevant bit
[ Invalid Attachment ]
That spike on it is the signal you are looking for; the one you keep trying to say is saturated.
The slope is the detector response failing because everything lights up at those wavelengths while the sensor response drops.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/11/2021 21:04:30
Why is this graph not flat? Or at least linear? Does the sun do a particularly good job in issuing IR around the peak?The graph has nothing to do with the sun.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/11/2021 21:58:13
So of that oil and gas and outgassing from bogs is new. Plus the fact that methane from oil and gas industries is historically under reported.I have just been informed by the telescreen that half of global warming is atributable to methane, this mainly coming from fossil fuels,this would of course tally with the cool records, the switch from good old fashioned hydrogen and increased drilling/population
Methane is a significant factor in global warming (and is getting worse, though I'm not sure it's up to 50% just yet...), and is nearly entirely attributable to:
• oil and gas exploration/extraction
• livestock
• decomposing organic waste (garbage heaps)
• and more recently, outgassing of permafrost and clathrates. (this is how climate change will get us—if we warm up enough to significantly thaw the permafrost in Siberia and Canada, methane may well become the dominant driver (for a time).
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/11/2021 08:28:49
So of that oil and gas and outgassing from bogs is new.No.
So called "Marsh gas" - one of the earliest known forms of methane is not new- obviously.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/11/2021 16:38:19
Post by: Kryptid on 03/11/2021 16:40:42
I may move it over to New Theories or That CAN'T Be True if it continues to devolve.
I would recommend doing that anyway.
Post by: mikewonders on 27/11/2021 14:30:24
In that case there must be more more than co2 responsible for the vast majority of heat retention.Not really.
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas? (yes, substancially)
Is water vapor also a force amplifier of CO2 greenhouse effect? (absolutely)
Does an increasing troposphere and increasing temperatures increase water vapor impact? (yes)
What is the formula for water vapor from octane combustion?
- (Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O)
- Gasoline - 2C8H18 + 25O2 → 16CO2 + 18H2O
Roughly speaking, one gallon of gasoline (or octane equivalent) will produce just over one gallon of H2O.
The majority of the hydrogen is from ancient stored hydrocarbon from captive form "below" ground.
The oxygen is atmospheric mostly.
The result is the formation of NEW water by volume above ground (as vapor).
How many Quintilian and more gallons of NEW water has been evolved ~ 60+ post modern years?
The consequences are fairly clear on the simplest of evaluations and only gets worse as we apply deeper modeling to quantify it. The rise in ocean levels, volume and surface area cannot be accounted for simply by glacial melt, less precipitation re-deposition cycles.
How does the ocean surface area and volume affect evaporation in rising temperatures?
(Heat sync, dark field absorption, evaporative cooling)
Reducing fossil fuel combustion carbon emissions from the atmosphere is a no-brainer from even the most basic sense of sustainability. However, failing to accurately account for the total impact and outcome of a century of increased water vapor and rising oceans with rising temperatures among all the methane releases (CH4) touted today as "clean energy" is a formula for disaster.
Not only has the troposphere increased in altitude (~ 11 kilometers average) but ignoring the effects of increased water vapor aloft facing vortex distribution to the poles, exposes a 4th or quantum state of water at freezing temperatures which can and does destroy Ozone very effectively.
Good luck replacing on-demand combustion energy with wind / solar beyond 30% with variable reliability not to mention numerous new waste streams outside of controls, depleting finite resources, copper, lithium, other rare.
The solution is to utilize combustion resources from above ground (neutral equilibrium) while replacing the loss of resource in sustainable balance plus. The energy production needs to include CHP heat to energy production to reduce IR contribution while converting water vapor to liquid and splitting that back to atmospheric values, tapping the Hydrogen (clean energy source) and emitting the oxygen back to atmosphere.
CO2 is convenient to point a finger at. The problem is reduction of CO2 will not meet the temporal demands in time relative to model predictions because the effects of growing water vapor / oceanic feedback is not built into the models in most cases, and certainly not accurately where it is considered.
There are many other contributing factors not being accounted for relative to population and population increases projected, especially in the form of IR thermal emission / Kwh per body globally when we identify the TOTAL wattage production on a realistic scale, growing as it is with increasing use of energy attending post-modern progress. Humans use an enormous amount of energy today, nearly all of it having a thermal emission value.
So yes, there IS more to it than just CO2, by a long shot and unfortunately we're basically still off task in understanding it correctly, thus the current initiatives are even more off task at reaching the desired outcome in the time frames projected.
We want to err on the side of caution and not dismiss things out of hand easily.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2021 14:53:01
The result is the formation of NEW water by volume above ground (as vapor).Until it rains.
Post by: mikewonders on 27/11/2021 15:54:06
The result is the formation of NEW water by volume above ground (as vapor).Until it rains.
[...] which occurs at increasingly higher concentrations as more new water emerges, hence regional flooding versus drought patterns become more severe and more persistent, growing among the effects that form those patterns.
When, where and how much it rains is the more critical aspect. Increased tropospheric volume means greater water vapor (and greenhouse density) remains aloft AND greater precipitation also occurs increasing ocean volume, but so does water distribution above the troposphere, so not so much "Until it rains" but the relative conditions of changes in rain increasing with climate impact.
Unfortunately above the level of cloud formation dropping temperatures into the tropopause we don't get rain. We get hydroxly conversions on the way and fourth state liquid water crystals increasingly impacting polar conditions and Ozone depletion, which means water vapor above the level forming rain is increasing as well, but may also increase in losses outside the atmosphere to space partly. Probably not where we want oxygen depletion to increase at any rate.
The larger portion of growing precipitation occurs over the oceans, again adding to that growing volume of new water ever more to the rising oceans, along with glacial contribution and increased risk of methane release both oceanic retention losses as well as increasing ancient permafrost losses, enriching CH4 to the atmosphere outside the normal Methane cycle equilibrium. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas and again subject to amplification by the increasing water vapor volume / depth / density (gradients of relative humidity). This is why we're late in the game to trust only on CO2 mitigation, because other parts of critical cycles are now further contributing risk factors increasing.
Remove the fossil fuel resource sustainably, then reduce the overall water volume gradually, and you end up back to equilibrium much more quickly than hoping to reduce CO2 alone in the given state of acceleration we're now in.
Precipitation increases globally have tracked even more closely to temperature rise than CO2 does.
"Water" is such a fully incorporated part of our lives and experience, its hard to wrap one's head around it contributing as an enemy when we see it, experience all the time and depend on it. We experience the change in a gradual manner over our life time even though the changes caused by fossil fuel combustion have accelerated in the wink of an eye in the larger scheme relative to many centuries.
The earth has experienced periods of much higher levels of CO2 (as much as double current levels) over a much more gradual span in past millennia. The problem we face today is the current rate of temperature change and the very long time it takes for the earth to respond back to a more tolerable balance are not favorable as our thermal emissions footprint will remain elevated. We can reduce CO2 almost overnight if we really chose to (hypothetically speaking). The imbalance in climate without reducing the over-abundance of IR emission and water volume feeding the amplified thermal loops may well take centuries to respond. During the pandemic, CO2 emissions dropped substantially. Temperature remained within the mean variations despite the CO2 improvement.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2021 16:23:20
When, where and how much it rains is the more critical aspect.Good point.
We have added an additional 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
If we make the most pessimistic assumption then that was all from natural gas and each molecule of carbon was accompanied by 2 molecules of water.
(In reality, much was from coal where very little water is added and much of it was from oil where there's about 1 molecule of added water for each molecule of carbon dioxide.)
So, we cant have added more than 200 ppm of water to the air (and, in reality of course, most of it fell out within days but let's ignore reality, and assume it's all still there in the atmosphere).
The air in the UK is typically about 75% RH
The average temperature is about 10C
This page
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html
tells me that's equivalent to about 0.0054 kg of water per kg of air.
1 Kg of air is about 34.5 moles
0.0054 kg of water is about about 0.3 moles of water
So the air is about 1,000,000 * 0.3/34.5 i.e. 8696 ppm of water (around here - there's much more in the tropics and rather less in the polar regions).
So we might have changed it by 100/8696 i.e. about 1% (except, of course, most of that water fell straight out of the sky)
whereas we have actually changed the CO2 by about 33%
So, yes, you are right, it's important to focus on the amount of water we have added, and which contributes to rain.
We considered it, and it's tiny.
Here's another way to look at it.
According to wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rainfall_climatology
"Approximately 505,000 cubic kilometres of water falls as precipitation each year".
That's 5.05e+14 tons
And CO2 production is about 40 billion tons
That will be accompanies by roughly the same mass of water- as you say.
Roughly speaking, one gallon of gasoline (or octane equivalent) will produce just over one gallon of H2O.So that's (to make the arithmetic easy) about 50 billion (5.0e+10) tonnes of water produced by burning fossil fuel.
So we added about 1 part in 10,000 to the rainfall.
Do you think we would notice that change?
Post by: Origin on 27/11/2021 18:03:49
The rise in ocean levels, volume and surface area cannot be accounted for simply by glacial melt, less precipitation re-deposition cycles.True, about 1/3 of the rise in the ocean level is due to the increase in the ocean temperature.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/11/2021 20:18:42
Coal is mostly carbon, so it produces no water, unlike the hydrocarbon oil and gas. But if we say 300 x10 (9) tonnes of oil and gas have been burned that produce twice as many water molecules as carbon molecules. Averaging 3300 kg co 2 per tonne of hydrocarbons , atomic weight 12+8+8 =28, h20 must be (1+1+8=10)x2 2000 kg of water per tonne of fuel ? So 300x10 (9)x 2000 means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water.
How many Quintilian and more gallons of NEW water has been evolved ~ 60+ post modern years?
More significantly the burning of fossil fuels creates hot air and movement, further increacing evaporation. In some industrial cases cooling is facilitated by evaporation meaning massive evaporation is taking place.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2021 20:43:24
means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water.And
The volume of water in all the oceans together is approximately 1.335 billion cubic kilometers
or 1.335e+18 cubic metres.
So the amount we have moved about a bit by burning fossil fuels is 1 in 222,500,000 of the total.
More significantly the burning of fossil fuels creates hot air and movement,You mean "less insignificantly".
Just compare the total energy we set free by burning fossil fuel, and the amount the earth gets from the Sun.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71332.msg532820;topicseen#msg532820
Post by: alancalverd on 27/11/2021 23:34:06
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/11/2021 01:35:21
But because the temperature of the atmosphere has increased, there has been increased evaporation and sublimation of water from the surface of the planet, and the replacement of forest by grassland has likewise increased evaporation. At least that's what this mindless troll thinks. Others apparently disagree.It's not just the increaced temperature Alan, let's face it evaporation lowers temperature. The thing about creating higher temperatures is they can do 1 of 2 things, increace radiation or increace evaporation. Water will not evapourate in humid conditions, relative humidity being related to air temperatures, that is the different heat that people talk of in Spain compared to Britain I believe, 30 degrees in Britain and you can hardly breath, go on holiday to Greece at 45 and its fine.
Creating a moving low level increaced air temperature means the bulk mass of the surface of the earth has a greater potential to evapourate water, water wishes to be a gas, but when humidity is high the surface of the earth has to make do with emmissive radiation rather than evaporative cooling. If we increaced the capacity for evapouration by 1 percent that should be a huge ammount of solar energy captured into the Earth's weather system.
Post by: mikewonders on 28/11/2021 04:07:52
It's convenient to "cherry pick" percentages, but that treats the true complexity in distinct and stratified constructs. 1% of impact changing the force multiplier values of relative flux dynamics in gaseous, thermal or radiant feedback loops can have a tremendous net effect well outside of the seemingly minuscule percentage isolated.
I would be particularly interested in seeing the temperature increase data suggesting oceanic volume / surface increase can be accounted for without massive addition to the core water volume as a whole. Determining the actual changes in oceanic volume is a very complex process given related changes in land mass and shoreline / swamp land remodeling. Many of the predictive models fail to account for several aspects and simply predict a raw increase in volume per degree to produce a deceptive "map flooding" suggestion. This again is a place where small calculation errors or omissions equal huge discrepancies which can easily be curve fit conveniently to any favorable outcome, for or against.
The original question of the topic I first opened before it split asked if the earth was basically getting smaller over time. The answer would be "negligible" which means the increase in atmospheric dimension is almost totally about thermal increase leading to expansion of the troposphere at least, hence the ability to sustain greater water vapor volume and density increasing the deleterious effects it has on greenhouse force amplification both aloft in lower altitudes and above the stratosphere. I'll try to be more specific in the future.
The concern I see is that trusting on CO2 mitigation alone is likely to not have the compensating correction in the window of time that models predict critical events approaching 2050. The proposed solutions being implemented currently CANNOT ever support the current energy demands let alone future demands. Clean, sustainable combustion with adequate on-demand power is attainable including carbon, heat and water vapor mitigation, to a net neutral emissions model which is still being grossly overlooked.
It is this contrast which drew me to the unique group this forum is. The responses are continually appreciated, especially if some greater value of solutions might come out of it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 10:29:41
The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effort,Effect =/= cause.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 10:35:57
I would be particularly interested in seeing the temperature increase data suggesting oceanic volume / surface increase can be accounted for without massive addition to the core water volume as a whole.OK
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion
The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effortWho is "we" here?
Anyway, the figures I gave are "reality biased".
It's no rocket science.
There's a lot more water vapour than CO2 in the air.
So if we add the same number of moles of each to the air, it's going to make a much bigger relative difference to the CO2 concentration than to the water concentration.
Also, there's a fundamental difference. CO2 doesn't fall out as rain.
It's convenient to "cherry pick" percentagesWhat "cherry picking" are you accusing me of?
Do you have evidence?
Post by: mikewonders on 28/11/2021 14:10:51
I would be particularly interested in seeing the temperature increase data suggesting oceanic volume / surface increase can be accounted for without massive addition to the core water volume as a whole.OK
[...]://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion
Thank you. Seems the board didn't like me re-quoting a link so I stubbed it above. The link provided identifies a "supposition" that only one-third of the global sea-level rise is attributable to temperature change and only from satellite altimeter readings. The Argo data only details ongoing change confirmation of temperature in the "upper" ocean volume. Ocean-going maritime measurements date back much further of course but were historically inconsistent and stated elsewhere as having to be "adjusted for correlation" on several levels building models.
My first concern would be an absence of metrology standards used to confirm the accuracy of leaning on satellite data without sanitizing the raw data, the compiled data and then the statistical models used to normalize or curve fit the data to some potentially preferential model. Among these methods I've looked at over the years of development of satellite methods identifies numerous points of even fairly recent data conflicting and being massaged for estimated accuracy to glean a supposed range of probability of values. One might also consider a potential conflict of interest when looking at NASA funding and the influences of government seeking to fit the values to a given conclusion without sanitizing the process or even those in peer review subject to various pressures from within academia. If that sounds paranoid, its not meant to cast a dim light on NASA, they're a huge and wonderful contribution to scientific advancement, but also not immune to such influence. I've had the pleasure of speaking to some who worked within NASA and the military both, who understand these concerns are real as first-hand observers.
My point is that errors in these types of singular data references comprised of multiple influences and coefficients (satellite altimeter data in this example) can skew multi-focal projection models severely, which easily skews downstream assessments "potentially" in a biased manner depending on publication(s) wanting to assert "scientific fact" far less than empirical which then becomes "adopted" as accepted fact by others.
We would love to say it's all about CO2 as the accepted norm creating huge financial potentials for many along the way. Unfortunately if that assessment is wrong and the path were on insufficient, we end up losing the long game. I'm all for CO2 mitigation, so long as we don't ignore viable alternatives to an accurate and complete solution of mitigating the other serious contributions while helping solve energy production as a reduction of several forms of long term damages of other pollutants, e.g. Ozone thinning for one.
Errors in determining the actual ocean surface area absorbing or reflecting, face the difficulty of accurately measuring levels of encroaching volume and area into huge and growing swamp land formations increasing in shallows and the nature of establishing accuracy among a moving "fractal" shoreline relative to least significant distance between measurements in a physical body confronting changes of tidal changes and depth values in those locations. It also matters because inaccuracy in depth / volume / area relationships in these fluid changes of shallows are areas which warm and reflect much more efficiently than dark body ocean depth relating to both thermal reflectivity and enormous evaporation potentials. The original premise of the question asked on topic considers water vapor potentials, for concerns of dismissing combustion vapor over 60-100 years time.
Quote
The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effortWho is "we" here?
"We" (sorry for the ambiguous reference)... in the context given, is "me" as the original poster of the topic and having devoted nearly five years effort in search of reliable solutions to climate. "We" are a private collection of 10 more as a consortia, searching for fuller solutions beyond the current initiatives leaning on wind / solar. The technical part of the group is comprised of lifers in careers of military, manufacturing / engineering disciplines and physics.
Quote
Anyway, the figures I gave are "reality biased".
It's no rocket science.
There's a lot more water vapour than CO2 in the air.
So if we add the same number of moles of each to the air, it's going to make a much bigger relative difference to the CO2 concentration than to the water concentration.
Also, there's a fundamental difference. CO2 doesn't fall out as rain.
"Reality based" or not, accuracy matters. As for "rocket science" I've spent over a decade in development in combined rocketry principle coupled with turbine combustion design. I can promise rocket science happens in a contained setting far simpler than what the current climate concerns are comprised of. Unfortunately the current developments in actual rocket science have lead to privatization of the rocketry industry working to replace clean burning hydrogen fuels with raw Methane, one of the most proliferating growth industries today. Want more Methane in the atmosphere? Simply put as a prime example, that's a move in the wrong direction working against the longer term needs to solve, especially if governance continues to adopt that carbon mitigation alone is the primary solution to be solved by wind and solar. That also isn't rocket science to see our current solutions are nowhere near sufficient on any measure of adequacy or accuracy. Alternatives are being looked at but the greater weight continues to press for wind and solar which is where we're going to find we hit a glass ceiling that's not adequate.
Quote
It's convenient to "cherry pick" percentagesWhat "cherry picking" are you accusing me of?
Do you have evidence?
Not an "accusation" in any manner but just a reference to gathering low hanging fruit for convenience of dialog without considering the entire impact water vapor plays. You're very welcome to disagree, hopefully among the fuller context. I'm sorry if you took that as an accusation, it's not meant to be nor focused personally. As for "evidence", yes I have a ton of evidence, relative to the concerns of water vs. CO2. If you mean evidence relative to "Cherry Picking" I'll let the dialog speak to that, understanding there was no judgement intended or to dismiss anyone's value to the conversation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 14:37:16
If you mean evidence relative to "Cherry Picking" I'll let the dialog speak to that,OK
So the dialog so far is
" Cherry picking"
"What Cherry picking?"
"I won't answer that; the dialog speaks for itself".
Unfortunately the current developments in actual rocket science have lead to privatization of the rocketry industry working to replace clean burning hydrogen fuels with raw Methane, one of the most proliferating growth industries today.I'm not a rocket scientist...
But I'm pretty sure that the point of a rocket is to burn the fuel rather than spill it into the atmosphere.
So, it shouldn't matter much which fuel you choose.
I also know that it's pretty easy to get methane on a renewable basis, so the carbon footprint is minimal. We currently vent lots of it into the air from landfills etc. If we collected that and put it through a rocket engine, the overall contribution from the CO2 and water would be much smaller than that from the methane.
Which then leads to the next question:
For a given amount of energy imparted to a rocket, does a hydrogen powered rocket (which creates water vapour as the sole exhaust gas) put more water or less water into the air than a methane powered one which also burns the carbon and gets energy from that?
You may find the higher heating values for methane (890 KJ/mol) and hydrogen (286 KJ/ mol) useful
There's some irony to posting " we need to use a fuel which only adds water to the air" in a thread which asks about the harm done by adding water to the air.
On the other hand, it's a bit of a red herring; If the only thing burning fossil fuels was the space programme, we would have solved the CO2 problem. It's not a big enough user to make much difference.
"Reality based" or not, accuracy matters.Yes and no...
For example, what I said was
So we added about 1 part in 10,000 to the rainfall.
And I'm happy to accept that my estimate (whose derivation I already gave) might be out by an order of magnitude or so.
But that level of accuracy is often acceptable.
Would "So we added somewhere between 1 part in 1,000 and 1 in 100,000 to the rainfall. Do you think we would notice that change?" have attracted a different answer?
Post by: mikewonders on 28/11/2021 16:47:39
If you mean evidence relative to "Cherry Picking" I'll let the dialog speak to that,OK
So the dialog so far is
" Cherry picking"
"What Cherry picking?"
"I won't answer that; the dialog speaks for itself".
Unfortunately the current developments in actual rocket science have lead to privatization of the rocketry industry working to replace clean burning hydrogen fuels with raw Methane, one of the most proliferating growth industries today.
Quote
I'm not a rocket scientist...
But I'm pretty sure that the point of a rocket is to burn the fuel rather than spill it into the atmosphere.
So, it shouldn't matter much which fuel you choose.
I also know that it's pretty easy to get methane on a renewable basis, so the carbon footprint is minimal. We currently vent lots of it into the air from landfills etc. If we collected that and put it through a rocket engine, the overall contribution from the CO2 and water would be much smaller than that from the methane.
You are correct. Recent improvements, (e.g. Raptor, Prometheus, etc.) can burn to nearly equilibrium completion at upwards of 99%) so long as we accept the responsibility to sustain methane containment in resourcing / production / transport, etc.
Resourcing so far continues to be mostly fossil fuel based which works against climate and sustainability and will grow in demand dramatically. The US industry alone is headed toward producing a methane combusting rocket engine every 12 hours, 220 productive days per year. That ends up being a lot of "globally unregulated" methane utilization and we have a long way to go to reach neutrality in handling, especially mined methane. Land fill methane is not cost effective yet to clean for high volume. Not that we want to encourage more landfills. However, biomass produced methane can be absolutely carbon neutral which is attractive, if only the focus turns that direction. Biomass sufficiency is absolutely feasible in a sustainable model, if we hold to that caveat.
Quote
Which then leads to the next question:
For a given amount of energy imparted to a rocket, does a hydrogen powered rocket (which creates water vapour as the sole exhaust gas) put more water or less water into the air than a methane powered one which also burns the carbon and gets energy from that?
You may find the higher heating values for methane (890 KJ/mol) and hydrogen (286 KJ/ mol) useful.
Its important to keep in mind the source of any carbon along with hydrogen, especially if there is effective means of reducing total water over time with carbon / water neutral resourcing.
Water vapor (and thrust) production goes back to the earlier reference of octane and the question of where the hydrogen came from if it's carbon and water neutral as a relatively closed loop. The higher heat values of methane as you point out are undeniably important. Technically so far, hydrogen is not very cost effective to make, store or transport but promising inroads are evolving there quickly. If the hydrogen is sourced from neutral biomass and hydrolyzed ocean water, industry can mitigate the fossil part and continue to reduce total water volume from past evolution. The concern is if the powers at will are thinking that far ahead to incorporate an integral closed loop and if the mitigation efforts are sufficient to accomplish the goal timely to projections. An over-reliance on carbon mitigation alone is where I keep returning to as the concern mostly with a need to have a fuller understanding of the total causal loops involved.
Quote
There's some irony to posting " we need to use a fuel which only adds water to the air" in a thread which asks about the harm done by adding water to the air.
On the other hand, it's a bit of a red herring; If the only thing burning fossil fuels was the space programme, we would have solved the CO2 problem. It's not a big enough user to make much difference.
Ditto the irony, "Oh the humanity" ;). Again sourcing and mitigation need to be intrinsically linked in closed loop supply / utilization, at which point both fuels have discernible values and can be maximized for fullest mitigation / benefit. I don't dislike Methane, in fact there are several important reactions it supports for hydrogen, CO and exothermic consumption of biomass carbon conversion, water-gas shift, etc.
"Reality based" or not, accuracy matters.Yes and no...
For example, what I said was
So we added about 1 part in 10,000 to the rainfall.
Quote
And I'm happy to accept that my estimate (whose derivation I already gave) might be out by an order of magnitude or so.Sorry to beat a dying horse but... grabbing at extreme ends on only one part of the whole equation regarding just "rainfall" negates the concern of non-linear force amplification of interrelated impact on several manners of physics and thermodynamics in geological, atmospheric and greenhouse loops. That makes it apples vs oranges which is not definitive. I try to resist jumping to broad conclusions ignoring the elephant in the room when there's a lot more to it than simple first order volumetric comparisons, especially if the first order values come from relatively curve fitted estimates. For purposes of dialog doing so is a place holder initially, but sooner or later it comes down to being thorough and accurate, avoiding assumptions.
But that level of accuracy is often acceptable.
Would "So we added somewhere between 1 part in 1,000 and 1 in 100,000 to the rainfall. Do you think we would notice that change?" have attracted a different answer?
It's not wrong to make broad comparisons but I wouldn't dismiss the many other critical places impact occurs for overlooking specifics, especially on a long-term model with a dangerous downside in rate of change / rate of recovery.
This is only one part of several impacts which lean back into long term deforestation, solar intensity, radiant surfaces, population and IR reflectivity also. The degree to which the interrelations have secondary and tertiary effect are numerous which is one of the reasons I proffered the initial posting question. Humanity, behavior and population increases have had an impact. The fact that MOST dialogs in these areas quickly diverge suggests we still don't have sufficient correlation to dismiss much of what is actually net effect now, or how future decisions will reflect an outcome, so I choose to work toward greater specificity.
Post by: mikewonders on 28/11/2021 17:04:51
But because the temperature of the atmosphere has increased, there has been increased evaporation and sublimation of water from the surface of the planet, and the replacement of forest by grassland has likewise increased evaporation. At least that's what this mindless troll thinks. Others apparently disagree.
Agree. Grasses are critical being rapid to restore lost soils and stop run-off. They are the deep seeking root systems also which facilitate early humus building leading toward new nitrogen fixing carbon storage until larger species might follow. The evaporation rate is mostly relative to the total leaf area which is an important function of shade. Grasses provide shade to the land very quickly and effectively, which took me by surprise early on.
Reforestation in badly decertified areas requires grasses and early species which must be cultivated at the perimeter of a desert and spread inward to propagate sustainably, managing to sustain grazing for stable fertilization and sustain of deep aquifer vitality as land mass increases over time.
There's very little in nature that doesn't share a role as a result of evolution in a world benefiting from greater than 100% efficiency owing to the sun once removed. Thinking that our impact in one area would not spill over into other areas indirectly doesn't make sense. Unfortunately our human focus tends to have delayed 20/20 vision.
Let me not diverge on land and water reclamation, but to say your point plays a role in part of the bigger picture, but how much evaporation when and where pokes it's head up then. :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 17:39:06
hydrolyzed ocean water,You can't hydrolyse water.
What "cherry picking"You forgot to answer.
grabbing at extreme ends on only one part of the whole equation regarding just "rainfall" negates the concern of non-linear force amplification of interrelated impact on several manners of physics and thermodynamics in geological,No.
It just points out that we have made practically no difference to the water in the air, but we have increased CO2 by a third.
Post by: mikewonders on 28/11/2021 18:12:57
hydrolyzed ocean water,You can't hydrolyse water.What "cherry picking"You forgot to answer.grabbing at extreme ends on only one part of the whole equation regarding just "rainfall" negates the concern of non-linear force amplification of interrelated impact on several manners of physics and thermodynamics in geological,No.
It just points out that we have made practically no difference to the water in the air, but we have increased CO2 by a third.
Hmmm, I suppose I should have stuck with the simpler "Electrolysis" terminology. Electrolysis long term with salt water is problematic where phases of hydrolyzing balances of evolving anions and cations is a part of managing long term stability of the alkalized solution. I caused a divergence regarding water vapor. Disregard if you wish.
I did not forget to answer "Cherry Picking", look for "low hanging fruit".
I don't think anything is resolved to "practically no difference to the water in the air", but to leave it that fossil fuel related water vapor emission is where the water related problem starts and further needs to be quantified and qualified with respect to it's total effects in other relative and important measures currently out of scope to the solutions being considered as a measure of climate impact. Beyond those more detailed concerns, I'll choose not to increase bulk in the thread to argue absent qualified data I should be providing myself, thanks.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 18:53:28
Hmmm, I suppose I should have stuck with the simpler "Electrolysis" terminology.You should have suck with the correct terminology.
Electrolysis long term with salt water is problematic where phases of hydrolyzing balances of evolving anions and cations is a part of managing long term stability of the alkalized solution.That's nonsense.
Hydrolysis means splitting things by the use or water, it does not mean splitting water.
There's no hydrolysis involved in electrolysis.
The practical mechanisms seem to be based on electrodialysis and/ or reverse osmosis then membrane electrolysis.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 18:54:00
I don't think anything is resolved to "practically no difference to the water in the air"Well, we only added about 1 in 10^4
Post by: alancalverd on 28/11/2021 18:59:01
The concern I see is that trusting on CO2 mitigation alone is likely to not have the compensating correction in the window of time that models predict critical events approaching 2050. The proposed solutions being implemented currently CANNOT ever support the current energy demands let alone future demands. Clean, sustainable combustion with adequate on-demand power is attainable including carbon, heat and water vapor mitigation, to a net neutral emissions model which is still being grossly overlooked.I'm delighted to welcome thoughtful comment!
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2021 19:17:18
I'm sure that, if there was, you might have presented it.
Picking the single biggest most obvious fact and proving that it is, via two paths offering 1 year and longer (60 year) time scales is hardly "cherry picking"; it's just stating the obvious.
You start by looking at the big contributors.
Co2 and H2O
And, since we are looking at warming, we must be looking at changes so we look at which one has changed most- and that's the CO2 by an enormous margin.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 00:18:55
Without even asking how much is anthropogenic and how much was natural, the answer to all those questions is that we have absolutely no idea. And that isn't my answer - it comes from the IPCC, so it must be true!
What we do know is that if the mean temperature of the surface increases, the low-level water content of the atmosphere increases.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 08:50:43
Without even asking how much is anthropogenic...That's why I calculated the anthropogenic bit.
Do try to keep up.
What we do know is that if the mean temperature of the surface increases, the low-level water content of the atmosphere increases.Thankyou for pointing out one of the more obvious effects of warming.
Many of us are interested in the cause.
Nobody is disputing that it's one of the positive feedback mechanism which can turn a slow change into a quick one. (along with methane hydrates and oceanic CO2)
But, because of mankind's activity, we already have CO2 rising 100 times faster than it ever did before.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 11:26:44
Post by: Petrochemicals on 29/11/2021 12:56:04
...and no evidence that addition of CO2 is significant above about 200 ppm. Correlation is not causation, and the historic record shows that CO2 is not causative above 200 ppm - it follows temperature. I don't have any historic data below about 190 ppm and unlike those whose careers depend on it, I won't speculate on data I don't have.I think the point about c02, regardless if you are great thunberg or a troll like Alan is that c02 rise is usually followed by an ice age.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 13:05:06
and no evidence that addition of CO2 is significant above about 200 ppm.Is that because it magically measures the concentration and changes the rules of physics when it exceeds 200?
You might want to look at the previous discussions about "saturation" before you reply.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 13:06:10
I don't have any historic data below about ...... anthropogenic CO2
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 13:21:08
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 13:27:40
Is that because it magically measures the concentration and changes the rules of physics when it exceeds 200?It is precisely because the laws of physics don't change, that increasing the concentration becomes less significant at high concentrations. And as I said, I don't have any historic data much below 200 ppm.
All we know is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has historically followed the temperature graph, not led it. We have no reason to believe that the laws of physics have changed since the Big Bang. So the obvious but currently unpopular conclusion is that CO2 is not the driver of temperature under recent and current atmospheric conditions..
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 14:50:10
I think there is some obscure law of chemistry that says CO2 is CO2, regardless of its source.There's another "obscure" thing you are ignoring, rate of change of CO2 concentration IS dependent on source.
So there's nothing in the historical record which can tell you about what happens when the CO2 concentration rises as fast as it is doing at the moment.
That's because man made CO2 IS different.
It is sudden.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 14:52:41
So the obvious but currently unpopular conclusion is that CO2 is not the driver of temperature under recent and current atmospheric conditions..The scientific conclusion is that it WAS not the driver, but that was before we turned up.
There is no scientific conclusion based on past records for an unprecedented rate of change.
So we have to look at the underlying physics.
More CO2 will produce more warming.
There's nothing "magic" about 200 ppm.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 16:39:51
What's "magic" about 200 ppm is that the value hasn't been much lower than that at any time in the past 500,000 years. The temperature has always risen rapidly when the "anomaly" reached -8 K (and CO2 was about 190 ppm) as was the case about 20,000 years ago. We are now apparently approaching the cusp of the cycle, with an "anomaly" of 2 - 3 K.
I put "anomaly" in quotes because the reference point seems to be 1940. This is a significant date in climate science because it represents the point at which it was important (and possible) to collect huge quantities of high quality daily meteorological data from pretty well everywhere on the planet. But the global average temperature for the last 500,000 years is actually 4K below the reference, which rather underplays the 12K range of the historic cycle: the true anomaly at present is about 6K, not the 1 or 2 K that NOAA publishes.
Quote
rate of change of CO2 concentration IS dependent on source[ Agreed. So what caused the change from 190 to 290 ppm in the 20,000 years before we started using fossil fuels? Or the even more spectacular rise 100,000 years before that?
Here's an interesting quote from a fairly middle-of-the road commentator:
Quote
One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.Does that make sense? How on earth did he "disappear under ice?" He wasn't found in a lake, but up a mountain. The evidence is that the hollow in which he died was later covered by a glacier which recently retreated. So it got a lot colder at some time between 3,300 BC and the present, not quite the impression you get from the quote....
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/11/2021 17:12:03
The CO2 concentration has risen very quickly in the past,Not really.
It is currently rising about 100 times faster.
Why do you not hear this when I tell you?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 23:46:23
It is currently rising about 100 times faster....than when it rose slower. Not that the rate of increase is important because surely any effect would depend on the amount present, not the rate at which it is increasing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 13:38:03
than when it rose slower.No, nitwit, a hundred times faster than ever before.
. Not that the rate of increase is importantExcept when it suits you...
If you don't think it's important, why did you raise the issue?
The CO2 concentration has risen very quickly in the past
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/11/2021 14:04:39
Post by: alancalverd on 30/11/2021 14:17:05
If you don't think it's important, why did you raise the issue?Because rapid rises of CO2 concentration in the past have not caused rapid temperature rises, which would make a scientist wonder why they should do so now.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 16:39:51
The CO2 concentration has risen very quickly in the past
Post by: Origin on 30/11/2021 19:02:12
Co2 is increaced to 400ppm, double 200ppm that is touted. Does not is seem strange that the global warming effect is so minimal?It only seems strange to someone who is ignorant of the science surrounding global warming.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 19:02:49
Co2 is increaced to 400ppm, double 200ppm that is touted. Does not is seem strange that the global warming effect is so minimal?No
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/11/2021 19:03:43
which would make a scientist wonder why they should do so now.Not if that scientist realised that CO2 absorbs IR.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/12/2021 04:16:16
OK Mr poopy pantsCo2 is increaced to 400ppm, double 200ppm that is touted. Does not is seem strange that the global warming effect is so minimal?It only seems strange to someone who is ignorant of the science surrounding global warming.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 11:00:14
When I see a model that explains all the historic data, rather than merely extrapolating forwards from a recent correlation, I will recognise someone who is not ignorant of the science of climate change, or at least has some respect for science.Co2 is increaced to 400ppm, double 200ppm that is touted. Does not is seem strange that the global warming effect is so minimal?It only seems strange to someone who is ignorant of the science surrounding global warming.
Post by: Colin2B on 01/12/2021 11:39:38
There have been warnings about this behaviour. Let's keep it friendlier.OK Mr poopy pantsCo2 is increaced to 400ppm, double 200ppm that is touted. Does not is seem strange that the global warming effect is so minimal?It only seems strange to someone who is ignorant of the science surrounding global warming.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2021 15:55:01
When I see a model that explains all the historic data,OK
There are "slow" drivers of climate change. Things like Milankovitch cycles.
From time to time, they drive the temperature of the earth past the tipping points and we get increased concentrations of CO2, methane and water vapour in the air.
Because those are positive feedback mechanisms, they produce quite rapid increases in temperature and the concentrations of those GH gases.
The temperatures rise for a while until those same slow drivers overcome the effects of the GH gases.
I already explained this to you, and provided an analogy (the neon oscillator) in a field you are familiar with,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659192;topicseen#msg659192
Now imagine that, at a time when the slow drivers say nothing interesting should be happening, we add a lot of CO2 to the air, very rapidly and we trigger the same positive feedback mechanisms.
What will happen?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 16:14:46
If they did, then the "interesting" period began 20,000 years ago, as it appears to have done, and there is nothing anomalous about the status quo.
My concern is that if what you have said is true and consistent with history, then reducing anthropogenic CO2 is not going to avert a humanitarian disaster.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/12/2021 17:35:36
My concern is that if what you have said is true and consistent with history, then reducing anthropogenic CO2 is not going to avert a humanitarian disaster.My concern is that if what I said is true, and we don't cut CO2 emissions then we will certainly provoke a humanitarian disaster.
On the other hand,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/12/2021 20:09:22
I have not been warned. What is so offensive Colin? One closed insulting unproven bigoted comment without evidence or explination for another.
There have been warnings about this behaviour. Let's keep it friendlier.
It only seems strange to someone who is ignorant of the science surrounding global warming.
OK Mr poopy pants
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 20:39:49
My concern is that if what I said is true, and we don't cut CO2 emissions then we will certainly provoke a humanitarian disaster.You won't create a better world by spending a fortune on an irrelevant effect instead of tackling the cause.
On the other hand,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F
Problem is that as I see it (and history shows) the prime cause is beyond the possibility of control. Climate change is inevitable and has wiped out a few civilisations in recent history, and entire species over longer periods. Humans have the unique ability to predict and adapt to the inevitable, but I see no sign of enthusiasm to do so.
We will eventually have to live without fossil fuels.The surprise is just how long they have already lasted, and how much remains to be exploited, but the end is conceivable if not accurately predictable.
So we have to consider two scenarios.
In the shortish term, all industry and everything we take as symbolic of a comfortable civilised life, will be under the control of gangsters in Moscow, scum dictators in the Middle East, and whatever idiot the Americans elect to a position of absolute power. Unless we....what?
In the longer term, the teeming millions will be unable to feed themselves or survive near the coast where most people live today, and will migrate to whatever fertile ground and fresh water remains. Unless we....what?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/12/2021 22:25:09
Fixating on co2 whilst orca whales die of chemical ingestion and many animals become homeless because of land pressures due to solar and birds are killed by renewable and nuclear disasters create wonderful animal habitats,My concern is that if what I said is true, and we don't cut CO2 emissions then we will certainly provoke a humanitarian disaster.You won't create a better world by spending a fortune on an irrelevant effect instead of tackling the cause.
On the other hand,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F
actually build some very risky nuclear power stations about the place and it may be quite a good thing, but how do we irradiated the ocean?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/12/2021 12:27:04
Did you read that through before you posted it?
Fixating on co2 whilst orca whales die of chemical ingestion and many animals become homeless because of land pressures due to solar and birds are killed by renewable and nuclear disasters create wonderful animal habitats,
actually build some very risky nuclear power stations about the place and it may be quite a good thing, but how do we irradiated the ocean?
Post by: Origin on 02/12/2021 14:47:53
many animals become homelessThis is a serious problem in my area. I see deer wandering around aimlessly and having to sleep in the ground, it's heart breaking. There are literally thousands of deer who spend their entire lives outside just in my county!!
Post by: alancalverd on 02/12/2021 18:56:52
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/12/2021 22:02:58
many animals become homelessThis is a serious problem in my area. I see deer wandering around aimlessly and having to sleep in the ground, it's heart breaking. There are literally thousands of deer who spend their entire lives outside just in my county!!
Deer are also a problem in my country, we have no natural predators and the hunting of deer is no longer prevelant so the deer have become a plague eating the young saplings and de barking trees seriously damaging the environment. This though is not an issue as everyone loves bambi and puts their faith in co2many animals become homelessThis is a serious problem in my area. I see deer wandering around aimlessly and having to sleep in the ground, it's heart breaking. There are literally thousands of deer who spend their entire lives outside just in my county!!
, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, and making facetious libellous unsubstantiated comments to any Tom dick or Harry who has a differing viewpoint. # hateweek
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/12/2021 10:23:02
we have no natural predatorsIn a way, this is the real problem.
Humans have no meaningful predators, so our numbers have increased to plague proportions, all over the world.
We are simultaneously, the only species that has done this, and the only species that understands that we shouldn't.
Alan keeps suggesting things that would reduce the breeding rate on one or two small islands which have a net breeding rate below replacement anyway.
Many of us think that we can reduce the damage we all do to our environment, but some are saying that's a lost cause and we should continue with business as usual..
Interestingly, in many areas with lots of humans, deer have no predators either- because those predators threatened us, so we killed them.
But to get back to the topic,
"Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?""
Because something that stays the same can't cause a change.
Unless the Earth's temperature rises, the water levels are pretty much fixed because any excess rains out.
If the Earth's temperature changed before the water levels in the air changed, then water concentration in air isn't a cause, it's an effect.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 00:22:38
Unless the Earth's temperature rises,Which it has, by 12 degrees in the last 20,000 years. And apparently by a few degrees very recently.
And unlike CO2, there's a lot more to atmospheric water than its concentration. It varies in state, with several phases in all states, aggregation, and distribution with altitude.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 12:18:16
Alan keeps suggesting things that would reduce the breeding rate on one or two small islands which have a net breeding rate below replacement anyway.Many experiments start in a test tube. Some end up in a huge factory. It would be ridiculous to do it the other way around.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2021 12:20:26
. It varies in state, with several phases in all states, aggregation, and distribution with altitude.But, no so much with time.
The boiling point is still 100C
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2021 12:21:45
Not as ridiculous as trying to do a test tube experiment with an empty test tube.Alan keeps suggesting things that would reduce the breeding rate on one or two small islands which have a net breeding rate below replacement anyway.Many experiments start in a test tube. Some end up in a huge factory. It would be ridiculous to do it the other way around.
Trying to fix a problem in a place where the problem doesn't exist is pretty special.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2021 12:25:04
Which it has, by 12 degrees in the last 20,000 years. And apparently by a few degrees very recently.Well, you are half right.
"by a few degrees very recently." is correct.
The rest... not so much.
But that's what we have come to expect.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 15:32:32
I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.
It is good to know that the population of the British Isles is indefinitely sustainable regardless of future numbers and resource availability.
No need to worry about hurricanes either, until the sea actually boils, chaps!
All that stuff that fell in Scotland last week is weightless fairydust.
I've never met a denialist before.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2021 16:17:11
It is good to know that the population of the British Isles is indefinitely sustainable regardless of future numbers and resource availability.Nobody said that.
But your "schemes" have focussed on birth rates and the birth rate in the UK is less than replacement.
So this test tube is empty of the "too high birth rate" problem.
Yet that's where you plan your experiment.
I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.The scientsts know, so they won't believe your "12 degrees" any moere than I did.
" The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today. At the Pleistocene Ice Age’s peak, massive ice sheets stretched over North America and Eurasia. "
From
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been
Which it has, by 12 degrees in the last 20,000 years.Doubling down on that is the sort of thing that will get you banned.
No need to worry about hurricanes either, until the sea actually boils, chaps!
All that stuff that fell in Scotland last week is weightless fairydust.
Where did that strawman even come from?
I've never met a denialist before.We have; you.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:08:35
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32That is a disgraceful lie, not worthy of a scientist. I have never denied the obvious - that the climate is changing. I even drone on about the fact that it always has done and the laws of physics haven't changed.
I've never met a denialist before.
We have; you.
But I do dispute the facile suggestion that human activity can significantly moderate the change, and I worry about the future if people invest their faith in a flawed model, ignore historic data, and don't prepare for the worst.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:11:33
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32The birthrate may be low, but the population is increasing. Stick to the facts.
It is good to know that the population of the British Isles is indefinitely sustainable regardless of future numbers and resource availability.
Nobody said that.
But your "schemes" have focussed on birth rates and the birth rate in the UK is less than replacement.
So this test tube is empty of the "too high birth rate" problem.
Yet that's where you plan your experiment.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:18:59
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32doesn't quite tie up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg where the data shows a 12K range in the last 20,000 years.
I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.
The scientsts know, so they won't believe your "12 degrees" any moere than I did.
" The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today. At the Pleistocene Ice Age’s peak, massive ice sheets stretched over North America and Eurasia. "
From
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been
Note the absence of the word "likely" from my reference - it's just facts.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:26:49
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:32:32Somebody here pointed out that the boiling point of water is 100°C. Now that is fairly close to the truth at sea level some of the time, but is pretty irrelevant to meteorology which deals with the effect of water exchange with the surface and its distribution in the atmosphere from about - 60°C to + 40°C and up to 60,000 ft where the boiling point is about 24°C.
No need to worry about hurricanes either, until the sea actually boils, chaps!
All that stuff that fell in Scotland last week is weightless fairydust.
Where did that strawman even come from?
There are plenty of good texts on hurricane formation, some of which explain why they form over water. I won't bore you with the details here.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2021 23:37:08
graphs.JPG (84.86 kB . 309x764 - viewed 1544 times)The birthrate may be low, but the population is increasing. Stick to the facts.OK
here's the relevant fact thanks to Google:
"1.65 births per woman (2019)"
That's less than replacement.
Any your plans to pay women not to get pregnant don't really influence population if that's dominated by immigration.
doesn't quite tie up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg where the data shows a 12K range in the last 20,000 years.Yes it does tie up, as far as you can tell.
Note the absence of the word "likely" from my reference - it's just facts.
Here's a clip which shows the last 200,000 years
I have highlighted (roughly) the bit that shows the last 20,000.
graphs.JPG (84.86 kB . 309x764 - viewed 1544 times)Now that is fairly close to the truth at sea level some of the time, but is pretty irrelevant to meteorology which deals with the effect of water exchange with the surface and its distribution in the atmosphere from about - 60°C to + 40°C and up to 60,000 ft where the boiling point is about 24°C.And when did the vapour pressure curve for water change?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 00:32:22
Here's a clip which shows the last 200,000 yearsVery rough indeed. You seem to have highlighted about 10 - 12,000 years, during which the temperature increased before the CO2 level as usual. The minimum at -20,000 years is shown as - 10K and the present temperature as +2.
I have highlighted (roughly) the bit that shows the last 20,000.
Anyway, what do you think prompted the CO2 level to rise so sharply after the dust had settled?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 00:38:15
here's the relevant fact thanks to Google:And a more relevant fact from https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population is that the UK population grew by about 14% between 2000 and 2020 and is predicted to continue growing until the end of the century.
"1.65 births per woman (2019)"
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 00:40:28
And when did the vapour pressure curve for water change?Not for as long as I have had any interest in the subject.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 08:36:10
And again...here's the relevant fact thanks to Google:And a more relevant fact from https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population is that the UK population grew by about 14% between 2000 and 2020 and is predicted to continue growing until the end of the century.
"1.65 births per woman (2019)"
Nobody is disputing the rise in the UK population.
But it's due to immigration.
It is not due to the thing you were proposing to change.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 08:41:13
So, you sort of accept the point then.And when did the vapour pressure curve for water change?Not for as long as I have had any interest in the subject.
Those effects are the same as they were.. It varies in state, with several phases in all states, aggregation, and distribution with altitude.But, no so much with time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 08:46:27
Anyway, here's one with a more expanded scale- so you can actually read it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
And the change over the last 20,000 years is about 5K
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 09:02:15
I'll tell the guys at the Met Office and Vostok Base that they (and every other scientist) are wrong.The point you seem to refuse to notice is that it isn't me with whom you are in dispute.
I already posted the graph, as drawn by a scientist.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 11:02:03
Nobody is disputing the rise in the UK population.
But it's due to immigration.
It is not due to the thing you were proposing to change.
What do you propose to change to reduce the population to a sustainable level? Simply banning immigration won't reduce the number of people here.
A bigger part of the problem is that life expectancy in the UK has increased by about 5 years in the last 10 years. Conventional "replacement" birth rate presumes a fixed life span.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 11:06:50
Anyway, here's one with a more expanded scale- so you can actually read it.That's embarrassing. It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years. So no reason to panic after all.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
And the change over the last 20,000 years is about 5K
That's why I prefer data to models, projections and consensus - it justifies my worry.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 12:38:05
the range experiencedBy whom?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 12:39:30
It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years.Today's highest football score is within the range of football scores this week.
So what?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 14:14:14
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 14:15:25
Everyone and everything, if your source is to be believed.the range experiencedBy whom?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 18:20:41
It would indicate that there's nothing exceptional happening in the world of football today.Imagine that something "interesting" happened, for example that a match was played and the score was 99:100.
Today's highest football score is within the range of football scores this week.would still be true.
And it would also be true if not a single goal was scored and every match had a score of nil nil.
So, it turns out that
Today's highest football score is within the range of football scores this week.is pretty much tautology.
The same is also true of your version.
It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years.
And you obviously can't deduce anything new from a tautology so why did you say this
So no reason to panic after all.
Whether or not there's a reason to panic is independent of this
It shows that the present temperature is within the range experienced in the last 10,000 years.Why use the word "so" as if there's a connection?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2021 18:49:12
Yes the temperature changed- about a half as much as you claim- but there's no reason to suppose that a magical change in the water vapour changed the temperature, is there?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 06/12/2021 20:49:04
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2021 08:46:40
As CO2 increases, even small temperature increases due to that mean that more water vapor evaporatesWhich is why water vapour is an effect not a cause (and CO2 is).
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2021 15:45:52
The first test of a hypothesis is that it should explain what has already happened. If it doesn't, it's probably not a good guide to what happens next.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2021 18:49:27
So what caused the sudden increases in CO2 in the past?
Why do you ask the same question over and over again, even after it has been answered more than once?
I already explained this to you, and provided an analogy (the neon oscillator) in a field you are familiar with,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659192;topicseen#msg659192
The first test of a hypothesis is that it should explain what has already happened.Nope, that's the second test.
The first is "is the idea logically internally consistent?"
And the idea that a non-changing-thing is responsible for change does not pass that test.
When and why did CO2 cease being an effect and turn into a cause?When it was suddenly produced in huge amounts by us rather than by, for example, the Milankovitch cycles warming the ocean.
Though, strictly, the "cause" is us.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2021 20:31:12
It's impossible to convince a denier, but I'm pretty sure that someone who understands physics and the geological history of the planet, which involved ice ages and the like, would know that the water content of the atmosphere is not constant.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2021 20:39:10
The waveform of the neon oscillator - indeed any relaxation oscillator - is the inverse of the observed behaviour of the climate,Here's a picture from wiki
Which waveform are you saying is wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2021 20:41:45
It's impossible to convince a denier,Yep.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2021 20:45:34
The Milankovich cycles do not produce sudden spikes of heatIf you look carefully, you will see that I already said that.
There are "slow" drivers of climate change. Things like Milankovitch cycles.Why are you trying to frame it as if I said otherwise?
And you will also see the other thing that you keep ignoring.
here it is again.
From time to time, they drive the temperature of the earth past the tipping points and we get increased concentrations of CO2, methane and water vapour in the air.
Because those are positive feedback mechanisms, they produce quite rapid increases in temperature and the concentrations of those GH gases.
The temperatures rise for a while until those same slow drivers overcome the effects of the GH gases.
I already explained this to you, and provided an analogy (the neon oscillator) in a field you are familiar with,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659192;topicseen#msg659192
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/12/2021 22:35:14
So far, nobody has answered the questions in any sensible way.because water is a refrigerant and therefore cannot be the driver, the driver must be an increace in energy somehow, because water reaches an equilibrium it cannot be the driver. Co2 cannot be the driver, only increaced energy can be so.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2021 22:57:11
because water is a refrigerantSo is dry ice, but that doesn't stop CO2 being a greenhouse gas.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2021 23:06:59
Which waveform are you saying is wrong?The one that shows the voltage rising with no current flow. That's somewhat inconsistent with the laws of physics. Problem is that you are showing two different things - voltage across the neon and current through it.That's not a good analogy of global temperature at all.
You could invert the waveforms and reverse the time line, then the "voltage" waveform would look a bit like the temperature of a planet on which the sun suddenly decided to shine, then switched off, and would at least explain the temperature graph. Possible, but not this solar system, and it still doesn't explain why the CO2 graph follows the temperature, nor why the maxima and minima are so consistent.
I always prefer to look at the data itself rather than dream up superficial analogies.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2021 23:10:57
So I won't bother to continue this correspondence. If you continually ignore the evidence, you won't learn.It's impossible to convince a denier,Yep.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 08:34:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:39:10And yet, the diagrams are correct.
Which waveform are you saying is wrong?
The one that shows the voltage rising with no current flow.
.That's not a good analogy of global temperature at all.It's not a good analogy, but it is the answer to your question about how a slow change in input can give rise to a fast change in output.
I always prefer to look at the data itselfAnd then you say things like
The CO2 concentration has risen very quickly in the pasteven though we are raising it a hundred times faster than ever it ever changed before.
So I won't bother to continue this correspondence. If you continually ignore the evidence, you won't learn.That's ironic from the guy who asked for something to be explained 4 or 5 times.
So I won't bother to continue this correspondence.Good.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/12/2021 09:15:24
It's not a good analogy, but it is the answer to your question about how a slow change in input can give rise to a fast change in output.No. The characteristic of all relaxation oscillators is tripping rapidly from a high-energy state to a low-energy state. The earth's atmosphere has done almost exactly the opposite throughout recent geological history, including the present.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2021 10:38:12
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 23:10:57I knew it was too good to last.
So I won't bother to continue this correspondence.
Good.
Post by: mikewonders on 20/12/2021 20:32:49
The formula for water vapor emissions due to octane combustion over decades of fossil fuel consumption (from below ground) + deforestation accounts for this volume easily. This is "NEW" water, a byproduct of combustion of fuels from BELOW ground. Where trees are concerned this was water above ground but stored previously in a stable state before deforestation released it to evaporation adding to the total precipitation return volume.
Deforestation amounts to some three trillion or roughly half the trees being counted today to remain before non-sustainable farming practices took hold, which also contributes to losses of CO2 by exposure and decomposition of otherwise stable soil constituents.
All water vapor condenses mostly in the troposphere which is now on average 11 kilometers taller around the globe, retaining the additional vapor and it's additional pressure contribution before becoming precipitation falling back to the surface of the earth.
Since the majority of contribution occurs over the oceans (70% of the earth's surface) the net effect is a frank increase in oceanic volume over time, i.e. greater heat sink relative to barren reflective soils losing gross water storage, leaf area index cooling and transpiration on a regional basis. A two fold factor of regional redistribution and greenhouse reflection, re-reflection, ...
Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas there is, (and 11 kilometers thicker now). That plus the force amplification factor water vapor provides to CO2 greenhouse effect, it's not hard to picture how the volume of NEW water emitted from fossil fuel combustion previously below ground, and released water from deforestation has contributed a major factor, if not even more so than CO2 itself above ground.
The premise is that BOTH volumes of new water AND new CO2 from deforestation + combustion of fossil fuel over nearly a century cannot be taken to account individually where the dynamic of global warming is in question.
Currently, increased water volume from these effects is not being taken into account at all, as if the extraordinary volume increase has no effect, especially when combined in multiple causes / effects and amplification.
So far I haven't seen any contributions which make a quantifiable assessment to this full set of conditions, (myself included).
Bottom line the rate of increase in warming is the concern. The rate of change for CO2 is relevant, whether as a cause or following effect of some other cause or closely coupled in duality. Unless the increased effects of water volume and water vapor density / force amplification and redistribution are accounted for, the current models of prediction based on CO2 as the main premise alone, might as well be a dart board in the local pub. THAT's a real concern for all the cost we're incurring to gamble on CO2 alone for a 20% solution in energy production solar and wind might provide.
Bear in mind, solar and wind are NOT truly sustainable without new and potentially destructive waste streams and support costs. While elimination of combustion by EV conversion makes for a cleaner vehicle, the majority of charging power they will utilize is still heavily if not primarily sourced from inadequate infrastructures connected to .... fossil fuel combustion driving powered turbine generators.
Just saying ;)
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/12/2021 22:02:09
The notion of increased water volume due to increased vapor amounts to roughly 1/3 the ocean volume increase not accounted for as thermal expansion and glacial contribution.Please show your working.
For reference
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth
tells us
Oceans, Seas, & Bays 321,000,000 cubic miles
Atmosphere 3,095 cubic miles
he formula for water vapor emissions due to octane combustion over decades of fossil fuel consumption (from below ground) + deforestation accounts for this volume easily.I did the maths on that.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg661680#msg661680
The water derived from fossil fuel is a trivial quantity compared to the amount already there.
All water vapor condenses mostly in the troposphere which is now on average 11 kilometers taller around the globe,Or not...
"A warmer upper troposphere and cooler lower stratosphere cause their border, the tropopause, to rise. A new paper, published online Nov. 5 in the journal Science Advances, found that the tropopause rose about 50 meters per decade due to human activity between 1980 and 2000 and at a similar rate between 2000 and 2020. "
from
https://www.insidescience.org/news/climate-change-raising-top-troposphere
50 metres per decade; 4 decades about 200 metres all told.
So far I haven't seen any contributions which make a quantifiable assessment to this full set of conditions, (myself included).Indeed, you keep posting silly numbers.
Please stop.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 21/12/2021 05:05:38
The scientific consensus of climate change scientists is around 99-100%, and this position is accepted by all major scientific organizations now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Post by: Petrochemicals on 21/12/2021 06:07:42
NGL it's painful that we have a climate change denier as an admin on the forum of the naked scientists website.Good to know that tolerance and factual debate have not fallen to bigoted cancel culture, vilification and facetious comments.
The scientific consensus of climate change scientists is around 99-100%, and this position is accepted by all major scientific organizations now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Take that as you like.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2021 10:51:43
The scientific consensus of climate change scientists is around 99-100%, and this position is accepted by all major scientific organizations now:Along with the geocentric universe, the flat earth, phlogiston, spontaneous fermentation, Aristotelian mechanics, Adam and Eve ......
.......and just in case you think our ancestors were particularly ignorant, the 20th century (where "climate science" veered off the runway and got stuck in the mud) also produced such gems as the American Academy of Sciences "There is no conceivable military use for the airplane" and the British Association for the Advancement of Science "The UK needs about four or five computers". All solemnly signed and sealed by an overwhelming consensus.
The one thing we know about consensus is that it is a poor substitute for investigation. Modelling is extrapolation of effects, not investigation of causes.
I haven't seen much evidence of denial in this forum: the symptoms are too obvious and in tune with historic precedent. But I do see a lot of unsupported belief in the cause.
Post by: mikewonders on 21/12/2021 14:00:58
The one thing we know about consensus is that it is a poor substitute for investigation. Modelling is extrapolation of effects, not investigation of causes.
I haven't seen much evidence of denial in this forum: the symptoms are too obvious and in tune with historic precedent. But I do see a lot of unsupported belief in the cause.
There's a few reasons why unsupported "belief" filters into many forums, especially when there is inevitably at least one troll that shows up in almost all topics on a board and seeks to fragment other's considerations in order to elevate their own post ranking as a means to compensate their own internal inadequacies and fears. They generally decorate replies as disparaging remarks to others, based on other published but unsubstantiated web articles, "because after all, "It it was found on the web, it must be true". Their goal is to inject negativity into the thread to drive others away, fracture the topical integrity and leave themselves to be the supposed net correct posting having sought to impeach every other comment with divisive statements and personally disparaging comments if nothing else.
In other words the quality of responses degrades as a result such that those with wisdom fall away to leave those of assumption to their ways. Simply asking a question for a reasonable hypothesis becomes targeted as ignorant because the poster asking the question responded to the troll's unqualified responses dredged up from unqualified articles posted as a "supposed" response in fact. The troll then comes back and wants to defend their prior unqualified answer with yet another unqualified answer and says "I already answered that", yes, with yet another unqualified answer.
If one wants to truly contribute something of value to the purpose of the thread, it might be to reflect a means by which to actually quantify just how much increased real volume of atmospheric water vapor has evolved due to given causes effecting atmospheric expansion but more critically what is the net outcome of warming from water vapor itself as a greenhouse effect and again (critically so) how to determine the extent of force amplification it causes on CO2, assessing a net warming effect valuable to other modeling. Then and ONLY then, does the question of volumetric change provide additional value to overall net effect over time.
Modelling is useful from a standpoint of assessing probabilities but only to the degree the model has integrity with every contributing factor. I have not yet found a model that provides this integral question on the effect of increased water volume or vapor reliably which means the model's have a gaping uncertainty which has merit of concern.
Some apparently can't understand that a very small change in volume of one variable constituent can have a massive effect of net change as a sum total of other constituents affected, hence the total effect overall.
By attempting to minimize a volumetric ratio or change by ignoring the elephant in the room as the much bigger dynamic net change in non-linear amplification, the value of the actual question asked becomes diluted by intent to thwart the poster's question among the respondent's inability to answer the actual question, (or destroy the topic otherwise).
As humans we're subject to wanting others to lead on some 80/20 fraction in nature. When one becomes elevated to a consideration of leading by any means, good or bad, a majority of others less in fact are inclined to "follow", even in the absence of truly qualified suppositions or well established leadership. This contributes to increasing "belief" mechanisms which are unfounded even if they may "sound" reasonable and a group becomes deluded into acceptance.
This is why science is supposed to seek empirical evidence and not buy into a well meaning suggestion as fact (or trolls that seek to discredit). When Einstein was posed with the question of quantum entanglement, he didn't seek to discredit those who proposed it as a "belief". In wisdom he studied it as empirically as he could mathematically and admitted there seemed to be some "spooky action at a distance" he could not fully dispute from within his own definitions of relativity or those provided by his colleagues. He attempted to provide a valuable measure of affirmation even outside his own theories. Today, quantum physics helps explain this even if we still can't fully prove the underlying quantum dynamics just yet. Gravity is a weaker "relative" force, but doubtful anyone disputes its value or significant effect nor does its relative weakness diminish its importance.
That said, despite the troll effects in this thread, the original question "Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?" remains unanswered. Simply reducing the question to one of relative volume or change in relative volume alone does not address this question. That should be obvious to anyone who actually cares about empirical science, and by definition avoids the conceptual aspects of "consensus" as well.
If it were as simple as gross volume, I wouldn't have come here to ask the question, but for hope there is enough collective wisdom here to gain real perspective to the question. It is a legitimate question and a concern I think most will admit may be much more difficult to accurately resolve and even more difficult to compensate for in time, than CO2 will be. That returns me to a prior statement regarding the temporal window of change necessary to effect sufficient correction in time, if the concern is found to be valid by empirical evaluation.
Thank you Alan and "no" I was not referring to you as a troll. :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2021 14:23:56
Along with the geocentric universe, the flat earth, phlogiston, spontaneous fermentation, Aristotelian mechanics, Adam and Eve ......With one exception, those ideas are all "pre-scientific" so they are irrelevant.
Spontaneous fermentation is a real thing- it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
https://www.craftbeer.com/craft-beer-muses/immaculate-fermentation-science-not-sorcery
just in case you think our ancestors were particularly ignorant, the 20th century (where "climate science" veered off the runway and got stuck in the mud) also produced such gems as the American Academy of Sciences "There is no conceivable military use for the airplane" and the British Association for the Advancement of Science "The UK needs about four or five computers". All solemnly signed and sealed by an overwhelming consensus.
Those are a couple of stories about very new technology; they are barely relevant to a discussion of a massively well researched topic like climate science, are they?
"The UK needs about four or five computers"
may well have been true at the time.
If you think about the sort of computers they had in mind (with valves and relays), I doubt there are more than about 5 running today.
More interestingly, I can't find any evidence that British Association for the Advancement of Science actually said it.
Please provide a reference.
The one thing we know about consensus is that it is a poor substitute for investigation.And lots of investigations have been done- though, of course, they still continue.
Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?" remains unanswered.
It was answered.
But to get back to the topic,
"Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?""
Because something that stays the same can't cause a change.
Unless the Earth's temperature rises, the water levels are pretty much fixed because any excess rains out.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 22/12/2021 08:08:30
I already answered it in reply 163, water vapours not the driver due to it being a side effect, a passive reaction, the driver must be something else.
That said, despite the troll effects in this thread, the original question "Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?" remains unanswered.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2021 08:43:34
Mikewonders has got Petrochemicals and me to agree on something.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2021 12:23:35
If one wants to truly contribute something of value to the purpose of the thread, it might be to reflect a means by which to actually quantify just how much increased real volume of atmospheric water vapor has evolvedThe problem is wider than merely the total water content of the atmosphere, but its distribution with altitude and state, including surface cover of ice (in various phases), clear water, adsorbed, and subsurface moisture. The thermal and optical properties of water are extremely complex in the simplest static manifestation, never mind the dynamics of an inherently unstable climate and a continuously shifting pattern of vegetation.
My father often referred to the error of "ignoring the weight of the elephant", which he claims he found in an Indian physics exam paper. To my mind, the currently fashionable consensus only discusses (at considerable expense to the taxpayer) the color of the mahout's turban.
Post by: mikewonders on 22/12/2021 12:50:13
The problem is wider than merely the total water content of the atmosphere,[...]
Absolutely. But after this many years of debate and complexity, learned helplessness leads many wanting to imagine there's a tool in the box that can fix everything and solve debate by assumptions. Unfortunately that's a very dangerous assumption. I had hoped others here might help break down those complexities but it seems that may have been my first mistake.
Post by: mikewonders on 22/12/2021 12:51:28
It's a Christmas Miracle!
Mikewonders has got Petrochemicals and me to agree on something.
Miracle indeed. Mikewonders didn't do that. You two made the same wrong assumptions all on your own, albeit I may have brought that into the light. Didn't I read here recently "Consensus doesn't equal fact?" By the way, two wrongs don't make a right either. Repeating the same assumption also won't lead to new or confirming discovery. Sorry, "fail".
Maybe a simple thought experiment ... Why did Santa ask Rudolf to guide his slay? Because, even that fat benevolent, cookie munching Goodfellow understood that increased water vapor, fog or otherwise, makes it harder to see? Why? Random redirection of photons. Just as driving in a fog with your brights on reflects more light back at the driver and less light emanates in the direction forward, (read as greenhouse reflection).
Hmmm, let's think about that... Thicker troposphere, increased water vapor volume / density gradient, (increased green house effect) deeper increased density of reflectivity, increased amplification of CO2 reflection (force amplification)... Increased total oceanic volume, larger heat sink, greater surface area reflectivity...
I'm sure standing wave harmonic will land outside the limited scope of analysis here too.
Yeah, surely all that is wrong simply for a desire to hold a line of embarrassing oversight out of view. If Santa thought like you two, he'd have shot Rudolf, ate him for dinner, and installed and high compression big block in his sleigh.
You might also believe that CO2 increase leads temperature increase assuming causation... You might struggle with correlations of increased global precipitation having a higher degree of correlation with temperature rise too.
You must not have children or grand children... If you're wrong, they may not be able to have children themselves one day. Ignoring the truth is a pretty large assumption to wager the risk of your own descendants, unless of course that's not high priority.
At least the two of you found something in common, you're in good company... You both rely on gross comparison leading to incorrect assumptions and believe repeating it in unison will establish fact from which to disparage others efforts to actually find further facts.
It's like the old couple stranded on their roof top during a flood. They stubbornly refused two boats and a helicopter to save them, chanting in unison "God will save us". When they drowned and ended up before God they asked "Why did you not save us?" God responded... "I sent you two boats and helicopter, what more did you want?"
Ho, Ho, Ho.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2021 12:53:15
the currently fashionable consensus only discusses (at considerable expense to the taxpayer) the color of the mahout's turban.
I see what you mean.
We know the CO2 concentration is significantly higher than it was (and we know why) but some people are intent on discussing the water concentration which we know is pretty much the same (It's currently cold + misty outside; C and near 100 % RH which means the atmospheric moisture concentration is exactly the same as any other time when it was 3C and misty.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2021 12:54:14
You two made the same wrong assumptionsWhat assumptions?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2021 11:50:20
The secondary assumption is that reducing the output of anthropogenic CO2 will have a significant effect on world climate.
The third assumption is that it is essential and inevitable to double the human population by the end of the century.
The fourth assumption is that all these people can be fed and watered on a decreasing area of farmland, along with a decreasing number of sea fish, and that we can actually grow more plants with a lower temperature and less CO2.
The fifth assumption is that they will all be happy with their current standard of living (assuming 4 is true) and will not demand any increase in artificial power (currently about 1.5 kW per capita worldwide, about 5 kW in the UK - which represents a reasonable aspiration) all of which can be harvested from the sun.
Looks more like religion than science to me. I'm sure BC doesn't subscribe to such nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2021 12:21:31
Let's see you provide any evidence that anyone is making the...
...assumption is that it is essential and inevitable to double the human population by the end of the century.
Particularly the "essential" bit.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2021 13:57:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2021 15:38:52
If it wasn't considered essential to increase the population, why do we spend so much money and effort on fertility treatments, neonatal medicine, and elder care?The "We" who do that are the rich West. Our birth rate is less than our death rate.
How can property developers make a profit if there's nobody to live in their shoddy new houses?As you say, the houses are shoddy. So they won't last a a generation.
So the new ones will be bought by those whose current ones are falling apart.
Economics is...... now learning, slowly.
Perhaps you should join it.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2021 16:02:13
The "We" who do that are the rich West. Our birth rate is less than our death rate.If you believe that 11.38 is less than 9.43, you will probably believe anything. Admittedly that's just the UK figures, but I think you will find that the population of whatever you call the west has increased significantly over the last 20 years.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2021 16:07:22
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2021 16:11:55
As you say, the houses are shoddy. So they won't last a a generation.That is approximately true in North America where the majority of dwellings are made of wood, with a design life of maybe 50 - 100 years, but the number of inhabited dwellings in the UK has increased by about 1% per year every year this century.
So the new ones will be bought by those whose current ones are falling apart.
To the best of my knowledge, each new house built in the UK (principally brick) requires the emission of at least 80 tons of CO2 (2 bedroom terrace) and has a design life of 100 - 200 years.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2021 16:12:55
I think the birth rate of 1.65 per woman is less than the death rate of (very close to) 2 per woman.You really need to learn about life and statistics.
Half of those 1.65 children are female. Most women give birth around the age of 20, so within 60 years our average Eve has 1.65 + (1.65 x 0.825) + (1.65 x 0.825 x 0.413) = 3.57 living descendants, and is probably still alive herself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2021 23:24:16
If the women in a group have less than 2 children on average, the population of the group will fall in the long term.
We seem to have strayed somewhat from the topic.
If increased water in the air caused climate change, what caused the increased water in the air?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2021 00:20:44
If the women in a group have less than 2 children on average, the population of the group will fall in the long term.
Then please explain where my arithmetic, based on your statistic of 1.65 children per woman, is wrong.
The figures of 11.38 births and 9.43 deaths per 1000 population in the UK for 2020 clearly show that the number of bodies in these islands increased, as it has done practically every year since the 1800s
Your error is in assuming that the "group" is static when it is obviously dynamic. If every woman produces more than one child in her lifetime, and lives long enough to see her grandchildren, the population will increase. UK life expectancy nowadays includes grandchildren as a "given" and great-grandchildren are well within the range of normal.
Population is a highly relevant matter. If there is an anthropogenic element to undesirable climate change, it makes sense to limit the number of anthros causing the problem. If there isn't, we still need to determine what size population could be sustained at an acceptable standard of living under likely predicted climatic conditions.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2021 00:26:06
If increased water in the air caused climate change, what caused the increased water in the air?Consider a very simple model: a block of ice with dry air above it. Sun shines on the ice and some water evaporates. Water is a greenhouse gas so the atmosphere above the ice gets warmer, so more water evaporates.
Only a climate change denier would think otherwise.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 24/12/2021 06:52:24
In fact, the whole thing is super complicated, there's clouds to consider, rain, snow, reflection from surfaces etc. etc.
Climatologists use computer models to predict the overall effects, and they can run the models with different levels of CO2 in them. They find that the CO2 makes the difference.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2021 10:53:24
Computer models can only model an observed correlation or an assumed hypothesis. If you assume that A causes B, and you generate a model based on that assumption, and adjust the parameters to fit recent observations, it will support your hypothesis. Problem is that it doesn't explain the historic result, and that makes it an unreliable precedent for future action.
While nobody is spraying large amounts of water into the atmosphere, humans are spraying large amounts of CO2.
2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18H2O
That's a lot of water vapor from the combustion of octane. And the more we use hydrogen-rich fossil fuels to replace coal, the more water we pump into the atmosphere.
it's a convergent series.
Historically there is indeed a convergence because the temperature cycles over a fairly fixed range of 12 degrees. So what determines the limits? And why would they be any different now from then? Sadly, lots of careers (including at least one good friend of mine) depend on the series diverging.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 12:53:55
Then please explain where my arithmetic, based on your statistic of 1.65 children per woman, is wrong.You forgot to carry on long enough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 12:58:48
Your error is in assuming that the "group" is static when it is obviously dynamic. If every woman produces more than one child in her lifetime, and lives long enough to see her grandchildren, the population will increase.Imagine what would happen if all the children were boys and none was a girl.
(A well known quote attributed to Mark Twain might help here).
Now imagine that only half of the children were girls.
How many daughters must each woman have to maintain the number of women?
If only half of the children are daughters, how many children must each woman have in order to maintain the number of women?
(To make it easy, we can assume that they all grow up + have kid(s).)
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 13:00:29
That's a lot of water vapor from the combustion of octane.No.
It's a tiny amount of water, as I already pointed out.
And, of course, most of it fell out of the sky before the next Winter was over.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 13:09:02
Stop messing around and tell us what you think actually changed.If increased water in the air caused climate change, what caused the increased water in the air?Consider a very simple model: a block of ice with dry air above it. Sun shines on the ice and some water evaporates. Water is a greenhouse gas so the atmosphere above the ice gets warmer, so more water evaporates.
Only a climate change denier would think otherwise.
Or are you accepting that I was right when I pointed this out?
But to get back to the topic,
"Why can't water vapor be the driver of today's climate change?""
Because something that stays the same can't cause a change.
Unless the Earth's temperature rises, the water levels are pretty much fixed because any excess rains out.
If the Earth's temperature changed before the water levels in the air changed, then water concentration in air isn't a cause, it's an effect.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2021 14:10:55
Stop messing around and tell us what you think actually changed.If you look at the historic record you can see that global temperature decreases slowly over about 100,000 years. During this time the atmosphere loses water in two directions: principally by precipitation and to some extent by loss from the stratosphere to the cosmos. Thus the infrared transmission of the atmosphere increases until we have something that looks like my ice/dry air model, complicated by high altitude persistent cloud.
Cirrus clouds are ice, with a very high albedo. I haven't worked through the detail but at some point the mean temperature of the stratopause will exceed that of the surface, and my suspicion is this is the trigger point where the cirrus clouds disappear and the surface insolation increases rapidly. Increased temperatures move the plant/animal balance in favor of animals, so the CO2 level increases.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 16:05:09
global temperature decreases slowlyWhy?
You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
We all agree that a change in temperature will affect the amount of water in the air.
And we all agree that a change in the amount of water will affect the temperature.
But you are missing the underlying question.
Why did anything change at all?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/12/2021 22:01:31
The thermal and optical properties of water are extremely complex in the simplest static manifestation,And the properties of water are likewise misunderstood. For example it is an assumption you need heat to evapourate water, where as in actual fact you just need low humidity. Water wishes to be a gas and evapourate by drawing energy from its surroundings, evaporative cooling. Antarctica may be the driest continent yet its humidity is very high when compared to the Sahara.
Another example is that moist air is hot and therefore rises. Moist air probably has sacrificed some energy to evaporation but it is less dense due to the water content than dry air at the same temperature. The air could in fact be cooler air yet still rising.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2021 22:25:32
Why?
A point that is not answered - or even addressed - by the current consensus.global temperature decreases slowlyWhy?
Quote
You seem to be deliberately missing the point.Now you are beginning to ask the right questions. Whatever the driving cause, we need a mechanism that produces very rapid temperature increases of up to 12 degrees in a thousand years, followed by a slow return over 100,000 years, with the carbon dioxide concentration following the temperature curve with a phase lag of 500 years or more. There don't seem to be many candidates apart from water, of which there is a truly remarkable amount on this planet, with some very remarkable properties.
We all agree that a change in temperature will affect the amount of water in the air.
And we all agree that a change in the amount of water will affect the temperature.
But you are missing the underlying question.
Why did anything change at all?
Though the waveforms are very different, I too am attracted by a relaxation oscillator concept because it shows that a fairly constant input can produce an inherently oscillatory and time-asymmetric effect.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 23:48:00
A point that is not answered - or even addressed - by the current consensus.Yes it is.
The current consensus is that the "prime mover" is that we added a lot of CO2 to the air.
Now you are beginning to ask the right questions.No.
I considered it a while ago. You were ignoring reality at the time and you still are (see above).
OK
There are "slow" drivers of climate change. Things like Milankovitch cycles.
From time to time, they drive the temperature of the earth past the tipping points and we get increased concentrations of CO2, methane and water vapour in the air.
Let me know when
(1) you find an actual cause- rather an an effect like water vapour- and
(2) you catch up with the rest of us in the consensus.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2021 23:49:31
For example it is an assumption you need heat to evapourate water, where as in actual fact you just need low humidity.Bollocks.
You do need to add heat to separate the molecules.
There's no way round that.
If you blow air over water it evaporates, but it gets cold.
That's because the heat take by evaporation is taken from the remaining water.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/12/2021 10:12:37
Yes it is.So who suddenly added 100 ppm 20,000 years ago, or 120,000?
The current consensus is that the "prime mover" is that we added a lot of CO2 to the air.
Why did they wait until the temperature had begun to rise before doing so?
Why did they start removing it when the temperature began to decrease?
There's no doubt that human activity increases atmospheric CO2, but no convincing evidence that it ever was responsible for temperature change.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/12/2021 10:15:18
Let me know when
.......
(2) you catch up with the rest of us in the consensus.
I am a scientist, not a sheep. If the hypothesis doesn't explain the data, it's wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/12/2021 12:15:03
If the hypothesis doesn't explain the data, it's wrong.|The hypothesis that water vapour is the cause of global warming does not explain the data.
Stop living in the past. We are trying to account for the current warming, the (possibly anthropogenic) mechanism for which may well be different from the (certainly non anthropogenic) previous changes.Yes it is.So who suddenly added 100 ppm 20,000 years ago, or 120,000?
The current consensus is that the "prime mover" is that we added a lot of CO2 to the air.
Why did they wait until the temperature had begun to rise before doing so?
Why did they start removing it when the temperature began to decrease?
There's no doubt that human activity increases atmospheric CO2, but no convincing evidence that it ever was responsible for temperature change.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/12/2021 12:15:47
There's no doubt that human activity increases atmospheric CO2, but no convincing evidence that it ever was responsible for temperature change.Apart from the laws of physics.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/12/2021 17:44:03
(a) why global temperature increases by about 12K in 20,000 years then declines asymptotically, with a cycle time of about 100,000 years
(b) why the present increase began 20,000 years ago, at pretty much the same rate of increase as the previous three rises
(c) what determines the consistent maximum and minimum of those historic observations.
Post by: mikewonders on 25/12/2021 17:50:45
@ Alan... from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ) we see a simple experiment to demonstrate CO2 greenhouse in a bottle.
https://youtu.be/hUFOuoD3aHw (https://youtu.be/hUFOuoD3aHw) provides a bit more complete demonstration of how the atmosphere interacts with greenhouse. It's a fairly good explanation of the molecular dynamics of greenhouse principles, CO2 and then even gives dialog on water vapor. It does identify atmospheric expansion due to thermal heating and increased volume of greenhouse. Unfortunately it's doesn't quantify the effect on par with CO2 or water vapor in that context, only that they increase and that water vapor is a substantial greenhouse gas. Would have been nice if it focused on the amplification factor of water vapor impacting CO2 greenhouse.
CO2 provides greenhouse due to the molecule's geometric shape and harmonics relative to excitation from longer wave length light waves, essentially IR heat as it's reflected / emitted from the earth's surface and or other greenhouse emissions like water vapor causes as well, hence amplification. Oxygen and Nitrogen do not participate in those longer wave translations. Longer IR wave lengths causing increased excitation on CO2 then causes CO2 to emit greater contribution in all directions.
It's also apparent the forum topic here is a bit misleading... "Water vapor" in the increased troposphere dimension (as heating increases) increases the primary and secondary warming effects of water vapor as a greenhouse cause itself and still greater increased amplification of CO2 greenhouse. What is grossly underestimated is the volume of vapor over a century due to fossil fuel combustion having continually precipitated to increased ocean volume / surface area along with the loss of water storage of some three trillion trees having been deforested. Trees hold an incredible volume of water, out of sight, out of mind. Deforestation releases that volume and leaves behind mostly reflective surfaces which once provided leaf area index shading and transpiration cooling from those trees removed. Add in the massive loss of natural water aquifer storage just below the surface having been decimated over the same century and the total water volume accumulation / redistribution becomes VERY significant, both globally but especially regionally, (weather pattern buffering).
This is NOT a tiny amount as some might think, especially given the forced amplification factor of increased evaporation cycle turnover of water vapor in a growing troposphere, compared with ocean volume a century ago. It is almost all human cause related, (unless one fails to actually do the math). This is why grabbing at gross relational estimates then declaring the amount as "minuscule" or worse yet "silly" shows just how huge of a mistake is made by hip-shot estimates from single context web sources.
The problems culminate to increased thermal sink and IR re-contribution reflection owing to these increased human effects of released and fossil generated water over the period of time we see the rate of change (ROC) impacting the urgency with which most are focusing ONLY on CO2.
CO2's rapid increase in ROC correlates chronologically to human contribution, but does not stand alone. Ignoring oceanic volume and surface increase by these additional sources testifies to the extent we want to avoid thinking about that aspect as learned helplessness over decades of debate invites us to look for a simpler answer, (head in the sand). Until models can begin to reflect these additional contributions, the temporal projections of simply reducing CO2 emissions may lag by a considerable amount. The suggested CO2 rates of reduction are already unattainable as long as fossil fuel and unmitigated combustion emissions continues to remain the predominate energy source. This is especially true in that current green technologies have a hard ceiling at ~ 30% energy contribution, themselves still dependent on fossil fuel consumption to produce them.
Currently green technology provides about 5% renewable energy from wind and solar, and some more from elevated hydro. Again, none of these are without their own long term down side effects.
We lack historical tracking of how much global fossil fuels have been combusted in oil and natural gas so every model is an estimate absent those values already. The more models projected with accurate assessment the more valuable the net observations can be to reflect these temporal concerns for comparison.
Just as the two examples here demonstrate real working principles, the more complete an experiment can be modeled, the more likely we are to see viable examples. It's a lot to undertake to fabricate a reliable working example, but every computer modeling system requires a working proof to calibrate to. The contest is to avoid garbage in, garbage out, to find reliability.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/12/2021 17:55:39
Using the laws of physics, please explain
Why do you ask the same question over and over again, even after it has been answered more than once?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/12/2021 15:55:01
I already explained this to you, and provided an analogy (the neon oscillator) in a field you are familiar with,
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg659192;topicseen#msg659192
Post by: mikewonders on 25/12/2021 18:08:34
Using the laws of physics, please explain
(a) why global temperature increases by about 12K in 20,000 years then declines asymptotically, with a cycle time of about 100,000 years
(b) why the present increase began 20,000 years ago, at pretty much the same rate of increase as the previous three rises
(c) what determines the consistent maximum and minimum of those historic observations.
Not sure the comparison or context are comparable, since the context of concern in a) - c) is recent versus prehistoric. There is no time in prior history where the Rate Of Change has been as extreme as what the last century of human impact and increase has been without some global event to cause it. Ice cores may reflect other trends as natural consequence of global events, but there doesn't seem to have been any predominant event in our last century that compares, i.e. giant meteor strike, huge coronal ejection, etc. There is one estimated sub-oceanic caldera eruption in question but ruled out relatively well for overall climate impact.
I think that speaks to a), b) and the value of c) in terms of recent / current conditions, especially in respect to human population survival versus prehistoric survival. We risk apples to apples, especially that we know higher CO2 levels have been recorded. What we don't know is the source, cause or relative value of solar exposures or oceanic volumes or even ocean floor methane bloom potentials Lots to think about there. For certain we didn't have a condition where half the trees on earth were removed as a man-made contribution.
How then can a) - c) help us determine the degree of concern for current trends or the potential for a more severe tipping point of temporal risk in the current context / domian?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/12/2021 11:09:23
Recent events have shown a unidirectional correlation but correlation does not prove causation. Prehistoric data includes correlations in both directions, with temperature and CO2 concentrations both rising and falling. Bidirectional correlations are very important tests of a hypothesis, so it makes sense to submit every hypothesis to the test: does it explain or even consist with what we already know? If not, we need to consider the possibility that it isn't a good one, and make alternative plans.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/12/2021 11:16:03
@ Alan... from [nofollow] we see a simple experiment to demonstrate CO2 greenhouse in a bottle.
And completely ignores saturation. You need a path length of at least 3 meters of dry CO2 at 1 atm, and a really good approximation to solar input and surface albedo, to show that adding more CO2 above 300 ppm to the atmosphere has negligible effect.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to identify the flaws in the video experiment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2021 11:49:50
The basis of my concern is that if CO2 is not the driver of global temperature, human society is doomed by the consensus.The basis of my relative lack of concern is this
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/12/2021 12:08:01
@ Alan... from [nofollow] we see a simple experiment to demonstrate CO2 greenhouse in a bottle.
Even more impressive when things like Andrews liver salts are an endothermic reaction, the water will be noticeably cooler.
Just a query as to why the one bottle is so much brighter, given they are both curved surfaces, they are not pressured are they?
Post by: mikewonders on 26/12/2021 15:42:38
The basis of my concern is that if CO2 is not the driver of global temperature, human society is doomed by the consensus. So we need to critically evaluate the hypothesis and consider alternative strategies to simply blaming each other [...]
The first of the two videos is just a simple demonstration to show that CO2 has a thermally reflective characteristic (can CO2 be a cause under physics of climate warming). I doubt anyone here questions this and so its purpose was only to establish the dynamic and affirm why that dynamic is real and "may" be central to the question of one of the potentials to contribute to warming.
The second video did a somewhat better job of identifying the same but in closer relationship with atmospheric dynamics in which water vapor was also identified to play a role. Unfortunately, the author didn't go on to extrapolate how adding new volume of vapor or liquid accumulation might have a long term impact to trending.
There is no likelihood that anthropogenic CO2 will actually reduce in the next 100 years anyway: the population is likely to increase, and each new body will need food and demand fuel and manufactured goods. Things will change a bit when the fossil fuels run out, but the world will be a very different and uncomfortable place by then.
That may be true if we don't effect change based on an assessment we CAN effect sufficient change in order to sustain a viable balance with nature to sustain the change. This may be near the glass half empty versus half full philosophy hoping the glass is not half broken and can be reasonably repaired.
At the risk of ridicule for creating a forum thesis...
If there is no means to compensate our human contribution to each economic value involved, that "uncomfortable" assessment grows as a potential threat. Nature operates on a basis of economic balance. We thought the loss of the rain forests would wipe out oxygen. Turns out mold does more to sustain this balance than the rain forest ever could, but only in the question of oxygen / CO2 exchange. Rain forests provide regional dynamics in weather models which also matter but in a much different model of cause / effect / concern.
During the recent pandemic, CO2 levels made a momentary drop in production that was impressive. Unfortunately the overall temperature didn't really move which lead some to surmise that CO2 isn't the primary cause, while neglecting the long term consequence of related oceanic thermal mass as a critical buffer sustaining rate of change as part of CO2 and many other contributing causes over time. i.e. the oceanic mass and relative increases is the largest contributing factor sustaining rate of change unless the thermal input AND thermal mass and relative emissions can be reduced.
Simply looking at CO2 PPM alone cannot answer the question of anthropogenic cause without including a much wider observation of not just more variables, but the interplay and complexity of relative outcomes between those variables. Chances are most here know this as well which means we either do the work to build better real-world examples to prove / disprove the predictive models or we're back to square one dealing with mostly assumptions.
Assumptions and consensus both have value in forming decisions when the complexity exceeds a practical means to be completely accurate. In fact, the human brain itself works mostly on assumptions from successive approximation from our senses in making decisions which has permitted increased survival (and population as a cause). The more urgent the need, the more coarse the approximation. There is no shortage of complexity in this situation. The threshold to Occum's razor becomes a part of this which dovetails to area under the curve pointing toward "If it walks like a duck". In other words, probability grows among the obvious, even absent absolute empirical proof. This pushes both skew and kurtosis in our rush to judgement and compensation.
This is the point where politicians smell blood in the water, take advantage of learned helplessness and start to invent schemes like carbon credits, new Green Deals and other solutions increasingly likely to fail, tantamount to a medication that cures the illness but kills the patient along the way.
Without a working model to reflect the actual interplay of the many variables involved, predictive computer models cannot accurately provide accurate trending probability forecasts. Every computer model has to be correlated and adjusted for inaccuracies by real world comparison which proves the model to become accurate and reliable, hopefully not that the model is curve fitted to errant examples.
This begs the question if the rapid rate of change in warming is a problem at all? If we assume increased likelihood the out of band condition could be life threatening owing to no VALID past reference to go by, we tend to rank the risk higher in probability.
If we agree for the moment there may be a correlation and increased risk, can we accurately extrapolate the working model accurately with real world proof to correlate predictive models to help guide decisions?
If we're agreeing 1) there is an uncertainty which increases the weight of probability to concern, 2) we might err on the side of caution and 3) we cannot confirm the accuracy of models due to extremes in complexity, then we begin to extrapolate the most we can against Brownian walks and other means to 4) try to flush out SOME measure of confirmation on the more heavily weighted contributions to the consideration of cause to focus timely and economically on viability of solutions.
That said... (now I'm really feeding the trolls)... What if you take a region of typical population and convert their energy production to 100% sustainable means using "refined" cultivated biomass fuels including thousands of jobs in cultivation and harvest for energy along side of increased food and grazing re-contribution and allow more reasonable applications of some solar and wind, (re-designed as truly sustainable). If that translation is done via the cultivation of biomass fuels which permits the energy companies to participate and sustain survival of their business models... What happens to that trial? We may find it's possible to displace as much as 70% of fossil fuel consumption to a truly sustainable emissions negative method, CO2, NO(x), Water Vapor, etc, including CHP methods which manage the emissions of thermal emissions... all without inducing economic downfall from loss of fossil fuel economic sustain. You don't have to sacrifice combustion as 24x7 real-time available horsepower. You don't end up relying solely on limited provisions of wind and solar. You don't over-expose dependency on batteries still maturing. You don't face regional logistics defeating the potential. You're not increasing new waste streams, but rather consuming some of current waste in refinement. We still make use of EV technology but we don't burn fossil any longer for heating, powering or recharging vehicles. If population is in keeping with food production then the basis of emissions NEGATIVE potential allows to compensate increased human impact on par with growth.
Before the nay-sayers jump my bones, don't discount the potential that most of this has already been proven viable and practical with working models that prove it's viability through combustion to complete equalibrium. A good attorney never asks a question without knowing the answer first. This in fact may create a better world for no reason but you haven't destroyed the economic base nor lost view of balance in nature in making the trial expose it's proofs. More over you end up with a working tool set that is mostly up side with corrective potentials to the down side.
This model actually creates a working balanced mix between evolving technology with historically stable energy conversions to minimize as many undesirable traits while maximizing the benefits of combined technology with nature, a model of synergistic change where all likely negatives are reduced and the most positive of beneficial outcomes increased. Better yet, the process works to restructure toward a distributed energy model reducing the exposure of grid centrality to back feed power production distributed. Of course it flies in the face that Elon Musk wants to be the single individual to hold control over most of humanity and is making gains in that area rapidly. This even plays nice with the ill prospect of lithium as a central power store based on energy density. What is lacking today is the refinement of biomass to cleanly produce sufficient energy and consume other waste streams to increase it's energy density to an economic viability. By "lacking" I don't mean it hasn't already been proved. I mean the proof needs to be commercialized on a practical scale for economic efficiency.
Ridiculous right? We're on our way to Mars. We've unpacked the human Genome. We're gaining in potentials of applying quantum entanglement. Would we suggest it's not feasible to accomplish restructuring energy conversion harmonious with nature to be a more practical means of long term success? I'm not holding my breath that we'll see sustainable fission inside a magnatron any time soon but even micro-reactors using salts may have a role to play in the balancing act. If you invent a neutron engine that magically generates unlimited power, don't expect the governments of the world to permit it out of the box, they're already limiting the distribution of hydrogen micro stores on cassettes for power from laser activation.
Some times we end up at "Do SOMETHING even if it's wrong." By that premise we learn from our mistakes if they're not so outrageous it shatters the half full glass. If we can't make reliable models, is there a reason not to make viable, attainable inroads to the greater risk of higher probability assumptions?
So there's some food for the creatures under the bridge. It may not be a sexy solution all wrapped up in the recent tech (and yet is is), but we're already finding we've hit a glass ceiling in micro size devices, driving us back toward analog computers to overcome the limitation. What's old is new again which points toward a continual circle of evolving adaptation, not so unlike DNA itself.
Happy Holidays!!
Post by: mikewonders on 26/12/2021 15:55:06
Just a query as to why the one bottle is so much brighter, given they are both curved surfaces, they are not pressured are they?
Yeah, saw that too... would have been nice if old boy had the light on before he dosed the bottle. Is it camera angle / perspective, directional angle of the light pointing to the left bottle more, or increased visible wave length reflection?
No matter, doesn't speak to the topic of water vapor so much as just one of a thousand similar videos out there. At least there was some thermal mass of water as a bias in the bottle which is one reason I chose it. Too bad the light wasn't positioned above the bottle like the sun and mask off the water portion so we could see the actual water temperature increase comparison between bottles over time if the duration lasted several hours, (or would it?).
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/12/2021 18:51:12
@ Alan... from [nofollow] we see a simple experiment to demonstrate CO2 greenhouse in a bottle.
Even more impressive when things like Andrews liver salts are an endothermic reaction, the water will be noticeably cooler.
Just a query as to why the one bottle is so much brighter, given they are both curved surfaces, they are not pressured are they?
Actually after a bit of research the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat. This is about as credible as Vladimir putin opening the valve on a Gazprom gas cylinder, coming back half an hour later and stating that methane cools the environment.
Post by: mikewonders on 26/12/2021 20:17:47
[...] the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat. This is about as credible as Vladimir putin opening the valve on a Gazprom gas cylinder, coming back half an hour later and stating that methane cools the environment.
Is that to say that Alka Seltzer in water doesn't produce CO2?, e.g. the underlying theme of the example? Why then did the thermometer read an increase in temperature versus the untreated control bottle (assuming all others equal)? Possibly the old boy is a conspirator pushing the envelope on global warming so he warmed the bottle off camera? Hmmmmm. Hard to tell right? Not. Next?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2021 20:21:23
Actually after a bit of research the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat.The decomposition of bicarbonate to give CO2 and sodium carbonate is endothermic.
The reaction of bicarbonate and an acid like citric is also endothermic.
Post by: mikewonders on 26/12/2021 20:32:59
Actually after a bit of research the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat.The decomposition of bicarbonate to give CO2 and sodium carbonate is endothermic.
The reaction of bicarbonate and an acid like citric is also endothermic.
Still doesn't negate the production of CO2 as an example likely having a greater potential to absorb heat per dose versus the extent of endothermic net effect to the water volume. You have to mix apples and oranges to equivalence and know the dose of bicarb per volume of water versus the CO2 volume and thermal kinetic input from the lamp.
The example of CO2 / warming is valid regardless, if we consider all things as presented. Walks like a duck or conspirator pushing disinformation? Couldn't be as simple as innocent truth could it? Back to topic, NEXT.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/12/2021 20:38:52
Nope it is to say it produces heat.[...] the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat. This is about as credible as Vladimir putin opening the valve on a Gazprom gas cylinder, coming back half an hour later and stating that methane cools the environment.
Is that to say that Alka Seltzer in water doesn't produce CO2?, e.g. the underlying theme of the example? Why then did the thermometer read an increase in temperature versus the untreated control bottle (assuming all others equal)? Possibly the old boy is a conspirator pushing the envelope on global warming so he warmed the bottle off camera? Hmmmmm. Hard to tell right? Not. Next?
https://education.jlab.org/qa/bakingsoda_01.html
Perhaps the old boy is a conspirator and rightly deserves to be deriled in the same way as someone who was misleading people's about methanes cooling quality on the atmosphere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2021 21:26:54
Nope it is to say it produces heat.
I put 200 ml of water in a thermos flask and measured the temperature- it was 14.1C
I added 50 g of bicarbonate of soda and the temperature fell to 10.4C
Then I (slowly) added 100 ml of vinegar (initially at 12.5 C). CO2 was produced.
The temperature of the mixture fell to 9.3C.
I'm not saying that's the best experimental design in history, but it's based in reality so it's better than PC's ideas.
It's not a hard experiment to duplicate.
Anyone else care to have a go?
For what it's worth, this is a classic example of a reaction driven by entropy-, rather than enthalpy- changes.
Conclusion:
if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.
Post by: Origin on 26/12/2021 21:51:48
Conclusion:I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade and I always defer to a Chemist.
if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.
Post by: mikewonders on 26/12/2021 21:54:39
Conclusion:
if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.
Agree in practice, absolutely and worth appreciating noting the additional value in the example shown. Unfortunately we're glossing over the fact that endo and exo thermic reactions tend to run to completion at the maximal entropy they can generate until one or more constituents are consumed. That consumption to balance in the example shown would have taken place near the time it took for the tablets to dissolve, perhaps 5 minutes. The end result of the experiment was marked one full hour later at which point the rather minimal contribution of reaction dynamics was well over and done with in a minimal difference at best 50 minutes prior give or take. Therefore, the greater balance of thermal increase most likely was the "Duck, going quack" as the lamp transferred heat to the CO2 in the upper part of the dosed bottle the entire time. Both bottles including the control example.
Here again is a simple example of one aspect being argued on the merits of some far less consequential fact which simply works to detract from the actual problem or the simplicity of but one minor example. As for the fuller physics, feel free to estimate the water volume and reaction states of the assumed bycarb volume and see if you can determine the total joules difference between the two samples given those estimates. If you can arrive at that gaseous column developing the Delta T shown an hour later without a lamp to heat the CO2 generated, I'll eat that Duck raw.
Alan provided an honest assessment of the direct and relative concerns for realistic consideration without diminishing the honest potential leading to uncertainty. The response was relative in seeking major contributors, not inconsequential or minute differences. Now we're picking apart some well meaning school teacher trying to reflect a general concept. Not helpful.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/12/2021 22:55:58
Conclusion:I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade and I always defer to a Chemist.
if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.
I can tell you the release of pressurised methane in the ground cools the environment. Its this sort of backroom science arrangement that makes me doubt their `proof', silence anyone who contravenes their dictat, persecute and harass frank and open discussion that threatens them, ignore any irrefutable points and makes me think they will tout anything to support their claim.
I have not been able to find a difinative answer to sodium bicarbonate hydration, some say hot others cool, but there is nothing that gives a total breakdown of energy exchanges, latent heats volumetric expansion energies etc.
Helpfully this evidence of cooling or heating with baking soda leads quite well into water vapour. If the water does become hotter it will heat the air more and evapourate slightly more under the lights, meaning the water with the head start could indeed be a victim of accelerated heating due to water vapour. But this is of course backroom chemistry, no idea of pressure etc as in the methane under pressure.
There are easier ways to introduce co2 , such as fizzy drinks or a co2 cannister from a laboratory or welding apperatus or fizzy pop maker or fire extinguisher. This still is not proof that co2 is inherantly divisive in climate change as it is just as easy to ask why the increace in co2 is not seen as proportional to temperature, after all 300ppm co2 and 300k - - - >400ppm 400k
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2021 23:52:19
I'm a monumentally smug *****er, but I defer to reality and that's why I did the experiment first.Conclusion:I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade and I always defer to a Chemist.
if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.
:-)
I can tell you the release of pressurised methane in the ground cools the environment.You can tell us that black is white; we might not believe you- especially if you don't taste the timescale over which you are making that assessment.
It's all a bit beside the point.
As far as I can tell, any complaints that Alan has laid against CO2 as a cause of warming can also be applied to water.
The only thing that CO2 really has going for it is that we know we have produced a lot of it. (While we have only produced a tiny amount of water vapour, and that fell out in the next shower of rain.)
Post by: Kryptid on 27/12/2021 14:35:33
Perhaps the old boy is a conspirator
::)
Quote
it is just as easy to ask why the increace in co2 is not seen as proportional to temperature, after all 300ppm co2 and 300k - - - >400ppm 400k
There isn't a simple, linear relationship, that's why.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/12/2021 16:46:38
But of course. #facepalm. That follows in a logical explanation in relation to the chosen augmented quotes. Turns out that you are quite right about sodium bicarbonate Kryptid, as I earlier posted without realisingPerhaps the old boy is a conspirator
::)Quoteit is just as easy to ask why the increace in co2 is not seen as proportional to temperature, after all 300ppm co2 and 300k - - - >400ppm 400k
There isn't a simple, linear relationship, that's why.
This is
proof that co2 is inherantly divisive in climate change
Post by: Kryptid on 27/12/2021 19:43:36
Turns out that you are quite right about sodium bicarbonate Kryptid
I never said anything about sodium bicarbonate.
Post by: mikewonders on 29/12/2021 16:36:46
I'm preparing some data sets which take a stab at averaging (to the degree possible) the global volume of water vapor generated by liquid and gaseous fossil fuel combustion from ~ 30 years of real data, backward trend extended for extrapolated average over 75 years history. This data set will also include water contribution from global deforestation, again by means of averaging from recently corrected satellite histories, re-calibrated to actual forest sampling of recent.
Efforts are maintained to err on the side of conservative with respect to increased oceanic accumulation. I might add, the data is sizing up so far to be to be not much greater than the estimates BC made early on in the thread. This does not suggest agreement on the overall climate effect of water vapor or oceanic increase, but does identify with the volume value estimates BC made to give credit where credit is due, before looking further at more total sources and accumulations.
The remaining values missing will move in yet another direction to estimate global aquifer depletion (one of the most difficult to assess). This is a change in location of gross water stores along side of deforestation and decimation of top soil quality and overall soil retention owing to depletion of humus and hydraulic transmission including plugged river basins from silt accumulation reducing aquifer rate of return with increased oceanic net contribution over time.
Last, some data will be included looking at historical precipitation as well as historical atmospheric water vapor (humidity) given two forms of same. If total water vapor cycle incidence has increased, it would make sense we should (and do) see these values incrementing to additional warming trends as well. Again not fully indicative of driving or driven cause / effect but improved perspective.
Last, some effort to cypher if there is yet a reliable coefficient that can demonstrate the positive forced amplification feedback owing to increasing water vapor (volume and density per volume per thermal gradient), relative to the effect when combined with CO2 thermal greenhouse dynamic.
Rather than trying to amass all that in the thread, I'll hope to highlight the findings and include a PDF with the details of analysis. There is of course no way to say with certainty the data provides a final determination, but more so giving value to overall perspective and more detailed consideration and verification of the data used. Hopefully that helps confine assumptions toward a greater degree of probability which I hope to compare with existing models attempting similar and current evaluations, the few which do contain water vapor dynamics.
I will give this much of a hint... The more recent data being offered in far more accurate satellite data and greater span of types of relative data is beginning to form a notion among NASA and other Climate analyst groups pointing to changes in water vapor. The measurements are being assessed to suggest as much as DOUBLE the warming dynamic overall, as increased contributions of water vapor itself, but especially that of the net effects it has on CO2, versus CO2 alone.
Don't shoot the messenger. I will include the data and detail as it was developed. Does water vapor solve climate warming? Not by itself, but it may help explain why such a slight change in CO2 could be having a much greater overall impact than it would appear alone under the microscope, so to speak. In short there is growing evidence water vapor causes and changes ARE a contributing driver of Climate change. If that turns out to be even close to doubling the net effect, the concerns of water vapor cause / effect should be considered as important and not easily dismissed out of hand.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2021 16:58:19
As far as I can tell, any complaints that Alan has laid against CO2 as a cause of warmingI have no complaint. I just await an explanation of historic data based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature. All that is required is an answer to
1. Why the temperature graph always preceded the CO2 graph
2. Why temperature has risen sharply then decreased slowly with a 100,000 year cycle
3. What determines the very consistent maximum and minimum
4. Even if we ignore 1, where did the CO2 suddenly come from and where did it go to? (recognising that the volcanic ash data is genrally not in phase with it)
Post by: mikewonders on 29/12/2021 23:04:03
As far as I can tell, any complaints that Alan has laid against CO2 as a cause of warmingI have no complaint. I just await an explanation of historic data based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature. All that is required is an answer to
1. Why the temperature graph always preceded the CO2 graph
2. Why temperature has risen sharply then decreased slowly with a 100,000 year cycle
3. What determines the very consistent maximum and minimum
4. Even if we ignore 1, where did the CO2 suddenly come from and where did it go to? (recognizing that the volcanic ash data is generally not in phase with it)
I think I can use the same data / method for the water vapor portion to calculate the CO2 fraction as well, likely it will be by weight fraction. As a total of atmospheric I should be able to get PPM. I'll need to look up historical coal combustion as a source, but that likely will be more actual data over 75 years.
CO2 comes from many sources of anthropomorphic activity, beyond fossil fuel combustion. Production of meat to feed 7 Billion versus 3 Billion also has an impact of oxygen / CO2 transpiration breathing and methane production from digestion, especially for ruminant grazers. The amount of concrete being used around the world is also one of the largest contributors which recently has begun to use rubber tires as a fuel source. Concrete and drywall both are heavy hitters, which then again Iron / metals processing is as well. Let's not leave out Asia considering the growing increases in coal firing. Lesser known is the continued emissions of CFC's which are being measured in blooms over specific regions known to be active in reaction injection molding and unregulated refrigerant applications.
Deforestation also leads to CO2 release emissions once the humus in top soils becomes liberated and plant material left behind goes into dehydration while in decay. This value alone is a huge value of CO2. And then secondary effects of natural releases related to warming itself like permafrost, plays a role at least as methane.
What does methane decompose into?
If it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane will last 90-120 years before it is eventually destroyed in the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. We produce more anthropomorphic methane today than ever before and the greater majority of it is not burnt to completion, so both combustion CO2 and water vapor result plus raw, un-burnt methane; (the "cleaner" fuel, my A**)
As for the consistency of upper and lower limits, this could be evidence of the mechanism of positive feedback forced amplification between water vapor (and related conditions) in some balance of exchange with CO2. Most exponential or parabolic results of amplification reach a maximum saturation point, not unlike additive standing waves increase efficiency in a similar manner but then become self limiting. If self limiting PPM is attainable, that WOULD NOT mean thermal runaway as a byproduct would reach equilibrium at the same time because, as you noted Alan, CO2 FOLLOWS warming, it does not lead, which is how I ended up looking at water vapor a couple years ago. That doesn't eliminate CO2 causation, only that it lies among yet another relationship to understand perspective / proportion, cause / effect resulting in the timing of the chicken or the egg.
Many of these processes also have offsetting secondary responses so it's not fair to say they're all positive contributions to increased warming but act as a limiting factor. I'm guessing but I would say population increase, production rates, secondary amplification all contribute to the unique Rate of Change we're seeing and containment of the domain as well.
I'm hoping some here might speak to that domain limitation if and once we can find something of a better coefficient that describes the effects of thermal action of water vapor with CO2 and gradient thermal functions related.
I would consider on #2 of your questions... depends on the cause and source of heating relative to the volume of the thermal masses undergoing warming versus any mechanism that would then reduce heat, i.e heating can occur rapidly in air / land, more slowly in oceans, but then radiation / reflection to remove and dispense the heat over time would be expected to take much longer would it not? Even the wavelength of the primary heating source versus converted IR radiation can effect this relationship.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2021 23:40:34
Post by: mikewonders on 30/12/2021 00:30:59
Mike: by "historic" I mean prehistoric, taking for example the last 400,000 years' data revealed by the Vostok ice cores.
I don't see how one can hope to correlate the massive differences and unknown factors in that vastly different environment. Even if we could attain fuller data, the conditions are nothing similar to our world today. Land masses, tectonic forces, foliage density, oxygen levels, atmospheric vapor conditions, humidity, density, oceanic feedback, methane blooms, on and on... I don't see how or why that would impose any relevance in how the more recently known factors affect the current condition or risks.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2021 00:45:19
We know that the planet was warmer 500 years ago than it is now, so we can either dismiss anthro-CO2 as a cause, or write off recent measurements as "noise" on a much more powerful wave driven by something else. It would be illogical to do neither.
Post by: mikewonders on 30/12/2021 02:47:52
The relevance is that the behavior of temperature and CO2 over the last 20,000 years was pretty much the same as in previous rapid-rise phases of the 100,000 year cycles.
Mmmmm, it seems to me looking at the scales of CO2 / temperature graphs on Earth.org or others, that while the levels may suggest similarity, the chronological index scale appears to change in the different sections. i.e. the Rate of Change is much slower in the past but for the time scale making it appear more similar. The point being made is that there has NEVER been a time in any length of history or prehistorical record where the changes in both temperature and CO2 have risen at this rate of change, indicating a much more potent and relative immediate force multiplier (possibly water vapor) AND rate of CO2 production, e.g. man made generation / causes of CO2 emission / climate forcing.
Quote
so it makes sense to ask what has been going on, and why the cycles have been so similar despite what you assert to be fairly chaotic surface conditions.. This might just give us an inkling of what will happen if and when we reduce anthropogenic CO2 production.Personally, I don't see them being similar due to the ROC noted above. I see the current changes as fully anomalous relative to all other historical records, again a matter of context leading to cause and effect. We always want apples / apples or a means to get to that relevance. I don't see a way to get to that relevance in this case.
Quote
The temperature chart on Earth.org suggests the planet was NOT warmer 500 years ago. In fact, unless I'm mis-reading or making a mistake in reading their temperature history, the planet has not seen these temperatures for more than 100,000 years during the mid pleistocene period.
We know that the planet was warmer 500 years ago than it is now, so we can either dismiss anthro-CO2 as a cause, or write off recent measurements as "noise" on a much more powerful wave driven by something else. It would be illogical to do neither.
Either way, we cannot or are not recreating the context, cause or effect of the past and any action we take will be equally or more anomalous by comparison to historical events.
I'm trying to understand how you're drawing the conclusions that the premise of 3 or 4 questions can somehow prove or disprove past cause/effect relevance to current and future cause / effect or remedial efforts.
I might be thick headed and stuck inside the perspective I'm holding and just unable to make the connection you're suggesting but to my way of thinking context and rates of change are incredibly important to understand such a diverse dynamic. I don't see a "simple" path to estimate results of future change without those apples to apples.
The one thing I see in common is the concern that altering CO2 alone may not have sufficient effect, whereas water vapor emission mitigation and redistributing water back to ecologically restored locations and conditions over time could have a far more effective outcome in combination with CO2 and Methane mitigation. To that extent I wish I could see how you draw your inference in the questions to help support or defer that, but I can't get the apples to work. :(
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2021 11:24:42
The point being made is that there has NEVER been a time in any length of history or prehistorical record where the changes in both temperature and CO2 have risen at this rate of changeBack in the days of green cathode ray oscilloscopes we used to call the irreducible small amplitude noise "grass" - very high frequency, very short duration fluctuations of no real consequence to the overall system.
Current weather reporting is done on a 20 minute cycle, and believable estimates of world climate only date from about 1970 with the advent of satellite monitoring, but the prehistoric record is sampled at something like 1000 year intervals, over which any grass looks more like green paint. My inclination is therefore to deduce the underlying mechanism from the "naturally smoothed" data rather than "adjusted" recent estimates. If that showed clearly that CO2 was the driving and not the driven parameter, there might be some hope of preventing a humanitarian disaster by closing Indian and Chinese manufacturing industry and not using concrete, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Which is why we need a Plan B.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/12/2021 11:29:26
but the prehistoric record is sampled at something like 1000 year intervals,No, it's annual snow layers.
Or, if you prefer, there's no data with a better finesse than 1000 years. In which case there's no evidence that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2021 11:30:44
The temperature chart on Earth.org suggests the planet was NOT warmer 500 years ago.The discovery of 500-year-old plants in the basin of a retreating Canadian glacier suggests that the glacier wasn't there 500 years ago. The Medieval Warm Period is well documented in European history, as is the sudden appearance of indoor fireplaces and chimneys in the 13th century.
I don't know of any agreed international temperature scale or measurements of the temperature of the Pacific Ocean dating back to 1700. Where did earth.org get its data from?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2021 11:32:46
No, it's annual snow layers.I stand corrected. I don't have access to the raw data and I can't interpolate the published graphs to better than 1000 years. Would be grateful for a reference to the good stuff.
Or, if you prefer, there's no data with a better finesse than 1000 years. In which case there's no evidence that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2021 11:34:17
I often hear from those who question the importance of climate change that reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere will have little effect, since water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. If so, why bother so much about CO2 and other greenhouse gases?Because we can.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/12/2021 13:15:44
don't have access to the raw dataAnd yet you keep arguing against the view of those who do.
Post by: mikewonders on 30/12/2021 13:42:38
I often hear from those who question the importance of climate change that reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere will have little effect, since water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. If so, why bother so much about CO2 and other greenhouse gases?Mostly its "believed" because the two work in lock-step forced amplification of reinforcing feedback effects across multiple domains. They're both contributors in their own right, but when combined the effects of trending increases in atmospheric water vapor / density have enhanced the effects of increasing thermal emissions from growing CO2 by as much as double.
Recent developments by NASA and partners in newly applied satellite analysis are giving a much higher level of accuracy and certainty given alternate / multiple measurement methods to evaluate this very complex concern. Not only is there complexity in offsetting effects and gradients of both temperature and density per elevation, but the nature of greenhouse is a "reverberating" effect of light/heat wave reflection, reflecting residual reflection, reflecting residual reflection, and so on.
There also remains a portion of increased ocean volume increase which is not yet fully accounted for. The increase in ocean volume "can" have a driving effect on weather and energy distribution as an increased heat sink storing long term, slow acting thermal storage. Admittedly as ocean volume expands due to warming it also becomes less dense, so even this is a difficult effect to fully quantify or qualify relative to related effects like evaporation, erosion, etc. Much of this is part of what we have seen as relatively stable cycles between systems yet it seems among all of it, there is rapid rate of change in weather and temperature suggesting probability of more serious outcomes.
Then again are we over-stating a natural phenomena that may have occurred without human cause? The rate of change would suggest not, but that's "belief" versus fact until it can be proven in one or more ways, hopefully to err on the side of caution I suppose.
At least it's finally being looked at more fully and seriously. I can't say this is a qualified answer but as best I can tell, it points toward greater awareness that helps guide more critical discovery and analysis.
As one looks back across this thread it looks a bit crazy from a distance, but in reality each comment offered by each respondent holds a degree of merit in one way or another, a testament to how complex the question of water vapor as a driver of warming really is. The more we learn the more we might understand if there is a justifiable seriousness and if so, is it possible to reverse the effects timely to avoid further risk.
Post by: mikewonders on 30/12/2021 14:14:11
Not sure about source data on ice cores. I would guess that may mean searching out closer to the ice core analysis teams that actually collated the sampled data. It's pretty specialized and narrow focused due to the extremes of exposure to gather samples. It looked like there was also additional correlation from other sources in the longer prehistoric estimates besides just ice core alone. I didn't do any background on Earth.org, but only to try to understand your suggestions and visualize context on the prehistoric scale.No, it's annual snow layers.I stand corrected. I don't have access to the raw data and I can't interpolate the published graphs to better than 1000 years. Would be grateful for a reference to the good stuff.
Or, if you prefer, there's no data with a better finesse than 1000 years. In which case there's no evidence that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.
Post by: mikewonders on 30/12/2021 14:20:08
but the prehistoric record is sampled at something like 1000 year intervals,No, it's annual snow layers.
Or, if you prefer, there's no data with a better finesse than 1000 years. In which case there's no evidence that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.
Agree, it's likely ice cores and even annual snow layers they include won't afford granularity that would permit a means to determine leading / lagging effect. I could be wrong about that, but it would seem that way. They might "infer" it could but probability of confirmation would remain uncertain. It also would not confirm if cause / effect back then is relevant to cause / effect today by the same metrics which again hints at chronological context.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2021 14:31:54
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/12/2021 18:15:04
These are quite good graphs,
The temperature chart on Earth.org suggests the planet was NOT warmer 500 years ago. In fact, unless I'm mis-reading or making a mistake in reading their temperature history, the planet has not seen these temperatures for more than 100,000 years during the mid pleistocene period.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This one shows the variance in temperature and the refinement in readings, the graph becoming sparcer as you go further back in time. Many variances are there at the present era but 400,000 years back it is very sparce.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This is the eera of the last 10, 000 years shown on the previous graph as the smudge at the top of the peak on the right. Taken in context the temperature has been stable for 10,000 years. Unfortunately we are about to fall of a cliff edge.
I often wonder whether it is temperature or man's scientific methods that is the difference between readings. The tri state tornado of 1925 was thought
To be an exaggeration as nothing happened like it for almost 100 years, yet in the midst of global warming it has only just been replicated in a some what similar fashion in December. More hurricanes are recorded now than ever before, some scientific fields that may be judged as better detection.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/12/2021 21:08:55
As the historic record clearly shows a lag, then any assertion that CO2 is the principal present-day driver demands an explanation of what has changed, and when. The sudden temperature rise that began about 20,000 years ago looks no different from those that preceded it every 100,000 years, so whatever new physics is required must have occurred within recorded history.And again. We are talking about the very sudden rise that has happened in the last 200 years.
Post by: mikewonders on 31/12/2021 16:40:44
As the historic record clearly shows a lag, then any assertion that CO2 is the principal present-day driver demands an explanation of what has changed, and when. The sudden temperature rise that began about 20,000 years ago looks no different from those that preceded it every 100,000 years, so whatever new physics is required must have occurred within recorded history.And again. We are talking about the very sudden rise that has happened in the last 200 years.
Agree... Part of the problem appears to be the variations of graphical depictions and how charts index their time line between prehistoric glacial periods versus current time line in the same tracing. Again, raw data would be most helpful but that search is yet another rabbit hole.
I've looked at several ice core raw data resources. So far its hit-n-miss on finding raw data with a lot of 404 errors where there should be a data resource. Then comes the effort to identify which data sets are relevant and if they contain temperature, CO2 and other values of measured input.
Unable to qualify the data or publications for bias, I've trusted NOAA in this instance to summarize some of what Alan is asking, which others have commented to as well. Glacial and Inter-glacial cycles have a ~100K year periodicity with a max and min structural consistency. Not wanting to plug the thread with a ton of redundant quotes, the bottom line suggests a combination of ice-albedo dynamics in sync with solar radiation and earth orbit long term cycles. This would make sense given an envelope of total entropy in cyclic change we would see major consistent peaks and valleys intermixed with other lesser contributing peaks and valleys bound in synchronous drivers. The limiting factors of both range and frequency periodicity would be a net effect of change inside that total envelope and should be cyclic owing to total reaction potentials in flux, running to limit and reverberating back.
Oceanic CO2 cycles mixed into the major peaks and valleys integrates how natural ice-sheet albedos work in lock-step as part of "natural" CO2 cycles having consistent range amplitude and frequency periodicity. This is likely how science first ended up considering CO2 as a climate driver, but for the fact it is more likely a secondary component in nature (driven), a more primary component man made (driver), last two centuries.
CO2 may be driven in both instances but behaves also as a driver in the positive feedback portion of increasing atmospheric water vapor / density, where NASA is starting to confirm values indicating this potential of water vapor to play a role in warming as much as double the causal effect over and above natural albedos. CO2 and water liquid and vapor may actually share or trade motivating influence depending on phase, location and conditions.
I wish the forum would preview inline image inserts during edit. I'm trusting the image insert function to show the long term cyclic values on prehistoric timeline, borrowed from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi_sfKE9I31AhVPLs0KHTRiDvkQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fabrupt-climate-change%2FGlacial-Interglacial%2520Cycles&usg=AOvVaw3l5blUHykjkOxeZ9zbVlrH (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi_sfKE9I31AhVPLs0KHTRiDvkQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fabrupt-climate-change%2FGlacial-Interglacial%2520Cycles&usg=AOvVaw3l5blUHykjkOxeZ9zbVlrH)...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I would encourage anyone unfamiliar with these cyclic events to check out the link. Maybe that PDF from NOAA helps answer some of Alan's questions about repeating cycles, max and min ranges repeating, etc. It helped me understand where Alan was coming from and also explains the fast rise time versus more gradual down slope mechanics.
Next, the question of visual integrity of graphing scales ... Scaled to long term cycles with more recent ice core data being aged, the more immediate short term consequence of heating and CO2 frequently is hidden inside that larger range. The chart below, (borrowed from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide) gives a much more prudent transition of prehistoric with fairly current indication of CO2, spiking WELL ABOVE prehistorical values, suggesting an on going extremely anomalous CO2 condition in recent perspective, e.g. BC reiterating 200 year window.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I think most here understand the current CO2 values have greatly exceeded past historical which is why there is a concern and a tendency to lean on CO2 being causal. This chart in particular gives a more striking view of the current value at 412 PPM in perspective of prehistorical normal cycles and prior long term historical high of 300 PPM.
From here, I refer next to NASA's recent past and current evaluations starting to favor toward water vapor. There is some chronological benefit to seeing how NASA has published over time and compensated with increased instrumentation and methods...
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WaterVapor/water_vapor.php (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WaterVapor/water_vapor.php)
Among those links NASA is starting to lean toward water vapor and seems for the most part not overly laden with bias to the extent we can know it.
Lacking fuller access to raw data for ice core or satellite data, I continue to lean toward the greater weight of influences of data shown, suggesting higher probability of anthropogenic cause at the heart of the more recent and highly anomalous portion of the CO2 / thermal increase above and beyond the normal ice flow prehistorical records. Given data showing that atmospheric water volume and density have been on the rise including the increased dimension of the troposphere due to warming, we know more water by volume is stored in increased temperature as well during this period. This matters on any percentage due to amplification and the fact that water vapor itself is the greater greenhouse reflection even before it's effects on CO2 reflection.
The second link in particular makes a nice stab at estimating where global water resides and may give a sense of how anthropogenic behavior has altered distribution / redistribution of water from land based saturation / deep storage to greater oceanic accumulation. Despite vapor condensation translation being what appears to be less than 3% volumetric change in ocean levels over the last century, ANY increase in heat sink long term stability via increased ocean mass is not desirable in the given thermal context. Neither is it desirable to have the highest concentration of residential society concentrated near shorelines being flooded to force inland migration over the next 50 years or more.
Redistribution of water volumes from land based to oceanic accumulation could push (add to) the liquid net 3% vapor translation to a much higher total water redistribution as yet another larger contribution to oceanic volume. i.e. further heat sink accumulation altering the dynamics of cyclic shift and albedo repeatability. Population and deforestation / desertification being lesser known metrics compared with prehistoric uncertainty, particulate emissions, evaporation rates, cloud seeding, weather shifts and redistribution of precipitation affecting polar versus equatorial balance and distribution of both water volume and overall weather energy kinetics or potentials.
As a desire to err on the side of caution, there is a risk if we try to grossly influence away from fossil fuels lacking a more global and sensible approach to include the ramifications of depleting oil and gas reserves. The economics tied to fossil fuel and energy production demand that any transition needs to include and protect those huge corporate interests. This may reinforce the ability to redesign combustion in renewables to sustain the high demand for combustion related reliability next to intermittent solar / wind and others. Recent estimates suggest a 50 year capacity remains for crude and natural gas which is greatly in question, but for certain increases in cost dramatically to seek fuller oil reserve tapping due to constraints of depth and hydraulic elevation of crude by water / polymer infusion. There is a theory that deeper crude production may be a real-time perpetual source. While this may have some truth to it, the nature of those deeper values is showing to be far more toxic in undesirable fractions and again still more costly and ecologically risky to extract. If we can afford to do that, can't energy consortia in stead help re-tool away from fossil at a far more cost effective long term renewable method? This would extend the life time of fossil values for other less damaging uses where petrochemical applications are still very much necessary.
If past behavior is any indication of future outcome, there is no denying that recycling is a profound failure simply on oceanic plastics and single use polymer applications alone. We were sold a bill of goods and the balance continues in land fill accumulations, methane releases and unfettered oceanic accumulation impacting the most important food source the ocean provides us. There was a time before man stepped foot on the moon, that our orbital space was pristine. If we consider the volume of space junk being tracked today in low earth orbit, it should remind us one day it may not be possible to escape low earth due to space debris in any given path of exit. We knew this before we caused this and yet we continue to add to the problem. How well are we likely to succeed then in colonizing mars long term if we've not learned to protect our own domain from our own causes first?
We do also risk creating a better world for no good reason if the future were to judge us in this light. Then again should we question the values of being good stewards to the world we've grown up in being worth that risk of wasted effort if doing so included to sustain economic balance? That needs to include the considerations of population increase and how hard it is to educate on a global scale inside an efficient time frame relative to impending risk. Asking parents to create less children or even to permit shorter life spans to encroach is a difficult imposition we're seeing in such ventures as gain of function in the gamble of virus manufacturing.
Consensus might not be fact, but the days of the original flat earth fears have hopefully given way to a more intelligent scientific means to measure consensus against probability to a greater value in the absence of an ability to assemble fully supported facts and the intricacies of a concern this complex. I'm not sure there is a more practical alternative to consensus in such complexity in a shorter time frame as time moves forward.
Once again, having fostered the question here originally... Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?
I'm not convinced we've ruled out the possibility that water vapor doesn't have a principle role among others making it at least one of the drivers if not even a leading driver forcing the effects of CO2 to be far more accelerated. There have been some very interesting and valuable inputs here from others to that question both for and against giving value to debate. Do we really find that CO2 alone (and the means to mitigate its production) are sufficient in common sense to be all the eggs in one basket we need or want to rely on?
I still have not completed the PDF on fossil consumption projections, but the more I've looked at other's data the more I think that may be an exercise in futility given increased findings and data becoming more supportive beyond the limited means of a few in a forum. Clearly the scientific community is not done with this question yet, which can't hurt.
I at least wanted to bring some fuller references of indicators to consider here as the thread calmed down in debate and competing offers.
Unfortunately we lost a family pet this morning after several days of treating an age related cause ending our seven years with a pet pigeon we rescued that long ago, putting a damper on new years for the family. He was a friend to our parrot and family we all grew quite fond of. I likely will not be participating here over the remainder of the holiday, but to say thank you to each for adding consideration to the question.
Best wishes for a new year to each.
Post by: walnutclose on 31/12/2021 19:18:12
That's a very pretty absorption spectrum of a sample of CO2, and there's no disputing that it looks like it should. But what we need is the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere, i.e. showing how much of the surface black body radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere per wavelength. All the plots I have seen indicate that damn near 100% of 10 - 20 micron photons are absorbed by a 60 km air column containing 300 ppm of CO2, i.e. the bands are saturated and have been for at least 100 years Now what happens to total absorption if you add stuff to a mixture that is already saturated at that wavelength? Not a lot, IIRC.
Any analysis that tries to predict the the impact of rising CO2 solely by looking at the radiation spectrum of the earth's surface and how it is or isn't absorbed by the atmosphere, is doomed to failure. The question isn't how much heat is radiated by the surface through the atmosphere to space, but how much heat is radiated into space by the combined surface and atmosphere.
So, it is indeed true that CO2 absorption of surface radiation is saturated low in the earth's atmosphere. The radiation is absorbed, and becomes heat. That heat is then re-emitted by the atmosphere, but more importantly, it is mixed in the atmosphere by convection. The atmosphere itself is a giant column of mixed gases, and exhibits a pressure gradient from highest at the surface to essentially zero at the very top of the column. As a result the CO2 density in molecules per unit volume also exhibits a gradient from highest at the surface, to zero when you reach space. It is this density that radiation in the direction of space "sees" to determine what fraction is absorbed. So that absorption is essentially 100% at the earth's surface, but also declines to zero at the top the atmosphere. There is therefore an altitude at which on average a photon at a CO2 absorbed frequency does escape, and below which, on average, it is re-absorbed and returned to the atmospheric heat budget. The greater the fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2, the higher that altitude will be.
And this last is the key. Because in addition to the pressure gradiant, the atmosphere exhibits a temperature gradiant, from warmest at the surface, to very cold at the top of the atmosphere. Emission of infrared radiation by the gas molecules in the atmosphere is determined by temperature - the lower the temperature, the less emission at the CO2 wavelengths. So, as CO2 concentration goes up, the "net emission altitude" raises, and the actual emission into space of IR radiation at the CO2 absorption wavelengths decreases. And, that warms the atmosphere. A warming atmosphere carries away less heat from the surface, and voila, you've got "global warming."
If this doesn't sound like the "greenhouse effect" as you think you understand it, it's because it's not. Greenhouse effect is an extremely poor description or analogy of the actual heat dynamics of the combined surface and atmosphere. It just happens to be one that sticks with non-scientists, so we're collectively stuck with it.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2021 20:01:25
We are talking about the very sudden rise that has happened in the last 200 years.It would be interesting to see the data for the mean surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean and Antarctica in 1820.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2021 20:04:50
We do also risk creating a better world for no good reasonCreating a better world is reason enough. Preventing it getting worse is even more important.
Problems only arise when you strive to do so by sacrificing irrelevant sacred cows (which would have died anyway), nothing happens, and you have no Plan B.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 31/12/2021 20:32:14
I'm sure they thought the same of Thalidomide, cfcs, DDT et Al. Fixation on co2 does risk the possibility of becoming blinkered to impending doom. The CO2 levels are possibly incorrect, co2 could vent from ice due to crushing and fracturing for example. The world is far more resilliant than human culture, a nice slow increace is far more preferable than being dropped like a stone.
We do also risk creating a better world for no good reason
Let's face it, Britain is soon to be a popsicle, a bit of extra heat should be helpful.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/12/2021 21:06:48
The CO2 levels are possibly incorrect,Srsly?
Post by: mikewonders on 01/01/2022 12:52:20
So, it is indeed true that CO2 absorption of surface radiation is saturated low in the earth's atmosphere. The radiation is absorbed, and becomes heat. That heat is then re-emitted by the atmosphere, but more importantly, it is mixed in the atmosphere by convection.
Welcome to the discussion. Your description of the gradient dynamics is helpful toward understanding the relative aspects of proximity / pressure / temperature and related radiation zones, thank you.
Given the topic focus being about water vapor increase and it's feedback relationship to warming, can you provide any similar insight on how "additional" water vapor from combustion and atmospheric thermal expansion might play a role in base thermal increase from additional water vapor itself and again the forcing feedback effect / increase that might have on the currently increasing CO2 values?
This topic is a break off of the original question I first posed in seeking to learn if CO2 mitigation alone will have a desired affect to slow warming or if the additional effects of increased water vapor might also be a concern for mitigation strategies, owed to vapor production from combustion processes primarily.
None of the respondents here so far, myself included, have found a proven means of evaluating if a coefficient of effect can be understood sufficiently to estimate, model or build a representative test to help understand it.
My sense is that assuming water vapor is a static relation in the water cycle changes to the degree with which the current CO2 and warming events are anomalous, relative to prior 300 PPM peaks, now upwards of 420 PPM as new historical highs.
Another way to look at might be to ask if we mitigated all water vapor emissions from combustion tomorrow, would this simply increase surface evaporation on par with reduced relative humidity or moisture density in the atmosphere? Despite water vapor increased impact, can it be changed and reduced as part of CO2 mitigation, assuming temperature rise were effectively limited by CO2 mitigation alone or otherwise.
Thanks again for your input and whatever you might add.
Post by: walnutclose on 01/01/2022 14:11:44
Given the topic focus being about water vapor increase and it's feedback relationship to warming, can you provide any similar insight on how "additional" water vapor from combustion and atmospheric thermal expansion might play a role in base thermal increase from additional water vapor itself and again the forcing feedback effect / increase that might have on the currently increasing CO2 values?
Water is a challenging topic.
First, though, it's important that the CO2 effect is largely independent of the H2O effect. That is, increasing CO2 concentrations results in increased retention of radiation as heat in the CO2 absorption bands, and atmosphere heating relative to historical values, regardless of whether the atmospheric water cycle changes as a result. (However, some of the important effects of atmospheric warming wouldn't occur, if the water cycle didn't change. Atmospheric water is an enormously important driver of weather.)
Water is a challenge for a couple of reasons. Fundamental to all is the fact that at atmospheric temperatures and pressures water persists in the atmosphere in three separate phases (ice, liquid water, and water vapor), and moves dynamically between these phases all the time. This results in continuous movement of water in different phases into and out of various atmospheric layers and regions on multiple time scales - water evaporates into the atmosphere, condenses as clouds, freezes as airborne ice crystals, and back and forth, and precipitates out of the atmosphere as rain and snow. All of this happens differently at different temperatures and pressures and water vapor concentrations, and differently over water than over land. Note too that the phase transitions are hugely important thermal events, releasing or absorbing the latent heat of vaporization and fusion, and transporting heat energy across the surface/atmosphere boundary promiscuously. This further complicates understanding the impact of water on warming.
Because water in the solid and liquid phases have entirely different effects on radiation dynamics than water in the gaseous phase this constantly shifting picture of water vapor, water clouds, and ice clouds has profound effects on the radiative balance. Roughly, clouds reflect insolation back into space before it is absorbed and transformed into heat energy, whereas water vapor "traps" heat in the atmosphere through a mechanism like that described for CO2 (but even this is an approximation - different clouds behave quite differently). But because the relative proportion of vapor and clouds changes all the time, calculating how that impacts the overall radiative balance is very difficult, and one of the biggest challenges in climate modeling.
So, short, answer, there is no simple answer. You have to model the entire surface-atmosphere system, including to a painful degree the differential effects on the water cycle at different altitudes, and over different surface topographies, and integrate the whole, to get an answer. The answer may not be the same at 1oC warming as it will be at 2oC, or 3 or 4. We can say with certainty though that the overall effect of the changes in the water cycle do not cancel CO2 forcing, because we can observe that the atmosphere and oceans are warming significantly due to that forcing. We can predict, but only with increasingly large error bars as the warming gets greater, what happens in the atmospheric water cycle through global modeling, but there is no "coefficient of effect." Water is just too complicated.
Post by: mikewonders on 01/01/2022 16:18:28
So, short, answer, there is no simple answer. You have to model the entire surface-atmosphere system, including to a painful degree the differential effects on the water cycle at different altitudes, and over different surface topographies, and integrate the whole, to get an answer.
Thank you Walnut,
That makes sense with many varied responses the forum topic here has evolved like a moving target. It also makes sense with how it appears NASA has turned greater attention in this direction to re-tool additional sensors to more recent satellite designs, balloon data and ground based evaluations in increase diversified data collection. For those who feel CO2 is a driver whether primary, secondary or some mix thereof, the concerns of water vapor don't negate CO2's role or the potential value of mitigation.
It may make sense to consider water vapor emissions solely on the basis that there is an awareness of even just lesser fractions from human impact, in the light of the rate of change we're seeing in warming trends. That theory approaches the consideration of reversing some measure of human impact back toward lowering total impact given the known increases and the degree which water vapor in increased volume, dimension and density play a role as a warming influence alone. However, if there is also an additive cooling property in a critical part of its contribution, the uncertainty of effect in mitigation can hold further risks itself, without understanding the net effect.
My personal concern is actually less focused on the dynamics of mitigation as it is on the enormous economic impact risking damage to the current energy sector and fossil fuel industries as governance seeks to shut down fossil fuel. The impact of that initiative has fall out in many ares not being considered with the same urgency aside from if the targets of mitigation are even attainable in the time frame considered. This suggests to me the replacement of energy source provisions and real-time on demand power, need to enable the energy and fossil industries to be transitional benefactors to sustain those balances.
Added to this is the risk that wind and solar are not truly sustainable solutions due to resource depletion over time and additional waste streams they ultimately account for in historically failed recycling initiatives. The efficiencies in solar still remain relatively low as well on cost / longevity / returns. The down sides of wind in the huge turbines and blade costs and maintenance is also significant. There seems to be a vacuum on this concern in the current agendas, due to other underlying financial windfalls tied to these initiatives.
One cannot deny the possibility that the total entropy dynamics of warming effect which has previously limited prehistoric peaks and valleys of extremes won't have an overriding potential in corrective compensation. The current Rate Of Change would speak against this along with the concerns of increased slew rate delays during compensation after peak.
Water in any phase is a huge component. We've only recently begun to understand the increased values of super-saturation in the stratosphere threatening a recently discovered quantum side effect among increased distribution to polar regions having a destructive affinity on Ozone at that altitude.
It would seem for now, the topical question asked here really cannot be answered reliably unless and until the data required can be gathered and organized sufficiently to suggest a more reliable assessment.
Post by: mikewonders on 03/01/2022 13:34:11
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024917 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024917)
I can't say the source of the data is peer reviewed however some of the data in reference collected I'm sure has been.
The article in its summary, further admits the myriad of data and trends remain too complex to draw a reliable conclusion from but does suggest further analysis which may help.
At present, the respective contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcings to PWV changes remains unclear.
Future studies could be carried out on weather regimes and joint probability distribution of PWV and surface temperature to understand processes better.
Still, the various summations the article offers are impressive.
Post by: mikewonders on 04/01/2022 14:31:36
With the advent of refined internet connectivity, there has been a steady trend of those more capable in technology, bending the nature of instant connectivity, something on the order of human perception engineering and AI influences which has driven media organizations to seek revenue by inflaming debate in some very divisive ways. Climate and "Green New Deals" are no exception. I use the term divisive loosely only due to how the reorganization of factual information can be slanted in order to "herd" public perception in a way to redirect both influence and financial gain toward select agendas. There was a time when media held dedicated value to reporting facts backed by demonstrated and peer reviewed evidence having become ever-more diluted to distorting partial facts to "stir the pot" for ratings, given the potential of global impact in real time connectivity injecting influence very quickly. At a point where the peer review groups also come under influential bias, the notion of "empirical" itself suffers.
Controversy over climate is no exception and may be one of the best and earliest examples of a global human phenomena. Literally speaking, many climatologists, scientists, engineers and physicists have been displaced for speaking out in one direction or another. The trend appears to have shifted from academic assembly of empirical fact from consulting specialists to reassignment under government advocacy. This trend tends to disarm science and silence fuller factual findings toward silencing those who divert from governance agenda. As cancel culture creeps in both the validity of data and the sanctity of academic excellence come under strain of intentional re-direction away from the empirical.
This later trend may be more threatening in the long run than climate change itself forming a nasty circular effect of public dissolution with growing momentum and skepticism.
Ant colonies and Bee hives are a great example of nature at work when total cooperation absent political ambition leads to the colony successfully altering the design of their domain, to compensate climate conditions. By altering the activity and / or geometry and hence air flow through their structure, they affect the internal environment to remain stable at the optimal conditions for survival, despite external factors to the extent practical.
Most climatologists (before consensus became more rigid) warned that "Climate Change" does not necessarily result in "Catastrophic Global Warming". In other words water vapor being twice the greenhouse impact than CO2, may provide a stabilizing bias and damping effect on the extent with which CO2 might cause as a long term threat. The more recent vertical spike in CO2 and temperature along with increased water vapor production may be creating compensatory effect being overlooked since the damping effect is hidden within the rate of change.
Thayer Watkins, PHD at San Jose University, holding four masters degrees in economics, physics and related, (now long since retired), was one of the first outspoken to provide factual concern to pump the brakes on climate fears. He among numerous others were ostracized by those advocating the fears of climate and government re-calibration of silencing / tweaking factual findings in favor of leading agendas focused on fear of climate warming.
Thayer and others also highlighted the motivations and means by which NASA was being aimed and retooled in similar ways to increase the evaluation toward the notion of global warming to up the stakes on the climate fears aspect. If that has changed in years since these early debates it remains to be seen as further data accumulates.
The motivation I had in posing the questions on water vapor has mostly to do with finding a more common sense approach to a debate having become long term divided if not even publicly delusional in some respects. I would hope to take a page out of nature's play book and understand what the Ants and Bees know that we don't seem to hold to as well in recent times...
The physical activity of the insects changes both the heat and humidity caused in the colony as part of altering and optimizing the heat and humidity in the colony. That is a net compensatory mechanism of regulatory behavior. They don't argue that they are partly the cause of warming due to activity, they simply alter their overall behavior to compensate both external and internal factors for net stability, center of the bell curve of stability and survival. They do this as the most effective and efficient means possible.
My personal inclination is there is no lack of evidence pointing to anthropogenic changes, despite the fact those changes cannot be summarized as impending doom with demonstrated reliability. Lacking the ability to make a 100% informed and accurate judgement, it makes sense that we might find the most efficient means to counter the out of band portion of change to seek the stability under the center of the curve affording higher probability of sustain.
We know from past examples, insects and most of nature will not fully consume essential resources outside the bounds of nature's compensation. If they do, the compensation shows up as malnutrition leading to disease which reduces their numbers by starvation and predation if they cannot migrate to a more sustainable collection of resources. This effect may already be affecting humanity among continued population increase.
Using up fossil fuel resources makes no more sense than destroying the energy sector financially if and when a transitional process can form the most efficient means of sustainable preservation on an arc to reverse human impact. Overreaction can be as destructive as under-reaction. What may be missing from the formula that nature provides is the essence of cooperation toward the most rational outcome, sensible compensatory behavior.
Some may find that giant wind turbines decorating huge oceanic shores is a measure of sufficiency, but a lack of long term analysis of potential outcome suggests the negative effects may well be more serious than we know. The same is true of hoping to rely on the inefficiency of solar conversion as it remains to date. Maybe some find that replacing hundreds of thousands of acres with non-sustainable photo arrays looks nice. The disruption of foliage, food potential, hydraulic and geological stability and wild life aspects likely don't see it that way. The cost of making either of these sustainable is not economically viable long term, which is being mostly ignored.
It's not to say these and even hydro and improving designs in nuclear don't satisfy a segment of stability. The question is if we are weighing the consequences fully versus the effects of media inclination and fear mongering dictating over-reaction, when the necessary knowledge to develop sustainable solutions has been with us throughout all of human history during evolution. American Indians in the US mid west own what has been deemed the "greenest footprint on earth" viewed from Google Earth satellite assessment. Their conservation influence on grooming thousands of acres of contiguous forest has resulted in the most productive, healthiest and most efficient density of perpetual wood harvesting ever produced. By means and method they not only exceed the wood harvest potential on an industrial scale but produce the greatest amount of yield known by first preserving the core ecological basis.
Every opinion provided in this topic has held some value of reason and rationale. What seems to have been missing is that Ants and Bees thing where we might seek to make the most efficient change with the best compensating efficiency without destroying our economic basis, depleting our resources or continuing to over-populate without measuring our own impact. There may not be a solid scientific determination of cause and effect before we either waste far too much without justification or we under-compensate to a growing demise otherwise.
If we can refine crude oil, we can refine biomass. There is no question the energy sector made many intentional efforts to make it appear that biomass could not provide a stable means to retain the values of combustion being a 24/7 robust potential. After all, they were being asked to sacrifice the golden calf fossil fuel has been for Energy. If the efforts to develop clean biomass combustion to a net negative heat, carbon and water emissions profile succeeded as we've sought to do for crude oil and gas, (we already know it's possible to grow more biomass than we consume) it's possible for organization and cooperation to provide the stable means and method. If we refine to also uptake existing pollution streams as an enhancement of energy density, we further compensate the destructive curves we know are occurring there as well.
I entered here curious about water vapor, yet I'm not an advocate to climate change ignored or global warming catastrophe. I think what were missing is awareness how technology, communication and media today are causing division absent moderation, steering us away from letting nature guide our decisions to move back toward cooperation. Forced mandates of government intervention are NOT cooperation.
I have to wonder if we curb the divisive nature of the current media and tech revolution, would we see a return to cooperation and trust leading to a sensible direction for longevity? Can we even unplug to the degree necessary to incentivize these changes if marketing division is the Internet's fossil fuel cash cow we feed by ingesting advertisements? For all our collective wisdom, is there a way to improve not jumping to conclusions or ignoring the trends, but rather to stop defending the unproven and refusing to find a balanced and sensible common goal?
Or... are these just more questions that are again too complex for us to answer among the collective intelligence we share? Is intelligence still too far from wisdom to become real common sense?
It's another new year... Maybe we find out this year if there might be synergy to alter our course.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2022 18:25:43
It's seriously worth reading "Without the Hot Air" (David McKay) for a look at he underlying physics of energy generation and use. With no political or economic agenda, he shows that the UK cannot sustain its population at the current standard of living without importing energy, and imports mean politics, economics, and effective loss of sovereignty. Whilst cooperation is always preferable to competition, I see the western standard of living as a universal aspiration, and there just isn't enough fuel of any sort to give everyone 5 kW of power on tap.
All of which is a bit off topic, but it's encouraging to meet fellow-skeptics, and to remind dogmatic believers that there's a difference between denial (idiocy) and saying "yes, but..." (science - or skepticism).
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2022 18:37:39
and effective loss of sovereignty. Whilst cooperation is always preferable to competition,If only we had seen that coming; realised that loss of sovereignty was inevitable and stayed in a forum that promoted cooperation, rather than trying to compete with it.
Now, if you can just let us know why any significant amount of water decided to evaporate in the first place, you might show that water vapour is a credible cause for climate change.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2022 10:24:31
Now, if you can just let us know why any significant amount of water decided to evaporate in the first placeSunlight, unobscured by cloud. As observed this morning and indeed every anticyclonic morning.
Woke up this mornin' with frost on ma wing
When sun come up ah made the engines sing
I'll write the rest of the song one day!
Pedantic postscript: it's really sublimation until the metal heats up a bit, but it still gets water back into the air.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2022 11:32:37
Now, remind me what you said about denial.
Post by: mikewonders on 05/01/2022 15:19:38
With respect to identifying raw data and / or defined studies the following link provides a plethora of specific data analysis methods and a number of very interesting results quite in depth, especially relative trend analysis on a short term observation scale.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024917 [nofollow]
The trend analysis on the link noted, identifies increased water in various phases. Not sure but if you wanted to absolutely track source causes and distribution it might require a family of stable carbon trace component added as a unique tracer to each major form of contribution suspected of increasing volume trending. The tracer(s) would need to survive the process involved and not end up liberated freely. Kind of like effecting a PET scan tagging used in medical tracing, where the patient is the atmosphere.
With any luck the trace might have a relatively short half life and not be another contribution to increased toxic emission.
Post by: mikewonders on 05/01/2022 15:37:11
The economics of biomass haven't been favorable until now: the energy cost of harvesting, transporting and preparing flammable material exceeded the energy of any electricity generated therefrom.
This is true mostly, but also falls in the consideration of localizing resourcing and the commercialization of fuller refinement like we provide to crude and frac gas today. Past efforts lacked terribly in any real efforts of real-time refinement stream, (versus batch) at points where power generation tested gross clear cutting and then jammed green, wet wood into combustion units, then reported biomass to be a failed concept. Hardly a valid concept evaluation, more intended to maintain the status quo.
Part of the trick is to get the energy density per unit of biomass elevated to help offset cost. Picture a cousin something on the order of synthetic coal from biomass that would "look" like charcoal briquettes but have a higher energy and mass density as a refined product from renewable and sustainable sources. If it were formed to be water resistant and cured from evolving CO emissions in storage, you could see rail cars full of it feeding generating facilities yet be essentially emissions neutral if not emissions negative.
It won't work with mid section conventional flotation bed gasification, but would benefit from a newer combustion design which makes better use of relative mechanics, thermal transfer and fluid dynamics. CFD simulation has gotten pretty good at this game for modeling.
What we know so far is that good old wood pellets can't meet those goals on several levels yet they continue to be a source of energy production having gained popularity in the UK for central energy, last I knew. I think those might be co-generation of natural gas with pulverized pellets, flotation bed combustion.