[mikewonders]

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?).

[Petrochemicals]

@ 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.

[mikewonders]

[...] 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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[mikewonders]

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.

[Petrochemicals]

[...] 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?

Nope it is to say it produces heat.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

Conclusion:
 if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.

I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade and I always defer to a Chemist.

[mikewonders]

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.

[Petrochemicals]

Conclusion:
 if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.

I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade and I always defer to a Chemist.

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

[Bored chemist]

Conclusion:
 if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.

I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade and I always defer to a Chemist.

I'm a monumentally smug  *****er, but I defer to reality and that's why I did the experiment first.
:-)

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.)

[Kryptid]

Perhaps the old boy is a conspirator

 

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.

[Petrochemicals]

Perhaps the old boy is a conspirator

 

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.

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 realising

This is

  proof that co2 is inherantly divisive in climate change

[Kryptid]

Turns out that  you are quite right about sodium bicarbonate Kryptid

I never said anything about sodium bicarbonate.

[mikewonders]

Returning back to the discussion on water vapor/ warming ...

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.

[alancalverd]

As far as I can tell, any complaints that Alan has laid against CO2 as a cause of warming

I 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)

[mikewonders]

As far as I can tell, any complaints that Alan has laid against CO2 as a cause of warming

I 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.

[alancalverd]

Mike: by "historic" I mean prehistoric, taking for example the last 400,000 years' data revealed by the Vostok ice cores.  Anthropogenic emissions, recent events, and the human-recorded data set are trivial in comparison with this huge experiment. Once somebody has shown me how their hypothesis predicts the weight of the elephant, I might take their estimate of the flea population seriously.

[mikewonders]

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. 

[alancalverd]

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 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.

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.