Naked Science Forum

Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: thedoc on 03/02/2016 00:50:12

Title: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: thedoc on 03/02/2016 00:50:12
David Jones asked the Naked Scientists:
   Dear Chris, I have watched a youtube video called The Great Global Warming Swindle which puts forward convincing evidence that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Featured on the programme are Nigel Lawson, Nigel Calder (ex New Scientist Editor), Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace). They actually show graphs that say that over long periods of time, temperatures rise and THEN, 800 years later CO2 levels rise. They also show eveidence that states in the 1940s to 1970s when CO2 levels rose significantly, temps dropped. They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity. How can climate change scientists refute these facts? Please explain. Thanks Hywel Jones
What do you think?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: chris on 04/02/2016 21:42:13
Have you got the references / copies of the graphs to which you are referring? It would be helpful to see the material that was presented and attempt to establish whether the correct conclusions were being drawn.

As a general rule, temperature follows CO2. Draw-down of CO2 by mountain weathering causes global cooling; rising CO2, from a range of sources, is associated with rising global temperatures consistent with heat trapping.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/02/2016 08:55:13
The best historic data comes from the Vostok ice cores, which clearly show the 800-year lag (I estimated it at 500 years, but it's a lag, anyway) between the very sharp rises in T and the somewhat slower increases in CO2. The cooling lag is less spectacular but of similar magnitude.

You need a positive feedback mechanism to produce a sharp temperature rise, and the water cycle provides exactly that, whereas CO2 does not. You also need to postulate a mechanism for the subsequent cooling, which again makes sense if H2O is the driver, but not CO2.   

Moving from million-year to annual measurements, the Mauna Loa data shows a cyclic annual fluctuation of CO2 in addition to a slow general trend. The peak CO2 level occurs in summer, whereas peak anthropogenic emission is obviously in winter. The obvious (to me anyway, but I'm only a scientist, not a priest* or a politician**) explanation is that insects and other coldblooded creatures are more active in summer, converting plant material to CO2. Thus temperature controls CO2, not the other way around.

I could mither on about the physics of infrared absorption and reflection, but the subject was clearly beyond the comprehension of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who admitted in their first report that water was obviously the overwhelming greenhouse gas but as they couldn't model its very complex physics, they would ignore it. Probably the most important footnote in history.


*priest - someone who makes a living by telling you it's all your fault
**politician - someone who makes a living by taxing you


PS apropos mountain weathering, where did all that chalk come from? Once upon a time there must have been a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and far from disaster, it produced the South Downs, Dover, East Anglia....
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/02/2016 15:41:02
Quote

Moving from million-year to annual measurements, the Mauna Loa data shows a cyclic annual fluctuation of CO2 in addition to a slow general trend. The peak CO2 level occurs in summer, whereas peak anthropogenic emission is obviously in winter. The obvious (to me anyway, but I'm only a scientist, not a priest or a politician) explanation is that insects and other coldblooded creatures are more active in summer, converting plant material to CO2. Thus temperature controls CO2, not the other way around.


The annual fluctuation is easily explained by natural phenomena. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a very small component of the overall CO2 cycle (but by no means negligible).

Deciduous forests are the cause of the annual cycle. There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months. Then the leaves fall during autumn and decompose, releasing much of the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

As far as OP's question goes--it would be false to say that there is no link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. There are many links, including the greenhouse effect, whereby CO2 absorbs IR radiation and re-radiates back to the surface, as well as the solubility of CO2 in water (oceans) which is related to temperature.

The key here is that it is a very complex relationship. I am a chemist, not a climatologist, so I will stop my analysis there.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/02/2016 16:46:23
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: chiralSPO on 05/02/2016 17:06:59
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?


It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO2 concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 00:00:45
You need to remove the underlying upward trend to see the seasonal cycle more clearly.

The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved? Or are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/02/2016 09:32:03
David Jones asked the Naked Scientists:
   Dear Chris, I have watched a youtube video called The Great Global Warming Swindle which puts forward convincing evidence that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Featured on the programme are Nigel Lawson, Nigel Calder (ex New Scientist Editor), Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace). They actually show graphs that say that over long periods of time, temperatures rise and THEN, 800 years later CO2 levels rise. They also show eveidence that states in the 1940s to 1970s when CO2 levels rose significantly, temps dropped. They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity. How can climate change scientists refute these facts? Please explain. Thanks Hywel Jones
What do you think?

I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 05/03/2016 15:14:20
David Jones asked the Naked Scientists:
   Dear Chris, I have watched a youtube video called The Great Global Warming Swindle which puts forward convincing evidence that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Featured on the programme are Nigel Lawson, Nigel Calder (ex New Scientist Editor), Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace). They actually show graphs that say that over long periods of time, temperatures rise and THEN, 800 years later CO2 levels rise. They also show eveidence that states in the 1940s to 1970s when CO2 levels rose significantly, temps dropped. They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity. How can climate change scientists refute these facts? Please explain. Thanks Hywel Jones
What do you think?
They might actually be right about long term changes and those time periods, but they are conveniently overlooking one simple fact: We've applied combustion to tens or hundreds of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in just 150 years to power the Industrial Revolution, so "long periods of time" and "800 years" don't apply to current changes. This sort of environmental change is unprecedented. It produces both heat AND carbon dioxide. Even the rise of the first photosynthetic organisms didn't change the atmosphere this fast. In fact, the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content and temperature move in lockstep, and have for at least 800,000 years.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

That's enough to refute the skeptics' arguments. If the range from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was part of the natural range of carbon dioxide, we wouldn't be seeing levels this high for the first time in 800,000 years. There would be other readings like that.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 05/03/2016 15:22:29
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 05/03/2016 15:35:30
You need to remove the underlying upward trend to see the seasonal cycle more clearly.

The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved? Or are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?
Interesting, I have never really thought about it that way. I'd like to take a stab at guessing the cause. Temperature of the ocean. I don't like watering my house plants with tap water because of the chlorine and chemicals, but I'm too cheap to buy them bottled water. My alternative is to run hot water into a vessel, then leave it sitting around for a while until it's cool. The high temperature makes the chlorine and gases evaporate faster, leaving you with something closer to natural water. It even tastes better. Similarly, I would assume that when the ocean is cooler, it is better at absorbing carbon dioxide, less efficient when it is warm.

One more guess: It might have something to do with the distribution of agriculture and population. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of agriculture takes place in the Northern hemisphere. Circulation in the two hemispheres is somewhat independent. The equator is not a "hard" atmospheric boundary, but it is a boundary nonetheless. Coupled with uneven distribution of both land masses and water surface in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, that could explain a lot. Remember, the ozone hole was something that recurred on a yearly basis, but only at the South pole, and there aren't any people or hair spray in Antarctica.

One more guess, and this is a pretty wild one: Some human populations still rely on inefficient sources of heat when it is cold, like burning wood. So, depending on what population in which hemisphere is experiencing winter, you might have a higher or lower percentage of people releasing more or less carbon dioxide per capita, and natural absorption processes then either start to catch up or fall behind.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2016 17:55:40
One more guess, and this is a pretty wild one: Some human populations still rely on inefficient sources of heat when it is cold, like burning wood. So, depending on what population in which hemisphere is experiencing winter, you might have a higher or lower percentage of people releasing more or less carbon dioxide per capita, and natural absorption processes then either start to catch up or fall behind.

Exactly my point. Mauna Loa is in the northern hemisphere, so we'd expect the greatest concentration of anthropogenic CO2 to be in the northern winter. But the maximum is in the warmest, not the coldest months. So it's pretty clear that temperature is driving some nonhuman source of CO2 that is more significant than the anthropogenic one.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 06/03/2016 02:35:37
The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved? Or are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?
There's going to be a lag relative to the growing season; the material that grows in the peak growing season is going to take a while to break down, and will still be breakng down while new growth is happening.

For example leaves fall off the trees and goes into the soil and then a lot of it gets oxidised by bacteria; it's going to take months and months.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: chiralSPO on 06/03/2016 05:55:22
are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?

Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?

But let's not get distracted by a non-issue.

Yes, there are multiple mechanisms that are crucial to the carbon cycle, and anthropogenic emissions are one of the least significant in terms of magnitude (the rates of change in CO2 concentration within the annual cycle totally dwarfs the overall slope of the multi-year trend-line). But if we look at cumulative contributions over years, suddenly the slow and steady anthropogenic emissions start to have more of an effect than the nearly perfectly balanced ebb and flow of the dynamic equilibrium that was established millennia before the first coal mine opened, and has remained mostly stable until we perturbed it.

Obviously there are also long-term variations in global climate, and the composition of the atmosphere has changed dramatically many times over the last 4 billion years. But, as I understand it, each time there was a rapid change in the composition, there was an associated mass-extinction. For instance, the "oxygen holocaust" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event, which was precipitated by photosynthetic organisms converting CO2 into O2 and biomass. Oxygen was quite toxic to most life at the time, but the major issue (as I understand it) was that the global temperature dropped precipitously because of the sudden decrease in atmospheric CO2 and CH4. You might be able to imagine why some of us view the exact opposite process with some trepidation...
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 09:51:37
Here, on the other hand, is a recent finding that may explain a lot:

http://goo.gl/93BWOD

shows that melting of Antarctic ice releases huge quantities of CO2. There's no reason why this shouldn't also apply to seasonal melting of Arctic ice, so once again we would expect to find a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, but with temperature being the driver.

This is fortunate as it brings chemistry, geology and climatology into line with the known physics of water and carbon dioxide.

Fixed a hyperlink - mod
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: evan_au on 06/03/2016 09:55:28
For a somewhat humorous take on the debate, listen to the Infinite Monkey Cage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07142ls), with Brian Cox (30 minutes).

They discuss the impact that the somewhat erratic El Nino Southern Oscillation has on global temperatures.

One of their panel points out that CO2 levels are the highest that they have been in recent human history (mostly due to burning fossil fuels). Also, 14 of the hottest 15 years in human history have occurred since the year 2000. They suggest that this is not a coincidence, but there is a causal link.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 10:10:05
Usual response here:

1. Please define global mean temperature and explain how it has been measured throughout human history, or state what parameter has actually been used.

2. Explain the seasonal variation in Mauna Loa CO2 concentration if anthropgenic CO2 is a signficant contributor.

3. Remember that a causal relationship demands (a) a lag between cause and effect and (b) a concomitant reduction in effect with a simiilar lag  characteristic when the cause is reduced.

4. Never mind human history, ice core data suggests CO2 lags 100 - 500 years behind temperature so it can't be a driver.

All of which suggests that the most honest explanation of the status quo, based purely on evidence, is coincidence, not causality.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 16:00:57
So it's pretty clear that temperature is driving some nonhuman source of CO2 that is more significant than the anthropogenic one.
Not quoting any sources here, just regurgitating a bunch of stuff I already know, so I'm not posting any links. There are a lot of feedback loops driving this phenomenon. One good example is the melting of permafrost. The more CO2 we release, the hotter it gets, permafrost melts and glaciers recede, exposing dead and decomposing matter, which releases CO2. If it gets hot enough to wither and destroy trees (I saw this happen to a lot of oak trees in Texas several years back), they release CO2, or they start to get eaten by termites, which releases CO2, etc. A hotter ocean is less likely to absorb CO2. Then you have things like the albedo effect, so the less ice there is to reflect heat back into space, the more stays here to make it hot, releasing even more CO2.

I am also aware that CO2 emissions can come from volcanic activity. I have read online many times before that the amount of CO2 added by all the world's volcanoes is smaller than our economic contributions, but having said that, I am a firm believer that shifting the mass of thousands of cubic miles of melting ice from land masses to the ocean can change the pressure on tectonic plates enough to trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. Perhaps this could be adding some CO2 as well, but in that case, I'm more worried about FUTURE contributions than present ones.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 16:10:26
3. Remember that a causal relationship demands (a) a lag between cause and effect and (b) a concomitant reduction in effect with a simiilar lag  characteristic when the cause is reduced.

4. Never mind human history, ice core data suggests CO2 lags 100 - 500 years behind temperature so it can't be a driver.

All of which suggests that the most honest explanation of the status quo, based purely on evidence, is coincidence, not causality.
After 800,000 years of not rising above about 320 parts per million, in the 150 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 content has risen above 400 ppm, a full 20% higher than it was in any of those ice core samples.

I've said this a bazillion times before, and I almost always get somebody who want to argue about it, but the simple fact is, when you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, that produces a lot of HEAT, not just CO2 to trap the heat. That's the source of your "temperature driven CO2 release." Nothing in the history of the planet has ever led to the mass/energy conversion of 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years. This is clearly causality, not coincidence.

The "lag" you spoke of means nothing here. The exponential growth rate of our population and resource consumption has overwhelmed the natural balance mechanisms and normal lag times. The Earth has a fever, and we are the organism causing it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 16:22:03

Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?

But let's not get distracted by a non-issue.
Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/03/2016 16:34:45
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.

Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?

I would appreaciate a number which is more precise that the IPCC's range of a factor of 5 or so.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/03/2016 16:36:52
Here, on the other hand, is a recent finding that may explain a lot:



shows that melting of Antarctic ice releases huge quantities of CO2. There's no reason why this shouldn't also apply to seasonal melting of Arctic ice, so once again we would expect to find a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, but with temperature being the driver.

This is fortunate as it brings chemistry, geology and climatology into line with the known physics of water and carbon dioxide.



The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 16:48:41
The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.
Is that what's turning your letters blue?

You clearly don't want to listen to sense and have a strong tendency toward confirmation biases, but let me explain this for you anyway. The Antarctic is MELTING. Guess what? Water doesn't take salt with it when it evaporates. That snow and ice on Antartica is FRESH water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and freezes faster. So, you get seasonal, temporary ice shelf when melted fresh water freezes for a while just off the Antarctic coast. This new ice will eventually melt and mix with the ocean. It is NOT permanent ice pack. It is a fleeting skin of frozen fresh water, not proof Antarctica is growing in ice mass.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 16:57:11

Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?
It's not arrogance. It's indignation, because arrogant people like you think they know more than scientists. After 25+ years of arguing with people like you, I've had it up to here. I've got news for you, pal. When they say 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, that's not just liberal scientists. That is the INTERNATIONAL panel on climate change. That means scientists in countries like China and Russia are included, not just socialist European countries and liberal Democracies. Scientists and all over the world agree.

This isn't about politics. It's about reality. When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you are going to get some extra heat and carbon dioxide from it. In the simplest terms possible, burning stuff produces heat and smoke, burning a trillion tons of stuff produces a LOT of heat and smoke, end of story. Now, if you're not smart or educated enough to understand that simple fact, then you're never going to be able to politically un-brainwash yourself, so I suggest you leave this science forum immediately and go unclog some toilets.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 17:22:41
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?
To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/03/2016 17:33:23
They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity.
So, if that's true, we know what sunspot activity has been like for the last 800,000 years.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Just trace either one of those two graphs, and you have a plot of sunspot activity all the way back to Neanderthals.

By the way, I'm totally being sarcastic right now. Just thought I should qualify my statement, based on previous experience.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 18:03:25
Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?
On my planet, or at least the northern hemisphere of it, most crop is harvested in the third quarter of the solar year. Some soft fruit ripens earlier and it's a good idea to eat it before the birds do, but apples, wheat, barley, corn, rice, potatoes, grapes, olives, and indeed pretty much everything we eat, is harvested from mid-August to mid-October, by which time the plants have slowed or stopped growing. And Seville oranges are harvested from December, when the trees are completely dormant.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 18:09:06
To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there.

Absolutely. So it's a good measure of the average concentration of everything, except that there's very little exchange of gases across the equator and at 19.5 deg north their measuirements are dominated by the northern hemisphere climate.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 06/03/2016 19:54:57
Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.
No.

That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/03/2016 15:18:11
Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.
No.

That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect.
Correct, except I wasn't talking about a "net" effect. I was talking about the seasonal fluctuations mentioned by another poster. He suggested it's counterintuitive how CO2 goes up and down in relation to crop harvests, so I suggested this as an explanation. We grow crops, CO2 comes out of the atmosphere. We harvest the crops, CO2 goes back in. I never said anything about a net effect.

Edit: Here's the quote I was responding to from alancalverd:

"The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved?"
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 07/03/2016 17:20:17
Analysis of past co² release following a global thaw most likely is a consequence of carbon fossils frozen, then decomposing after a severe freeze. Takes a while for carbon absorbing life forms to get a foot hold on carbon released from carbon trapped in long term permafrost.

But you have to understand way back then, there weren't ppl cutting down forests upon forests, which capture carbon, nor were there ppl burning billions of fossils every day either...

We don't know the "exact" balance necessary to maintain climate we prefer, ocean temperatures (IMO) are the leading indicator of change that will affect our ability to enjoy the climate we currently experience. 

The faster water evaporates from those bodies of water, the more extreme it will rain back down.  Rising oceans also means there is more surface area from which water will evaporate into the atmosphere.  In the near term the most pronounced effect of a changing climate is going to be in an increase of rainy weather.

Past analysis has some utility, but because human activity didn't exist in previous episodes of freezing and thawing of Earth, such comparison are like comparing apples to ozarks.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 08/03/2016 12:26:26
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.

If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

The greenhouse analogy may not be an accurate visualization, since it implies transparent windows which trap the heat inside the greenhouse. This models CO2 as a one way IR valve. A better analogy may a greenhouse with windows that are covered in semi-opaque white plastic, which allows some light transmission but reflects heat in both directions. This type of greenhouse house never gets as hot as expected, since it traps less input heat than transparent windows. All the models predict 100-1200% more temperature rise than observed, which could be explained by the white plastic on the windows.

Water is the main thermal regulator of the earth. Below is the absorption spectrum of water: Water will absorb any X-rays from the sun. Water gets more transparent from UV into the visible spectrum, then it  begins to absorb heavily in the IR and microwave regions.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.lsbu.ac.uk%2Fwater%2Fimages%2Fwater_spectrum_2.gif&hash=5137fd74cc66fa9a109b8d140cbce386)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 08/03/2016 13:39:29
If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

CO² in the atmosphere is in the form of gas.  Most of the radiation from the sun (is not IR) becomes heat energy at the surface. Mostly by oceans (Earth surface is 71% ocean).

Much of this heat radiates back into space, through the cycle of weather (our climate).  Energy traveling at the speed of light doesn't like to stop in gases of the atmosphere. Some is absorbed and reflected there, but only a small fraction.

Because the composition of the atmosphere changes, its insulating capacity also changes.

We must appreciate this cycle, because it provides a nice climate for life.  The balance has changed, it is changing and will probably always be in a state of flux.  Human activity is increasing CO² in the atmosphere.  I suppose you can deny that fact every time you start your car or flip a light switch or charge your phone...  The FACT of the matter is: The bulk of human activity produces more CO² than its reclaimed by natural (or engineered) forces. 

This effects the balance (of the climate) on the planet, we call home.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/03/2016 15:37:52


If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

The greenhouse analogy may not be an accurate visualization, since it implies transparent windows which trap the heat inside the greenhouse. This models CO2 as a one way IR valve. A better analogy may a greenhouse with windows that are covered in semi-opaque white plastic, which allows some light transmission but reflects heat in both directions. This type of greenhouse house never gets as hot as expected, since it traps less input heat than transparent windows. All the models predict 100-1200% more temperature rise than observed, which could be explained by the white plastic on the windows.

Water is the main thermal regulator of the earth. Below is the absorption spectrum of water: Water will absorb any X-rays from the sun. Water gets more transparent from UV into the visible spectrum, then it  begins to absorb heavily in the IR and microwave regions.
1) That's not how the so-called Greenhouse Effect works. A lot of the Sun's energy that would "bounce" off the Earth and back into space is what gets trapped.

2) Analogies are never perfect. That's what makes them analagies. You can't learn anything comparing a greenhouse to another greenhouse. They are both greenhouses, so of course they are the same. The atmosphere is "like" a greenhouse though it is not actually a greenhouse. It's still a useful comparison.

3) No, water is not the main thermal regulator of earth. Water is a wild card thermal regulator. Oceans absorb heat. However, frozen water, or ice, reflects the sun's light (albedo), causing a net cooling effect. Water molecules can act as a greenhouse gas, but on the other hand, clouds are white and produce shadows, so cloud cover can have a cooling effect. Melted fresh water running of Antarctica freezes faster than salt water, so temporary ice sheets form around Antarctica. The amount of water in the atmosphere can vary greatly; the other gases in the atmosphere regulate the climate, which would be unstable and irregular if water was the main thermal regulator.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2016 22:26:58
Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics. Water is the only significant greenhouse gas in the gas phase (see puppypower's graph) as it has umpteen different IR absorption bands due to the bent shape of the molecule and its abilioty to form dimers, trimers and all sorts of short-range associations even in the gas phase. H2O gas can account for about 10% of the mass of air.

CO2, being a rigid linear molecule of negligible concentration, is a trivial contributor to the greenhouse effect - as can be seen from the surface temperature of Mars.

The problem with water is that its concentration is variable and it exists in all three states (solid, liquid and gas) in the atmosphere, with so much energy involved in the phase transitions that it causes thunderstorms, hurricanes, and pretty much every atmospheric phenomenon you can think of that involves the transfer of energy below the tropopause, including heating and cooling the surface of the planet. Plus, as you mention, vast and largely unpredictable changes in albedo at all levels - just compare a cloudy night with a cloudfree one to see how much influence it has on infrared emission. 

Now the nice thing about CO2 is that it can be measured and only exists in one phase, so it's fun for pseudoscientists to play with, whilst the entire herd of elephants called H2O tramples through the sky causing weather, climate, and everything in between.

The one honest statement made by the IPCC was a footnote in their first report, admitting that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of water, so they were going to ignore it.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but all the science shows that temperature is the cause (thermostat) and CO2 is the effect (thermometer).  At least that was he case until recently when, during a coincidental warming period, homo sapiens started adding a bit more CO2 to the atmosphere and thus distorted the data.

But annoyingly for governments (who profit from "green" nonscience) the Mauna Loa data does not lie.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: cheryl j on 09/03/2016 10:04:45
I wont attempt to engage in an argument that I really don't understand anything about, but from a sort of Bayesian standpoint, why do you guys disagree with the world wide consensus on climate change - what is it that most climate scientists have gotten wrong and why? Or am I wrong in thinking there is a consensus that human activity and emissions is affecting climate?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 09/03/2016 11:28:47
Cheryl, I think it has to do with human nature.  More specifically the addict's mentality.  A lot of ppl get stuck in the state of denial.  There's no reason to admit a problem, nor find a resolution if you don't have a problem.

Humans have become addicted to burning fuels, over the past few hundred years. Determining how long we can survive denial is a hot topic, even if the act of denial is ignored.

80 degrees Fahrenheit in Washington DC this early in March is going to give some "important" ppl pause.  Senator Jim Inhofe would probably eat his snowball, if it hadn't melted this early in the year.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 09/03/2016 13:06:42
Quote
"The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved?"

The image below shows the absorption spectrum of liquid water. The two peaks shown are connected to high and low density water, which both exist in liquid water. These differ by the nature of the hydrogen bonding in water clusters. Low density water (LDW) tends to form a more expanded hydrogen bonding network, while high density water (HDW) tends to form a more contracted hydrogen bonding network. Both exist in liquid water with the LDW due to more partial covalent character in the hydrogen bonds, while the HDW due to a more polar character in the hydrogen bonds.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.lsbu.ac.uk%2Fwater%2Fimages%2Fvibr2.gif&hash=7f2a325ec3a184bc0567099dd519bee0)

The organics of the living state can induce both high and low density water based on surfaces. 

When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms weak hydrogen bonds with water. This bonding should form easier in HDW since this water has higher activity due to polar hydrogen bonds. HDW defines higher enthalpy and entropy and is more consistent with the transient nature of CO2 hydrogen bonding to water.

Quote
The CO2 may form a hydration shell from a symmetrical dodecahedral arrangement of 18 water molecules where each CO2 oxygen atom is hydrogen bonded to three water molecules. Such hydrogen bonding is likely to be weak, transient and exchanging between a continuum of structures. This allows some cooperation between the hydrogen bonding at both ends of the CO2 molecule.

Trees tend to give a cool feel to the earth, instead of making the earth warmer. In the top graph, this suggests the surfaces of leaves tend to induce LDW which absorbs less in the IR. The LDW is also less conducive to CO2 forming hydrogen bonds in water. This destabilizing of CO2 hydration in water is useful because the CO2 is released from the water cage for easier photosynthesis and  entry into the air.

As the plants slow photosynthesis in the fall, plant surfaces change, which will change the LDW/HDW equilibrium at the surface more in line with the higher ratio of HDW in pure water. This allows CO2 to form hydration cages causing the water of life to pick uo more CO2; for next year.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/03/2016 13:30:06
CO2, being a rigid linear molecule of negligible concentration, is a trivial contributor to the greenhouse effect - as can be seen from the surface temperature of Mars.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but all the science shows that temperature is the cause (thermostat) and CO2 is the effect (thermometer).  At least that was he case until recently when, during a coincidental warming period, homo sapiens started adding a bit more CO2 to the atmosphere and thus distorted the data.
False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.

False. Humans haven't contributed "a bit more" CO2 to the atmosphere. In about 50 years, CO2 levels have risen a full 20%, to 20% higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years that we know of.

There's a huge hole in your "coincidental warming period" idea. The Earth has been covered with oceans for hundreds of millions of years. There have always been clouds and rain to dissipate unevenly distributed warming in that atmosphere. That NEVER caused CO2 levels to rise above 320 ppm. Current CO2 levels and temperature rises are anthropogenic in nature. It's related to the fact that we've applied combustion to about 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in only 150 years, not a coincidence.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2016 16:34:09
False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.
The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.

Anyway I've just found a really good reference http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ which is either a pack of lies or clear evidence that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. And if you look back at the Vostok data  you will find a few places where the temperature was higher than the present day, but the CO2 level was lower.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2016 16:44:41
I really don't understand anything about, but from a sort of Bayesian standpoint, why do you guys disagree with the world wide consensus on climate change - what is it that most climate scientists have gotten wrong and why?

(a) the physics of CO2-driven warming is nonsense

(b) ice core data (the only reliable historic record) shows that temperature fluctuations precede changes in the CO2 level

(c) there is no room for consensus in science: phlogiston, caloric, aether, geocentricity, and the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight are all matters of historic expert consensus, along with the 20th century statements of the US Academy of Science ("there is no conceivable military use for the airplane") and the British Academy ("five computers will suffice for the UK's needs"). Scientific progress is made by mavericks, not followers

(d) Geologically, we know for instance that East Anglia was a tropical swamp ldess than 500,000 years ago and probably supported hippos, rhinos and elephants at the same time as humans. The appearance of chimneys in European buildings was sudden, around 1200 AD. However you look at it, the climate, at least in the inhabited parts of the world, was a lot hotter before we started burning fossil fuel, even within recorded history.

But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 09/03/2016 17:36:54

But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.


It's ironic that anyone would fuss about the amount of money spent on climate concerns.

Government spends about 5.3 trillion annualy on fossil fuel incentives.  100 billion on climate concerns amounts to less than 2% of that expenditure.  Climate studies and co² reduction don't pollute like fossil fuels.  So even if the "climate change" was a hoax, it pails in comparison to the alternative.

CO² increases change the ph balance in the oceans.  I kinda like sea food.  But when I see toxic runoff working its way into the ocean everywhere near me, I'm afraid to eat anything I might catch.  How about you?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2016 09:18:48
Different problem. Toxic runoff consists of all sorts of stuff from artificial fertilisers to natural sewage and a bit of mining waste (in those countries where there is still a mining industry). Carbon dioxide is a gas, not a liquid, under ambient conditions.

And don't be too critical of raw sewage! Shellfish and several bony fish (particularly mullet - delicious!) like to hang around sewage outlets. The problem there is that human pathogens in poo are much more dangerous to your health than a bit of sulfuric acid from a mine, and fish will avoid most inorganic toxins.

Government expenditure on "climate concerns" (mostly, it seems, on ridiculous transport and security costs for pointless conferences) is not the point. By claiming some green credential, governments can impose massive taxes on fossil fuel, so the global warming swindle is perpetuated because a direct tax on food, health and all the other things that use fossil fuel, would be considered immoral. Some of the tax revenue filters back to the scaremongering industry: a very efficient use of your money to extract more.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 10/03/2016 14:02:47
Hydrogen bonding, within water, has both polar and covalent bonding characteristics. The polar aspect of hydrogen bonding is based on charge attraction, with this type of hydrogen bonding trying to get as close as possible to lower the charge potential. The covalent aspect of hydrogen bonding is different.

A covalent bond is less about charge difference and more about the overlap of covalent bonding orbitals; wave functions. In the case of water, the covalent bonding aspect of hydrogen bonding, needs to expand to allow proper orbital and wave function overlap. This is why ice expands when it freezes. Water is sort of unique in terms of expanding when freezing, with Antimony the only other natural substance to do this. The binary of hydrogen bonding adds a wild card to water, with water showing over 70 anomalies with respect to normal materials.

These two possible bonding states of a hydrogen bond, impacts the physical properties of the local water. The polar aspect defines higher enthalpy (internal energy), higher entropy and less volume (contracts), while the covalent aspect defines lower enthalpy (internal energy), lower entropy and more volume (expands). This binary in the hydrogen bonding impacts the absorption spectrum which is shown above.

In the diagram below, a is polar and b is covalent, with the two states stable and separated by a small activation energy hill. The hydrogen bonds in water is a binary switch that can switch back and forth with only a slight energy change. The hydrogen bond never have to break, but adjust physical parameters with only a slight energy tweak.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.lsbu.ac.uk%2Fwater%2Fimages%2Fpotential_energy_barrier.gif&hash=96dffafc65bc7da3c5a2f4dcd6f9ce24)

The containment of CO2 in liquid water benefits by the more reactive polar hydrogen bonding (a), since the polar defines higher activity. CO2 forms only weak hydrogen bonds with water, therefore benefits by more potential in water. Anything that can shift the balance in the binary switch, can also shift how CO2 interacts with water. Life can control the switch or rather the switch has an impact on life.

In my last post, I used the more commonly used terms high density water (HDW) and low density water (LDW) to differentiate the polar and covalent hydrogen bonding. Liquid water does not exist as separate water molecules due to hydrogen bonding. Rather water will form clusters. The dynamic equilibrium between the two states of the binary, can cause clusters to collapse or expand, based on the ratio of polar to covalent bonding. CO2 in water has more room and better access to the hydrogen bonding when the clusters collapse; polar.

[img] http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/cluster_equilibrium_2.gif

Studies using magnetism and electric fields on water have shown this can shift the binary.

Quote
Due to the partial covalence of water's hydrogen bonding, electrons are not held by individual molecules but are easily distributed amongst water clusters giving rise to coherent regions [1691] capable of interacting with local electric [1692] and magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation

Theoretically, movement in the magnetic field can change the absorption spectrum of local water so pockets of warmer or cooler water can form, due to a change in the binary absorption spectrum. This shift can also impact CO2 by making it easier to harder to be stay absorbed.


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/03/2016 14:51:48
False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.
The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.
False. You're conveniently forgetting that the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than ours. If you took everything out of Earth's atmosphere but the carbon dioxide, then added 100 times more carbon dioxide, that would NOT be enough to keep the planet warm.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/03/2016 14:57:47
But why the consensus? Because it pays the rent. You can't tax a non-problem, and most climate scaremongers are paid from tax revenues.
False. I don't know how many times I have to say this. When they say, "97% of climate scientists agree," that means not just liberal Democrat scientists in the U.S. The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.

On a more personal note, if you can't figure out the relationship between applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels and a rise in global temperatures, you might as well join the Flat Earth Society.

Furthermore, scientists operate using what we call the "Scientific Method." That method was adopted to get the politics, religion and personal feelings out of science. You're basically calling all these people liars, hundreds of thousands of people, accusing them of ignoring the scientific method, the very foundation of their occupation. Maybe you're projecting your own lack of integrity on others ??

Do you work for an oil company ??

If I ignore facts and make stupid arguments, can I be a Global Moderator too ??

Here's another quick point. You and I can't agree, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone in this forum and at physforum.com spends every single day telling everyone else that they are completely wrong about absolutely everything. Think about that. Now, you really expect me to believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists of different ethnicities, nationalities and political beliefs in countries all around the world are able to agree 97% on ANYTHING AT ALL, let alone work together to advance an agenda ???

Give me a break. That alone rules out the idea that climate change is a hoax.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/03/2016 15:10:16
Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics.
You're the one trying to repeal the laws of physics, Alan. Mass/energy conversion does what it does despite your protests. Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis." Apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years, and you're going to get a rise in temperatures when all that stored solar energy is released.

You really need to let go of your confirmation biases and accept facts here. Combustion of fossil fuels produces heat, CO2 and entropy. Actions don't occur without reactions. That's physics. That's reality. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: chiralSPO on 10/03/2016 16:26:59
Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics.
You're the one trying to repeal the laws of physics, Alan. Mass/energy conversion does what it does despite your protests. Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis." Apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in 150 years, and you're going to get a rise in temperatures when all that stored solar energy is released.

You really need to let go of your confirmation biases and accept facts here. Combustion of fossil fuels produces heat, CO2 and entropy. Actions don't occur without reactions. That's physics. That's reality. Deal with it.

Craig, I agree with you that the greenhouse effect is a real, significant and anthropomorphic force, but I don't think arguments such as these ↑ are very helpful.

A) Please try to be more polite. We are all here for scientific discussion and debate, so when the debate happens it should be done using the same language we use when we discuss. It is so easy for flame wars to erupt from ad hominem attacks because of the online medium (I caution ALL of the participants in this discussion to avoid snarking, even moderators such as myself)


B) Claiming trees convert energy into mass by photosynthesis is at best misleading. The increase in apparent mass of a tree due to the stored chemical energy is insignificant compared to the mass of biomass required to form that biomass. Trees get almost all of their mass from matter inputs such as CO2 and H2O, which they convert into sugars (C6H10O5)n, storing about 17.35 kJ per gram. If a tree has stored 500 kg worth of energy as cellulose, that works out to about 86.7 GJ. Using E = mc2, I calculate that it adds just over 965 micrograms of mass.

C) Similarly, the heat being released by combustion is insignificant compared to the effect of the CO2. We currently use energy at less than 20 TW globally. If we assume that all of it ends up as heat, and compare that to the heat the Earth receives from the sun 176000 TW globally, plus the heat from the decay of radioactive isotopes in the core (about 44 TW, also insignificant), then anthropogenic combustion adds about 0.01% to the energy coming in. And since radiative loss scales with T4, and ambient surface temperatures are typically between 250 and 350 K, this additive increase in energy flux will have no significant force on the temperature.

However, increasing the insulation of the atmosphere by increasing the retention of IR radiation can decrease the rate of radiative cooling by several % for a given T, so increases of several degrees can be produced.

D) I will agree with you as far as the money goes. Alan, I can't think of anyone making money from scaremongering, at least nothing close to the money that is generated for fossil fuel producers. If we want to think that this discussion is biased due to monetary concerns I don't think that it is is side asking for regulations is the place to look... Governments and/or industries need money to perform services. Just as you pay to have your sewage treated or your garbage hauled off, you need to pay to mitigate the harms cause by using fossil fuels.

I am libertarian in many ways, but I think that taxes or fines on negative externalities (harming commonly owned resources, like the atmosphere) make perfect sense to combat "Tragedies of the Commons." A "carbon tax" makes a lot of sense to me.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/03/2016 17:13:42
Craig, I agree with you that the greenhouse effect is a real, significant and anthropomorphic force, but I don't think arguments such as these ↑ are very helpful.

A) Please try to be more polite. We are all here for scientific discussion and debate, so when the debate happens it should be done using the same language we use when we discuss. It is so easy for flame wars to erupt from ad hominem attacks because of the online medium (I caution ALL of the participants in this discussion to avoid snarking, even moderators such as myself)

B) Claiming trees convert energy into mass by photosynthesis is at best misleading. The increase in apparent mass of a tree due to the stored chemical energy is insignificant compared to the mass of biomass required to form that biomass. Trees get almost all of their mass from matter inputs such as CO2 and H2O, which they convert into sugars (C6H10O5)n, storing about 17.35 kJ per gram. If a tree has stored 500 kg worth of energy as cellulose, that works out to about 86.7 GJ. Using E = mc2, I calculate that it adds just over 965 micrograms of mass.

C) Similarly, the heat being released by combustion is insignificant compared to the effect of the CO2. We currently use energy at less than 20 TW globally. If we assume that all of it ends up as heat, and compare that to the heat the Earth receives from the sun 176000 TW globally, plus the heat from the decay of radioactive isotopes in the core (about 44 TW, also insignificant), then anthropogenic combustion adds about 0.01% to the energy coming in. And since radiative loss scales with T4, and ambient surface temperatures are typically between 250 and 350 K, this additive increase in energy flux will have no significant force on the temperature.

However, increasing the insulation of the atmosphere by increasing the retention of IR radiation can decrease the rate of radiative cooling by several % for a given T, so increases of several degrees can be produced.

D) I will agree with you as far as the money goes. Alan, I can't think of anyone making money from scaremongering, at least nothing close to the money that is generated for fossil fuel producers. If we want to think that this discussion is biased due to monetary concerns I don't think that it is is side asking for regulations is the place to look... Governments and/or industries need money to perform services. Just as you pay to have your sewage treated or your garbage hauled off, you need to pay to mitigate the harms cause by using fossil fuels.

I am libertarian in many ways, but I think that taxes or fines on negative externalities (harming commonly owned resources, like the atmosphere) make perfect sense to combat "Tragedies of the Commons." A "carbon tax" makes a lot of sense to me.
A) Sorry. I've grown increasingly frustrated and impatient over the years. I just turned 47. In 1988, I read Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World" for the first time. I became an avid environmentalist. I studied science specifically to understand this issue better. I have watched the predictions in his book come true, everything falling like a line of dominoes. This is not the time for politeness. It is time for Flat Earth climate change skeptics to wake up and smell the coffee, whether or not they prefer instant or fresh ground.

B) I'm not trying to be misleading. I'm trying to strip down the process to its bare essentials. People get too caught up in side arguments, like how much carbon dioxide is too much, how many snowballs there are in Washington D.C., etc. You can believe me, or you can not believe me, but I will tell you in no uncertain terms, I understand this issue in great detail. I know a lot about the minutiae, like that fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water, so no, Antartica is not "expanding," it's still melting, that's just a temporary freshwater ice shelf pointing to a larger problem. The minutiae are what give people things to argue about. The minutiae are the trees, I want people to see the forest. The simplest explanation and best generalization of climate change that even a layman can understand is that solar energy is stored in plants by photosynthesis, and when you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of stored solar energy in the form of fossil fuels, that produces a lot of heat, plus a lot of extra carbon dioxide that helps prevent some of that extra heat from escaping into space. In the simplest scientific terms possible, photosynthesis is a process whereby energy from the sun is stored in molecules, and combustion releases that energy. The mass/energy conversion is going the opposite direction in both cases. In photosynthesis, the photon's energy becomes "binding energy," which is what holds those high energy fuel molecules together, and yes, when a photon is absorbed by an atom in a molecule, the atom and molecule containing it increase in mass by the tiniest fraction. Energy is literally converted to mass in that case. When combustion releases the energy in a fossil fuel, the opposite reaction occurs. The photons are released, and the molecules they held together break apart, again, as per mass/energy conversion, but in the other direction. I'm not trying to be misleading. I'm trying to simplify things rather than get bogged down in arguments about trees when the forest is what's most important.

C) All I can really say about that is that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has not risen above 320 ppm for at least 800,000 years, according to this chart:

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

In about 50 years, the blink of an eye on a geological time scale, carbon dioxide has risen to about 400 ppm, about 20% higher than it has been in 800,000 years. Changes like that are what I would consider "unprecedented," and even when the CO2 fluctuates by 20%, that is supposed to take thousands or tens of thousands of years, not 50. Now, considering how temperatures move in lockstep with carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in that chart, is it any surprise that the "hottest year on record" has become a recurring news story lately?

D) I agree with you about all this. I would like to add a point addressed to alancalverd. Apparently, he has either forgotten about or is not aware of the fact that the biggest oil producers in the US receive tens of billions of tax breaks and subsidies from the government every single year. That whoops the tar out of the amount of grant money scientists get to study climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/03/2016 19:05:16
Was February yesterday?  Na, week or two ago, it's also the 1st time in ~23 million years CO² concentration in the atmosphere has been as high as 400ppm.

Coincidentally this past February is also the warmest month on record.  Correlation or coincidence?  Me thinks the jury is still hung.
Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-400-ppm-global-record-18965

Here's what the Mauna Loa data look like since recordkeeping began:

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mlo_full_record.png

As you can see, the earth basically takes one "breath" per year. The forests act as a sort of lungs for the planet. During the growing season, forests inhale, then exhale in the winter. So, carbon dioxide content goes up and down a little bit each year, giving a peak and a trough of a few parts per million. The problem is, the overall curve is on an upswing. What you are correctly reporting as "we reached 400 ppm" this February is actually just the beginning of another peak that will actually take us PAST the 400 ppm mark.

If the exponential curve indicated by the graph of that information continues unchecked, in a few years, CO2 won't drop below the 400 ppm mark at all. Here's a closeup of the end of that chart to include more recent information broken down by month:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 10/03/2016 21:21:53
Nobody is denying the CO2 is going up. However, the expected temperature increase is being over estimated by all the computers models. There is something wrong with their assumptions since the actual temperature rise is 100-1200% lower than the models are predicting.

If all models are too high by 100-1200% either we have over estimated the impact of CO2 on global temperature, or we have ignored moderating variables, such as water.

A warmer earth means more water in the atmosphere, since the amount of water that can dissolve in the air goes ups with temperature. More water in the air; clouds, means more reflection of solar energy back into space. If we ignore the water, we under estimate the reflection of solar heat. Water is the great moderator.

Relative to water and hydrogen bonding, which should be looked into more, kosmotropes and chaotropes are materials dissolved in water, which cause order or disorder, respectively, in water. For example, sodium cations are kosmotropic while potassium cations are chaotropic. Cells preferred concentrate the sodium outside inducing more ordered water outside, while concentrating potassium inside to induce more disorder in the water, inside the cell. This is needed to make it easier for enzymes. Enzymes tend to induce low density water on their surfaces. The potassium helps to disrupt the water caging. 

Kosmotropes and chaotropes ions can shift the high and low density equilibrium of the water and therefore the absorption spectrum. In the table below, the green chaotropic ions are attracted to low density water, while the red kosmotropic ions avoid low density water. If we shift the ionic balance, you can shift the hydrogen bonding binary of water.


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.lsbu.ac.uk%2Fwater%2Fimages%2Fchaotopes.gif&hash=c7d2c6917b5daff668d31f60848ec7a3)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 10/03/2016 22:11:09
Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.

DOH,

Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago.  I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record.  Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....

Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately ;)

The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing CO² content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.

Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow ;)  Fortunate or not the correlation still stands  [:-\]
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 00:26:40
Correlation is not proof of causation.

There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.

Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing. Observed correlation. Now let's test for causation.

If you look at the physics of infrared absorption and actually put in some numbers, it's obvious that CO2 is not the cause. If you don't understand physics you can build a model of past data and predict what will happen next, and as puppypower points out, if that model uses CO2 as the causative input, you consistently get the wrong answer. Or you can look carefully at historic data and note the 500 - 800 year lag between temperature and CO2. Or you can look at recent data and ask why CO2 levels are highest in summer, when humans are burning less fuel of all types.

It beats me why people cling to the wreckage of a dead hypothesis in the hope that by sacrificing virgins or fossil fuels, they will save the world from a disaster. Climate change is inevitable and from a human perspective, probably disastrous if we carry on living on coastal margins and reproducing beyond a sustainable level. We already have a taste of the political shambles caused by a tiny economic migration. When the population of Bangladesh finds the country uninhabitable, we will see a humanitarian disaster way beyond the wildest hopes of biblical prophets, and taxing petrol won't stop it.

It's time to abandon the CO2 religion and do some science.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 00:34:22
False. You're conveniently forgetting that the atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than ours. If you took everything out of Earth's atmosphere but the carbon dioxide, then added 100 times more carbon dioxide, that would NOT be enough to keep the planet warm.
I didn't "forget" it. I began with it. You'd be well advised to revise Dalton's Law of partial pressures.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 08:20:59
Trees convert energy to mass. That's called "photosynthesis."
No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy).
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 08:28:21
The IPCC is comprised of scientists from all countries including Russia (not a liberal democracy) and China (not a liberal democracy) and countries of all political stripes.
But it is primarily intergovernmental, i.e. driven by politics, and only seeks and publishes opinions with which the Panel itself agrees - apart from the footnote statement of incompetence I mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 11/03/2016 14:11:36
Correlation is not proof of causation.

There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.

Temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing. Observed correlation. Now let's test for causation.

If you look at the physics of infrared absorption and actually put in some numbers, it's obvious that CO2 is not the cause. If you don't understand physics you can build a model of past data and predict what will happen next, and as puppypower points out, if that model uses CO2 as the causative input, you consistently get the wrong answer. Or you can look carefully at historic data and note the 500 - 800 year lag between temperature and CO2. Or you can look at recent data and ask why CO2 levels are highest in summer, when humans are burning less fuel of all types.

Correlation is not causation.  It provides indicators to causation.  Humans are pretty good at figuring that out, one of the reasons we think we rule at the top of the food chain.  Also "science" relies heavily on such principles.

The sun is the predominant cause of global warming.  That's been the case for at least a billion years.  We don't know what exactly has caused past cycles of change.  We may have reasonable and/or educated guesses, but ultimately they're still guesses, because human kind has a very limited recorded history, by way of comparison.  We've analyzed geologic evidence and recognize a pattern in cooling and warming of the Earth which has a correlation to CO² atmospheric content.  Again correlation is not causation. We get that!

However, there's no evidence of a phenomena where fossils burn increases daily, until recent history like the present phenomena.  We know this phenomena has not occurred in prehistoric times (based on geological evidence), so there is little we can correlate it to.  We don't know the ultimate outcome of this behavior, other than it may/will likely influence the climate.  The degree and magnitude are a little sketchy because the Earth is a lively planet.

Some of us have a concern, human activity is persistently increasing the rate of pumping CO² (currently about 5 billion metric tons annually (5 GT)) of CO² into the atmosphere every year.  This is increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO².  Human activity has been increasing the amount YOY for about 200 years. 

We *might* be able to see a correlation and identify the cause.  The projected effect is that the Earth will warm, due to increased atmospheric CO² content, because CO² slows heat from exiting the atmosphere compared to nitrogen (the bulk of our atmosphere nitrogen, then oxygen, argon, water vapor and finally CO²).

The CO² concentration is pretty minuscule, but it's increasing. Seems it only takes tiny amount of increase to make 1 degree difference.  That's not correlation being causation.  It's causation indicating correlation.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/03/2016 16:00:42
There is a very strong correlation between the number of breaths a person has taken, and the probability of the next breath being his last. Breathing does not cause death.
That's a stupid analogy. Here's a better one.

Pull your car into the garage and leave it running. Now, close the garage door and roll down your windows.

You will notice the temperature and composition of the atmosphere in your garage changing. Now, breathing is most definitely going to be the cause of death.

You had better open the garage door now. That's where my good analogy gets weak. You can open the garage door and let in some fresh air. Our atmosphere does not have a garage door to open. We are stuck with the atmosphere we have, and it's high time we start taking better care of it.

Again, if your position is that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not change the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, you have no business posting in a science forum.

You said, "It's time to abandon the CO2 religion and do some science."

You might as well be telling me that for every action, there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction. Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/03/2016 16:18:27
No. Tress convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree, and use solar energy to do so. Photosynthesis does not involve significant relativistic mass change, any more than the insects eating the tree (converting it back to CO2 and H2O, in order to extract chemical energy).
FALSE. That's not mass/energy conversion. It is the photon that provides the extra mass. In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass. I didn't say it's a significant amount of mass. Anyone who understands the equation E = mc^2 knows that the speed of light squared and reciprocated means a tiny amount of mass comes from the energy of one photon. I never said it was "significant" relativistic mass. I know better. But it is still mass/energy conversion. Same goes for a termite eating a tree, just reversed. Those complex, high energy molecules enter a digestive system and get broken down. The heat energy of the photons food contains is what keeps your body temperature nice and toasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/03/2016 16:27:29
Nobody is denying the CO2 is going up. However, the expected temperature increase is being over estimated by all the computers models. There is something wrong with their assumptions since the actual temperature rise is 100-1200% lower than the models are predicting.

If all models are too high by 100-1200% either we have over estimated the impact of CO2 on global temperature, or we have ignored moderating variables, such as water.
The ocean is part of the problem. It absorbs CO2, but we're not sure how much. So far, the ocean has been absorbing lots of the extra CO2, but we're not sure how saturated it is getting. Also, the oceans circulate pretty slowly and contain so much water that we're not sure how long it takes to get saturated all the way to the bottom. We've been lucky so far, but if and when the ocean is not able to absorb more CO2, all the rest is going to start staying in the atmosphere and rate of increase will accelerate. That would be a really bad thing.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 16:34:56
Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me.

Yes, I remember it well. We studied and calculated the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide as undergraduates. And many years after I got my PhD I noticed that the approved A level text either deliberately lied about it, or was written by people who had no idea what they were on about. The CO2 molecule, everywhere in the universe except in A level texts of the 1990s, is rigidly linear and has very few IR transitions. Which is just as well, otherwise the CO2 lasers that we use to treat patients and weld steel every day, wouldn't work.

It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation". 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 16:47:27
In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.

You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV. 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/03/2016 17:03:54
In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.

You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV.
Yeah, I know there's more to it than that. I took a year of Biology for majors my first year in college thinking at the time that would be my major. I fully understand how photosynthesis works, not to mention oxidative phosphorylation, cellular respiration, the citric acid cycle, the proton pump, etc. so maybe your are outclassed on this one. I also know what mass/energy conversion is, and the principle of mass/energy equivalence. I also know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. So, you can obfuscate the issues and put words in my mouth all day long, but you're not going to change my mind about any of this because I have learned my science correctly.

For example, I never said a photon is turned into a "massive particle" by photosynthesis. I said its energy is converted to a miniscule amount of mass. Completely different statement. If you have a PhD, you ought to be able to recognize that those are two completely different statements.

On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.



Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/03/2016 17:31:13
It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation".
That's not a rat you smell. It's a rotting baby you threw out with the bath water.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

It should be as plain as the nose on your face that neither one of these two graphs is "leading" the other one. In fact, they diverge ever so slightly from time to time, with either one of the graphs being slightly ahead at different points in time. That's because there are a lot of other variables. Maybe there were more tectonic plates over polar regions at some points in time, so there was more albedo from ice. Similarly, if tropical forests drift too far from the equator, they could die off or even become deserts. Deserts move into equatorial regions and become forests, but that takes time, so there is a lag. The face of the earth is changing slowly, but constantly.

So, neither one of those graphs is leading the other, or "causing" the other. If anything, they BOTH "cause each other" to a degree. There are multiple FEEDBACK mechanisms that keep those two graphs more or less in lockstep for millions of years at a time. It's not just simple cause and effect. It's a dynamical system that exhibits chaotic behavior within certain paramaters established by those feedback mechanisms.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=134

We have interrupted those feedback mechanisms by applying combustion to 100 million years worth of solar energy that was previously stored safely away in ancient life forms buried in the earth's crust.

You claim you have a PhD. So, why are you arguing about this? You should know how to do math. You should understand big numbers. You should know what an "exponential function" is. I've got news for you. There are about 7,125,000,000 people on the earth right now. At current rates of population growth and resource consumption, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will no longer have a place to stand. Here's a little slice of that exponential growth curve you can actually see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

... which reflects this trend:

https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population&oq=world+pop&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2029j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

... and this one:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.705e080613685f74edb800092/1376383183967/NL78-haberl-fig1.gif

As a certified non-mathematician, I can nevertheless tell you with certainty that those exponents are going to clash with the realities of a finite atmosphere and a finite planet's surface someday. In fact, I say they already are. I'm getting a little tired of arguing with people like you about the most important issue facing the future of our entire species.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2016 23:18:11
There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/03/2016 07:54:20
On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.


6CO2 + 6H2O ↔ C6H12O6 + 6O2

The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 


*admittedly through a complex series of intermediates, depending on the species, but we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 12/03/2016 14:24:35
The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 
When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 12/03/2016 15:36:02
*we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.
Are you sure you're a physicist? In my estimation as a layman, it's ALL important. To the best of my knowledge, real physicists operate according to the Scientific Method, which does NOT include sweeping the "bits in the middle" under a rug.

To cite a specific example, scientists can emit a photon from a device, and that photon can hit a detector, which marks the "beginning" and "end" of the photon's "life," but it's the "bits in the middle" that concern physicists, where non-locality and wave characteristics emerge as the photon passes though one or two slits. They put all those slits and half-mirrored surfaces in between the emitter and detector specifically to examine the "bits in the middle" between the emission and detection of the photon ...

Also, "simple folk" like Michelson and Morley built an interferometer while everyone else was riding around in covered wagons. They were looking for the unseen "bits in the middle" known as aether ...
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 12/03/2016 16:30:38
There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

[not allowed to ppost video. Type in TED talks overpopulation Hans Rosling.

Watch the video.

Spreading this evil idea that there is a problem with human population is plain evil.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 12/03/2016 16:33:01
The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 
When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.

What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 13/03/2016 16:00:59

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 13/03/2016 16:07:49
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.
Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015   YEAR   ANOMALY °C   ANOMALY °F
1   2015   0.90   1.62
2   2014   0.74   1.33
3   2010   0.70   1.26
4   2013   0.66   1.19
5   2005   0.65   1.17
6 (tie)   1998   0.63   1.13
6 (tie)   2009   0.63   1.13
8   2012   0.62   1.12
9 (tie)   2003   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2006   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2007   0.61   1.10
12   2002   0.60   1.08
13 (tie)   2004   0.57   1.03
13 (tie)   2011   0.57   1.03
15 (tie)   2001   0.54   0.97
15 (tie)   2008   0.54   0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 14/03/2016 17:35:52

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Can you at all justify that with actual numbers? I mean we have used about 2 cubic kilometers of oil. That is a very small number compared to the volume of the earth so any talk about mining down to the core is drivel. Obviously.

Quote
Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Yes, I fully understand the supply and consumption issues of oil. Indeed we have used the very easy stuff. We now have to work for it. In the 17th century coal was dug up out of the fields around Sheffield, then they had to keep going deeper as the easy stuff was used. Coal is now cheaper at the point of consumption than ever. This is due to the cheapness of transport and the size and effiency of all those open cast mines in places like South Africa and Austrailia.

Are you still a believer in peak oil even when the 100% confident predictions of it running out have just been proven to be drivel????? What will it ever take for you to let go of your favorite dooms-day scenario?

Quote
Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita.

And yet the price in real terms keeps getting cheaper. Today we use steel as a very cheap building material, no problem. This is due to our increased ability to get the stuff out of the ground which is due to increased population, increased wealth and better technology which is due to increased population with increased wealth solving problems.
Quote
Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.

And shortly, this century, we will be mining the asteroids of the solar system and have more resources than we can possibly use in the next thousand years. Door opens...
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 14/03/2016 17:40:33
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.
Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015   YEAR   ANOMALY °C   ANOMALY °F
1   2015   0.90   1.62
2   2014   0.74   1.33
3   2010   0.70   1.26
4   2013   0.66   1.19
5   2005   0.65   1.17
6 (tie)   1998   0.63   1.13
6 (tie)   2009   0.63   1.13
8   2012   0.62   1.12
9 (tie)   2003   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2006   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2007   0.61   1.10
12   2002   0.60   1.08
13 (tie)   2004   0.57   1.03
13 (tie)   2011   0.57   1.03
15 (tie)   2001   0.54   0.97
15 (tie)   2008   0.54   0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.

I agree that the temperature of the world is higher now than it was in 1979.

Do you deny that there has been no significant warming since 1998?

In light of the lack of warming over the last 18 years how have you modified your expectations of future warming? Can we safely discout the top half of the IPCC's predictions? If so what is ther to worry about?

I do not wish to see no warming. I think it would be a better world for humanity if it was slightly warmer. +2c I think would be nice. Beyond that I do not know and would like to see what +2c would do before I formed my opinion.

You have totally made up your mind. You do not need to consider data. Show this to be wrong by answering my questions.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 14/03/2016 18:25:59
There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?


It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO2 concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January.

Referencing the chart, there are a lot of earthquakes in the first part of the year 2008, less wild fires tho.

Looking at this
 Magnitude Ranging Between
              2000  2001   2002  2003 2004  2005  2006      2007 2008  2009     2010

Total       1505     1361 1341    1358    1672    1844    1865    2270    1948    2057    2136

There is a steady increase in activity, how much CO2 is released with earth quakes? Do we have any estimates on that. I'm just taking a breif look but there seems to be a connection.

Found this
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275539054_Positive_correlation_between_CO2_daily_peaks_and_micro-earthquakes_occurrence_in_deep_fault-caves_an_empirical_model

CONCLUSIONS
1. There is a positive   correlation   between   micro-earthquakes  (M<2.5)  and  atmospheric  anomalies  within   the   Benis   fault-cave.   Seismic   events   are   
related  to  sharp  daily  increase  in  atmospheric  CO2(>20 ppm).

2.
The area of influence for this gas mobilisation is up to 60 km and southward of the pit cave.

3.Furthermore,   there   is   an   empirical   relationship between  the  concentration  of  CO2 emission  and 
the  distance  of  the  epicentre,  for  the  geological units of the Betic Range.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 14/03/2016 19:41:42

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.
No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand.

Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.

That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Surely, but actually to a degree so are humans, waste is a bigger issue then anything, and mis-allocation of resourses, if we could be bothered to actually learn how to recycle and reuse everything we have already extracted, while sustaining our population levels, we potencionally would not need to mine at all.   


Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Yet oil is cheeper then ever and we are all suffering in an ecconomy of deflation. We need to get off oil, but the power industry is not interested in that happening. Still Algie tanks can produce oil and gas, with a good recycling systems we could re-use what we have and produce the difference, with no need for drilling. There are better energy systems comming also, Like Molton Salt ractors that produce no nuclear waste and use almost 100% of there energy value. Research into fungus offers a serious opportunity to allow cleaning and renaturalisation of poluted habitates. 


Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.

Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
Big fishing fleets put all the small guys out of business and over fish. Monsanto helped destroy small local milk farmers, with it's hormone products to produce more milk- a product that allows farmers to gain more milk from its cows, when at the time this was first released there was already too much milk on the market.
Subsidised farming From Europe and America has invaded and destroyed local farming in Africa by under cutting all the local producers: in the same vain of market domination.
Big companies are far more to blame for enviromental and resourse issues we face, the bigger they are the bigger the exturnalities get. Big business is also at the same time getting laws and regulations past that protect them and their market share and as such work to prevent smaller producers entering the marklet place. Seems as tho all companies are seeking the the too big to fail position- it's not free market, it's not capitalist, some kinda werid productionist tyranny.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/03/2016 23:54:37
Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

Fascinating. Nobody had been to the North Pole, the top of Everest, or measured any temperatures in continental Antarctica in 1880. International thermometry was not usefully standardised until 1920 - indeed nobody was really interested in accurate ground surface temperature measurement unitl the advent of the aeroplane, and I'd be particularly interested to know how your authoritatve source measured the mean surface temperatrure of the Pacific Ocean.

Being a pernickety sort (i.e. a physicist), I always ask people how they defined the parameter they are talking about, and how they measured it. Never had an answer for "global mean temperature" until 1970, and even the satellite data has been "corrected" several times since - remarkably, always towards the predicted value of the climate scaremongers!
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 15/03/2016 02:57:03
Fascinating. Nobody had been to the North Pole, the top of Everest, or measured any temperatures in continental Antarctica in 1880. International thermometry was not usefully standardised until 1920 - indeed nobody was really interested in accurate ground surface temperature measurement unitl the advent of the aeroplane, and I'd be particularly interested to know how your authoritatve source measured the mean surface temperatrure of the Pacific Ocean.

Being a pernickety sort (i.e. a physicist), I always ask people how they defined the parameter they are talking about, and how they measured it. Never had an answer for "global mean temperature" until 1970, and even the satellite data has been "corrected" several times since - remarkably, always towards the predicted value of the climate scaremongers!

Funny thing bout the poles, they used to keep pretty good record.  Now that the north pole is disappearing, I guess it's  lucky we core it ahead of time.

NASA runs down what how the massaged the numbers to keep 'em in line with projections, should you actually wish to know what the did.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

But since they did it to "keep in line w/predictions" why bother. [O8)]
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 15/03/2016 13:23:03
Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.

DOH,

Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago.  I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record.  Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....

Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately ;)

The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing CO² content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.

Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow ;)  Fortunate or not the correlation still stands  [:-\]

One thing that needs to be said, is the record books for real time weather and real time climate change only go back 150 years in some places and 100 years in more places. The earth, on the other hand is billions of years old.

For those who wish to believe, when the experts say this is the hottest year on record many people will assume this means hottest of all time; billions of years not 100 years. Most layman assume science has all the answers, it knows about the long term past, it does not lie or spin, therefore this is the hottest it has ever been. The consensus says so, therefore they did all the research so they need to be right and I don;t have to check.

The hard reality is there are records of climate change and temperature, from the long term past that is stored in ice, soil and rock. People have heard about core samples. The hottest on record, sort of implies the hottest on all the records. This is a deliberate play on words. One has to research the past to fully understand the record they are talking about, is not tiny and not a good representation of all the earth's records. It is too small a period of time. This omission of all the facts, and the presentation of the finite set of facts, as the record, causes many people to infer, wrongly. This is called spin. Spin is why there is a political divide; subjective, in what should objective science.

This political divide follows a political template. It works on the same people, time and again. For example, the hottest on record is like saying the top 1% richest people of the USA are responsible of all the evils of the country. This statement lumps all the data and explains it based on the behavior of a few. It does not use all the records of all the people, but it cheery picks one set of records to define the whole. Does this schema sound familiar? All whites, males, straights are racists, sexist and homophobes therefore they need to be punished. You point to a few data records and generalized this to means all the data and records.

A reasonable person will not deny there are some evil rich; narrow data record says warmest. But the reasonable person also knows there are very generous rich people, like Bill Gates; longer data record shows exceptions. If I argue against the misleading premise all rich are evil, I would be called a denier, since they can show me a few data of evil rich. I will say, I can show you data of generous rich, but this will be called irresponsible.

The consensus of science is now in the position to squander the most money and resources they ever had; evil rich. Like the liberals have said, there are no good rich in this little world, since they have all been driven away, with no voice and resources. It has become a self for filling prophesy. This is not different from the scoundrels in the racist and sexist industries.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2016 14:07:11
Just to set the record straight, literally

1. Until 1903 (Wright Brothers), accurate land surface temperature was of little interest and records are, to say the least, sparse.

2. Until the UK National Physical Laboratory was established in 1900, there was no international calibration service for thermometers, and the first credible comparison of national standards took place in 1923.

3. The North Pole was not reached until 1909, the South Pole 1911. Temperature measurements above the polar ice caps was, at best, sketchy before 1955.

4. Even in the 20th century, we have very little temperature data in central Africa, South America, anywhere more than 100 miles offshore, and generally above 10,000 ft.

5. Most of the reliable historic temperature data comes from airfields. Until the 1950s, there was an ever-increasing number of grass airfields, with a few low buildings. The number has decreased steadily since then, and few of the old military strips continue to keep records - private club aircraft are less critically loaded than WWII bombers and the radio weather forecasts are very good. The remaining reporting stations are increasingly major airports and permament military stations with huge concrete runways and lots of buildings - unsurprisingly, a lot hotter than the surrounding countryside!

6. Ocean surface temperature and most land surface temperatures were, frankly, unknown until the advent of satellite imaging in the 1970s. Curiously, although it is perfectly possible to calibrate such instruments to within 0.01 degree accuracy before launch, climate "scientists" feel it necessary to publish frequent "corrections"  to historic satellite data, all of which tend, remarkably, to fit the "predictive model" of the day.

7. A dead hippopotamus cannot lie. Finding the bones of several such animals in Cambridgeshire suggests that this part of the world, at least, was a heck of a lot warmer a few thousand years ago. Knife marks on the bones suggest human activity, and I very much doubt that anyone was importing hippo thighs for fun and profit.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 15/03/2016 14:34:42
One cannot argue, the history of real time climate change history is  short.

But in prospective so is the industrial revolution.

We don't know what all changed climate in the past, but we know its happened.

Today we'll pump about 26.8 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere.  The average daily has increased just about every day for at past 100 years (365,000 days).  I doubt we hit the 1 million ton mark 100 years ago.  Funny thing about human activity...

You can blame politicians, billionaires, whomever you like, it doesn't matter.  Humans like electricity, music, TV, microwaves, heat, air conditioning, phones, computers and transportation provided by trains, planes and automobiles.

The more we use these, the more CO2 we have produced.  By adding renewable resources we may have reached the peek. Wouldn't that be great?
 
Some of us have enough brain cells to rub together to make the connection that these increases, so too may come climate changing consequences.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 15/03/2016 14:47:05
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.

That's not my statement. That's something I read in a magazine several years ago. Mathematicians did those calculations, not me. And it doesn't seem that exaggerated. This is the nature of exponential growth. Human population has doubled in about 50 years, keep doubling every 50 years, that leaves you with about 4 trillion people in 500 years. Even if they use less resources in the future, that's still a lot of people.

Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.

False. Business doesn't work that way. "Job creators" are largely a myth. When the economy is good, businesses hire. When the economy is bad, they lay people off. What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers. Business responds to their demand by producing supply. People are as much to blame as anyone. Even basics like food are a good example. There is plenty of lettuce out there to make salads, but Americans don't eat salads, they eat cheeseburgers. That's their choice. That's why there's an obesity epidemic. Similarly, I have no biological children. I don't drive a car. I eat low on the food chain. These are all personal decisions anyone can make. People can always NOT consume what they are offered. However, especially in the US, conspicuous consumption is a status symbol, and that's a big part of the problem.

Another part of the problem is education. Kids don't like math and science, it's "too hard," they would rather watch videos and play video games all day, just like they have since I was a kid, and every generation gets a little bit farther from the knowledge that could help them make good decisions about things like obesity and climate change. That's something you could blame on Big Business. They control the curriculum. American kids are basically indoctrinated to become part of the Consumer Class and the present system, but when we try to change the curriculum, conservatives claim we are the ones doing the indoctrination.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 15/03/2016 15:03:12
7. A dead hippopotamus cannot lie. Finding the bones of several such animals in Cambridgeshire suggests that this part of the world, at least, was a heck of a lot warmer a few thousand years ago. Knife marks on the bones suggest human activity, and I very much doubt that anyone was importing hippo thighs for fun and profit.
I never heard of that, so I looked it up. Wikipedia says those bones are from 120,000 years ago. That's a lot longer than the "few thousand years" you said.Quote: "They eventually discovered 127 bones that came mostly from a hippopotamus, with a few belonging to rhinoceros and elephant," so that's not "several such animals" like you said. Like most skeptics, you are playing loosely with the facts ... again. And it's sort of hard to believe a single hippo, single rhino, and a single elephant would have teamed up to make a trek to Derby across a land bridge. Seems more like they were placed there. Are you sure you're not getting this story mixed up with the movie Ice Age or something?

Maybe you are under the impression that when the planet gets warmer or cooler, that warm or cool gets evenly distributed. Maybe you haven't heard of things like the Atlantic Conveyor. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, which sets the trend for circulation of the Atlantic's waters. A sufficient influx of fresh water could shut it down, meaning as the rest of the planet gets warmer, the British Isles could get cooler. The opposite could in fact happen and probably has. There's more to climate change than just a simple, evenly distributed temperature rise. Due to the geography and physical features of the Earth, the distribution, absorption and dissipation of heat is never going to be even, so yes, you can get anomalies like hippos in places you might not expect, especially given 120,000 years.

You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 15/03/2016 15:26:54

Maybe you are under the impression that when the planet gets warmer or cooler, that warm or cool gets evenly distributed. Maybe you haven't heard of things like the Atlantic Conveyor. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, which sets the trend for circulation of the Atlantic's waters. A sufficient influx of fresh water could shut it down, meaning as the rest of the planet gets warmer, the British Isles could get cooler. The opposite could in fact happen and probably has. There's more to climate change than just a simple, evenly distributed temperature rise. Due to the geography and physical features of the Earth, the distribution, absorption and dissipation of heat is never going to be even, so yes, you can get anomalies like hippos in places you might not expect, especially given 120,000 years.

You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?

The Atlantic convayor is wind driven.

Picture a strip of ocean surface 1m wide from the Carribean to Ireland. Say 6,000km. On each square meter have the wind cause a 1N force along the current's direction. Add that up and you have enough force to support a collum of water 600m high. 1N is the weight of 100g. Imagine holding a 1m square of cloth just above the ocean's surface in the middle of the North ATlantic, where the winds are strongest. I assure you the force would be much more than 100N. Then allow for the big walls of water all over the surface that are the perfect shape to grip the wind.

When ever a depression goes over the area a 10 feet high swell follows along. And say 15km diameter. 1/2 a cubic kilometer twice week or so. Unless there is a bigger storm.

The last quote of Greenland's ice mass loss was of 12.9Gt per year.

The North Atalntic convayor is not going to be affected by a tiny amount of fresh water mixing with the already cold Arctic water and then mixing with the warmer southern waters and decending to the ocean floor. Keep dreaming alarmists.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 15/03/2016 16:34:13
The Atlantic convayor is wind driven.
FALSE. Like any other example of thermohaline circulation, the Atlantic Conveyor is driven by density gradients arising from uneven surface temperatures ("thermo") and freshwater influx into salt water ("haline").

I would have imagined that, being a plumber, you would AT LEAST know something about how water flows. If you aren't even an expert on that, maybe you shouldn't be commenting about mass/energy conservation, thermodynamics, entropy and climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 15/03/2016 16:43:16
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.
https://books.google.com/books?id=d_arS8LsAtIC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=diminishing+returns+of+technology+rifkin&source=bl&ots=2Y90VmpEWU&sig=riCbydTijX1-7_tC8nywzSx59_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj54NHRkMPLAhVRyWMKHSCnBsIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diminishing%20returns%20of%20technology%20rifkin&f=false

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/02/globalisation.globalrecession
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2016 17:30:16
You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?
The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 15/03/2016 17:50:23
Using the word "scaremongering" is spin, plain and simple. You're biased. You use science to support your arguments, too. You just cherry pick data that support your claims, that's all.

Once upon a time, humans learned how to control fire. One of the first important science lessons we learned is, "Ugh, me burn stuff, me get heat."

Pointing out that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of stored solar energy in just 150 years is likely to make it a bit warmer isn't scaremongering. It's acknowledging reality.

Pointing out that disrupting the climate could cause famines, floods and droughts, leading to economic repercussions isn't scaremongering. It's acknowledging reality.

Again, if you don't believe that burning fossil fuels affects the temperature and composition of a finite atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, leave it running, close the garage door, and roll down your windows.

"Ugh, it getting hot in here ..."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 15/03/2016 18:32:55
The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering.

That's curious, because you're also opposed to spending on researching the topic based on this remark:

Government expenditure on "climate concerns" (mostly, it seems, on ridiculous transport and security costs for pointless conferences) is not the point. By claiming some green credential, governments can impose massive taxes on fossil fuel, so the global warming swindle is perpetuated because a direct tax on food, health and all the other things that use fossil fuel, would be considered immoral. Some of the tax revenue filters back to the scaremongering industry: a very efficient use of your money to extract more.

I doubt anyone would argue the climate is not a complex system.  While I find it ironic the costs of conferences would also have climate consequences, it must be reasons that complex problems, require a complex efforts to resolve.

There is a general consensus that unearthing fossilized hydrocarbons CH4, C2H6, C3H8, C4H10, etc., and burning them increases insulation of the atmosphere.

CO2 is the lowest common denominator of the process.  CO2 is not a direct measure of the hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere, but has correlation.  Hydrocarbons have a greater heat insulation quality.

The volume has increased to a substantial quantity, it is affecting the climate.  There is scientific understanding there is an imbalance, introduced by human activity.  It's quite scientific, tho you claim its based on scaremongering???

One would not be at fault, to perceive you, much like the American Republicans, rely upon pure faith to understand the world around you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 15/03/2016 21:47:32
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.

That's not my statement. That's something I read in a magazine several years ago. Mathematicians did those calculations, not me. And it doesn't seem that exaggerated. This is the nature of exponential growth.

 exponential growth of humanity?

Human population has doubled in about 50 years, keep doubling every 50 years, that leaves you with about 4 trillion people in 500 years. Even if they use less resources in the future, that's still a lot of people.

Which is speculative, if, if, if. I really do not see that happening,

Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.

False.

No it's not false

Business doesn't work that way. "Job creators" are largely a myth.

Nothing to do with job "creators" this was about how business acts and behaves.

When the economy is good, businesses hire. When the economy is bad, they lay people off.

Assumptive, business acts, in their best interest related to profits, regardless of the ecconomic situation, they will lay people off in the good times to and also hire in the bad times, relative to interests of Profit- Noam Chomsky as an example has complained, protested, or maybe demonstraighted that the Corporate sturcture is set up with a mandate and that mandate is to get as much profit as is humanly(or inhumanly) possible, the mandate itself sets restictions on, and impluses CEOs and the corporate structure itself to sacrifice everything in the interest of profit- that has not happened by accident, social concerns, enviromental concerns, moral concerns, are all, if on any list anywhere at all, secoundary- to profit.

Corportions are not there to employ they are there to make money, if employing people helps that agenda, they employ.

What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers.

No false, the market drivers are those who make and maintain a market, primarily. It took 6 attemps to get people to buy premade sandwiches on the 6th attempt after all the investment, advertising, marketing, free tasters, people actually started to buy pre made sandwiches, 5 attempts failed because there was no market, they the sandwich makers, built one.
 
And covered the sandwiches in plastic, kept them in fridges, and throw them away after a few days because they are off now. It took many years, lots of investment and 6 attempts.

Consumers were not asking for premade sandwiches, business decided that they should ask(want) for them.

Business responds to their demand by producing supply.

NOOO! utterly false it makes the demand, that's why marketing and advertising exist! "Get your new widge and get it while its hot, women will sleep with you if you do"

Newspapers state the same lie- "We right the stories that our audience want to hear" Maybe thats not a lie, when you see it's all stories. "We newspapers have no effect on what people think, we just respond to demand"

"we companies have no influence on what people consume, we just respond to demnand" could there be a bigger lie when most people do not even actually know what it is, they are consuming? "it's says blue berry pie, but theres no blue berries in it? really?"

They market to make believe, no?

People are as much to blame as anyone.

People are as much to blame as anyone? although anyone is still a person I assume, well yes people do work for and control business.

Even basics like food are a good example. There is plenty of lettuce out there to make salads, but Americans don't eat salads, they eat cheeseburgers.

Yes and companies spend millions trying to keep them eating them, they even put chemicals in Cheese burgers they know are addictive. They also increase the suger and hype up the taste- can you guess why?

That's their choice. That's why there's an obesity epidemic.

Really, you dont think it's possible to make a chemical free, lower suger, low transfatty acid burger?

Maybe these burger producers are all feeders "I love my customers"

Similarly, I have no biological children. I don't drive a car. I eat low on the food chain. These are all personal decisions anyone can make. People can always NOT consume what they are offered. However, especially in the US, conspicuous consumption is a status symbol, and that's a big part of the problem.

Sure the American way. UMM, a status symbol- thankyou.

Another part of the problem is education. Kids don't like math and science, it's "too hard," they would rather watch videos and play video games all day, just like they have since I was a kid, and every generation gets a little bit farther from the knowledge that could help them make good decisions about things like obesity and climate change. That's something you could blame on Big Business. They control the curriculum. American kids are basically indoctrinated to become part of the Consumer Class and the present system, but when we try to change the curriculum, conservatives claim we are the ones doing the indoctrination.

Ofcourse they do Politicans are an extencion of corporate power today, Once upon a time apparently politicains used to regluated business to protect "the people" today politicians regulate the people to protect the business.

Important to note: it is a very time consuming process to research and look into the activity of a company, espically considering that companies do all they can to protect their image and the image of their products. To make informed decisions(if its even possible in that climate) about products is therefore by default an exhastive process, add-inf, if you gonna look at everything you buy. To blame consumers for poor choices is really a copout that defends the business community- it's all on the comsumers blame them and lets us the business world carry on: which ofcourse makes sense when you realise that democracy means "business rules" and provides for the dumb masses. The sad thing in all of that is ofcourse that while on the one hand big business can offer solutions to enviromental problems, often their own interests are more interesting, which brings us to the sad part that the planet and all its different forms of life should really be at the mercy of something better; Logically, reasonably and morally, but as for whatever that answer is, it should surely be reasonable and moral with at least a hint of logic in there somewhere.   
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 15/03/2016 22:15:26
Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.
https://books.google.com/books?id=d_arS8LsAtIC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=diminishing+returns+of+technology+rifkin&source=bl&ots=2Y90VmpEWU&sig=riCbydTijX1-7_tC8nywzSx59_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj54NHRkMPLAhVRyWMKHSCnBsIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=diminishing%20returns%20of%20technology%20rifkin&f=false

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/02/globalisation.globalrecession


It's a sad situation but really the only way you can became a accepted member of the intelectual class, is by imbracing the status quo and structure. To say "They are all captured" would'nt really be an under statement.

The deminishing "RETURNS" is that business speak for hard profit? it is isnt it, hard profit and power, and all those other benefits of oligarchy status.

Technologies can be used to liberate they can also be used to enslave and control- I wonder which direction the Elites are choosing?
---------

With regards to the artical, it interlinks completly with the point I made before from Noam Chomsky, if Corporation' put Profit first, you can only arrive at a place where no-one works in the corporation but it has huges profits.

Business in the past, when it was family owned for example, would take pride in the fact that it was employing people, that was part of the reason they were in business, to employ people, to benefit the local ecconomy, and society, to make the world a better place, but older business ideals about contributing to society, have been thrown out and the new ideal is "make as much money as possible".

So they start buyiung up all the other companies, laying off everyone they can, so I supoose in the grand dream there is one giant company, that employs about five people and gives all the profits to it's share holders :D it's a really well thought out dream isnt it.

Oh and it's hedgefund and ther hostile take overs, that have destroyed industry more then anything, they buy it, cut it up and sell off the bits, made huge profits doing so.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2016 23:14:00


That's curious, because you're also opposed to spending on researching the topic based on this remark:

Government expenditure on "climate concerns" (mostly, it seems, on ridiculous transport and security costs for pointless conferences) is not the point. By claiming some green credential, governments can impose massive taxes on fossil fuel, so the global warming swindle is perpetuated because a direct tax on food, health and all the other things that use fossil fuel, would be considered immoral. Some of the tax revenue filters back to the scaremongering industry: a very efficient use of your money to extract more.

Conferences at which so-called "word leaders" lock down cities for "security" and play brinkmanship games in order to improve their chances of re-election, are not scientific research.

Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

It is plain to me that farm animals are a major and increasing source of anthropogenic CO2. The green lobby (or at least the worst part of it) insists that animal exhalates are taken up by plants, but vehicle exhausts are not. So we subsidise hill farmers and tax motorists. This is utter drivel, not science.

I still await anyone's definition of global mean temperature, and an explanation of how it has been measured for the past 100 years. If you don't define your parameter, and explain how it is measured, you aren't doing science. No observational research.

Building computer models of an inherently chaotic system, adding fudge factors instead of addressing the inherent nonlinearities in the real system, and massaging such historic data as you have in order to make it fit your naive hypothesis, is not science. 

But the worst offence of all is to faff about building windmills and taxing air passengers instead of facing up to and mitigating the inevitable human disaster of climate change. Unfortunately the modern world is run by religion and politics, not science.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 16/03/2016 12:53:59
exponential growth of humanity?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/52.20.gif

Duh.

Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.

I disagree. It takes 2,000 calories or so per day to sustain a human life. Everything else is optional. That's a pretty extreme point of view, but it is factual. We don't need pretty much any of the stuff we buy when it comes right down to it. You can always refuse the stuff you are offered. When enough people do that, they offer you something else. Keep buying what they offer, and they'll keep offering you the same thing. You know, people like me are ultimately responsible for the GMO debate. You see, I made the choice to start drinking soy milk about 20 years ago, even though it used to cost a lot more than milk. Thanks to people like me creating demand for the product, other producers got on board thinking they could make as good or better product cheaper. Mass production ensued, competition drove down the price, and soy milk started taking up grocery store space where milk used to be. Voila, the GMO scare was born. They want people to be scared of the soybeans they make soy milk out of so they will go back to buying milk. It's just that simple. They claim that because the genes of the soybean aren't "natural," they should be labelled that way, even though "cows" never existed in nature until humans started selectively breeding them and modifying their genes. I had the opportunity to see an uncle of mine in Missouri put on a rubber glove and shove his hand up a cow's vagina when I was a kid. That's more dangerous than drinking soy milk, and less natural.

What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers.

No false, the market drivers are those who make and maintain a market, primarily. It took 6 attemps to get people to buy premade sandwiches on the 6th attempt after all the investment, advertising, marketing, free tasters, people actually started to buy pre made sandwiches, 5 attempts failed because there was no market, they the sandwich makers, built one. And covered the sandwiches in plastic, kept them in fridges, and throw them away after a few days because they are off now. It took many years, lots of investment and 6 attempts. Consumers were not asking for premade sandwiches, business decided that they should ask(want) for them.

No, your statement is false, mine is true, I frigging hate it when people do that. Have you studied economics at the college level? I have. Consumer spending drives about 70% of an economy like that of the U.S. That's why the economy is sluggish. This thread is about climate change, but you went there, so let me break it down to you using some arguments I've used before to keep it quick. These figures are about a year old and from memory. The four Walton heirs, owners of Walmart, are worth about $150 billion, or about 1% of the entire U.S. gross domestic product for an entire year. They employ about 1.4 million Americans and pay them about $27,000 a piece per year. That's an average, which includes not just floor staff, but managers and people at all levels of the heirarchy. So, a few years back, Walmart was in the news because they were collecting canned goods and donations from customers so that their employees could have Thanksgiving dinner. That's the sluggish economy in a nutshell. It's the reason "supply side economics," or "Reaganomics" has been proven not to work. When millions of people are out of work, and millions more are barely scraping by, a business owner may notice he has no customers, all of his employees are standing around, his inventory is collecting dust. How is the government giving him a tax break supposed to stimulate the economy? So he can hire more people to stand around? So he can buy more inventory to collect dust? Maybe open another location where more employees can stand around watching inventory collect dust? The alleged "job creator" can't do anything about the economy. He needs customers. His employees are those customers. Think about the Waltons. If they paid those 1.4 million people better, my fictional business owner would have busier employees. If McDonalds did the same, he would have even more. By paying his employees better instead of pocketing a big tax break, he is doing his part to make the consumer economy go.

You make some points I can sort of agree with in your illustration about pre-wrapped sandwiches. If you like those sorts of example and would like a better grasp of this subject, I suggest you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nature-Economics-Survival/dp/0865716730

Business responds to their demand by producing supply.

NOOO! utterly false it makes the demand, that's why marketing and advertising exist! "Get your new widge and get it while its hot, women will sleep with you if you do" Newspapers state the same lie- "We right the stories that our audience want to hear" Maybe thats not a lie, when you see it's all stories. "We newspapers have no effect on what people think, we just respond to demand" "we companies have no influence on what people consume, we just respond to demnand" could there be a bigger lie when most people do not even actually know what it is, they are consuming? "it's says blue berry pie, but theres no blue berries in it? really?"
No. The most common business model for success is to "find a need, and fill it." This goes back to your sandwich illustration. The inventors of the prewrapped sandwich probably had the foresight to realize people in cities were working long hours in factories and had a limited period of time for lunch. Great idea, but people were turned off by the idea of prepackaged food in those days when home cooked meals were more the standard. So, it took some marketing to get the "good idea" out there. Steve Jobs fits your illustration. He was brilliant, he created products so ingenious that everybody wanted them and were willing to stand in line for days at a time eating prewrapped sandwiches to get them first. Most people who call themselves "job creators" are not Steve Jobs material. They merely ride waves of supply and demand created largely by consumers spending money when they have it. By the way, that book I posted a link to also has an example that will help explain what happened to your blueberries; funny twist, at least to me, is that his best analogy is what happened to the shoe cobbler, not blueberry cobbler.

Yes and companies spend millions trying to keep them eating them, they even put chemicals in Cheese burgers they know are addictive. They also increase the suger and hype up the taste- can you guess why?

I know why. That's an excuse. I used to eat cheeseburgers pretty much every day. When I was 18 or 19, my diet was incredibly poor. I ate whatever I wanted, which was actually just a few things: Cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, potato chips, doughnuts, anything chocolate. You couldn't have force fed me a salad. I didn't have to go to rehab to get off junk food. I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms. I simply decided I needed to start eating healthier, and did. I have a hard time believing people when they blame "food addiction" for being overweight. I get hungry too, just like everyone else. We are all quite literally addicted to food. It's a survival mechanism. 50,000 years ago, if you found something sweet or fatty, your body would respond and say, "Hey, that tastes good, eat more of that. We could use it to survive." Now, when there is a fast food restaurant on every corner, you have think about what you are doing. It's sort of like with the penis. I have a biological urge to reproduce. That doesn't mean I have to act on it every time it crosses my mind. If I did, I would be locked up. Similarly, I don't need to go diving into a bag of potato chips every day just because they taste good. I try to control my brain rather than letting it control me. I'm not a dog or cat. They get those same sorts of "addictive" chemicals you spoke of in their pet chow and respond by having brand preferences, but they don't know about nutrition like human beings, so they have an excuse.

Important to note: it is a very time consuming process to research and look into the activity of a company, espically considering that companies do all they can to protect their image and the image of their products. To make informed decisions(if its even possible in that climate) about products is therefore by default an exhastive process, add-inf, if you gonna look at everything you buy. To blame consumers for poor choices is really a copout that defends the business community- it's all on the comsumers blame them and lets us the business world carry on: which ofcourse makes sense when you realise that democracy means "business rules" and provides for the dumb masses. The sad thing in all of that is ofcourse that while on the one hand big business can offer solutions to enviromental problems, often their own interests are more interesting, which brings us to the sad part that the planet and all its different forms of life should really be at the mercy of something better; Logically, reasonably and morally, but as for whatever that answer is, it should surely be reasonable and moral with at least a hint of logic in there somewhere.   
Again, I disagree. I'm 47, so I remember when it USED to be an exhaustive process to research a company. Now, we have the Internet, so there are really no excuses. It's pretty easy now. In fact, I heard about an app for your phone so specific that you can check and see if a company donated money to Republican or Democratic candidates and causes. Sorry, but a person's life is a person's life. Everyone has the right and the ability to find out whether or not the stuff they buy is good or bad for them and the environment they share with the rest of humanity. If it isn't important enough to a person to do that research and vote with their dollars, choosing instead to ignorantly empower big business with their dollars and ruin the health of themselves and the environment in the process, then they really have no one to blame but themselves. This is a cultural issue in my eyes. Everyone wants to "live for the moment" because "we might not be here tomorrow." That just exacerbates the problem. People buy stuff to make themselves feel good. People don't want to think about consequences. Ours is a superficial, materialistic culture. I'm no fascist, but I do think there's been too much focus on the "individual" and "individual rights" in the U.S. "Socialism" is practically profanity here, as is "communism." God forbid people should sacrifice the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want to in order to be part of a larger community with common goals. I think being against socialism is "antisocial" to a degree. We are social creatures like monkeys and dogs, not solitary animals like cheetahs. People seem to have forgotten, we're all part of a single entity: humanity. We're all part of that tiny blue pixel Voyager saw when it turned back and looked at Earth from billions of miles away. In an age when a perspective like that is even possible and nearly everyone on the planet is interconnected electronically, that's the one thing we shouldn't have forgotten.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 16/03/2016 13:26:56
adding fudge factors ... and massaging such historic data as you have in order to make it fit your naive hypothesis, is not science. 
You mean like when they found 127 bones, most from a single hippo with a few elephant and rhino bones mixed in, and you extrapolated that to mean the climate was warm enough 120,000 years ago for "several such animals" to have "crossed a land bridge" to Derby? You can't massage and fudge data any better than that. Give me a break. Maybe some prehistoric explorers took some bones home as a trophy or a resource or something, because there's no way a hippo, a rhino and an elephant befriended one another and wandered up to the U.K. via a land bridge.

Which wouldn't be possible anyway. You could get to the British Isles via an "ice bridge" during heavy glaciation, but sea level should be higher when the British Isles are experiencing tropical weather, as ice caps and glaciation would be negligible during such a warm period, covering any land bridges ...

Unless you know of some ultra-fast tectonic process I've never heard of ...

How the heck did you get a moderator position at a science forum ?? I only have 8 hours of Biology and 8 hours of Physics at the college level, and I'm finding all sorts of holes in your science.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 16/03/2016 19:53:56
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

What the F!

How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?

You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 16/03/2016 21:30:43
exponential growth of humanity?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sjasper/images/52.20.gif

Duh.

You are arguing that the human population wil just keep on growing until it is just not possible to grow anymore. The signs do not point to that, all advanced ecconomies have slowing population growth. Infact the more advanced an civilisation becomes the less children it's members have, as most countries are set to advance, population should stablise and not grow exponentailly. not forgetting dieases ofcourse which are slowly actually becoming medication resistent.
Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.

I disagree. It takes 2,000 calories or so per day to sustain a human life. Everything else is optional. That's a pretty extreme point of view, but it is factual.


Factual it might be, extreme also, your extremity misses the point, why under such circumstances are people consuming soo much more then they need?

We don't need pretty much any of the stuff we buy when it comes right down to it. You can always refuse the stuff you are offered.

Sure you can but why should anyone? The system we all live in seeks to promote an appathetic attitude in the population(and for many reasons). You are crediting the population with more agency then the system wants them to have; apathy is in the end a by product from a form of indoctrination.

When enough people do that, they offer you something else.

If the mass population stated doing that the management would panic.


Keep buying what they offer, and they'll keep offering you the same thing. You know, people like me are ultimately responsible for the GMO debate. You see, I made the choice to start drinking soy milk about 20 years ago, even though it used to cost a lot more than milk. Thanks to people like me creating demand for the product, other producers got on board thinking they could make as good or better product cheaper. Mass production ensued, competition drove down the price, and soy milk started taking up grocery store space where milk used to be. Voila, the GMO scare was born. They want people to be scared of the soybeans they make soy milk out of so they will go back to buying milk. It's just that simple.

Umm intimidation, how much to blame are those that sucum to fear compared to those that induce it?

They claim that because the genes of the soybean aren't "natural," they should be labelled that way, even though "cows" never existed in nature until humans started selectively breeding them and modifying their genes. I had the opportunity to see an uncle of mine in Missouri put on a rubber glove and shove his hand up a cow's vagina when I was a kid. That's more dangerous than drinking soy milk, and less natural.

What drives a market or consumer economy is consumers.

No false, the market drivers are those who make and maintain a market, primarily. It took 6 attemps to get people to buy premade sandwiches on the 6th attempt after all the investment, advertising, marketing, free tasters, people actually started to buy pre made sandwiches, 5 attempts failed because there was no market, they the sandwich makers, built one. And covered the sandwiches in plastic, kept them in fridges, and throw them away after a few days because they are off now. It took many years, lots of investment and 6 attempts. Consumers were not asking for premade sandwiches, business decided that they should ask(want) for them.

No, your statement is false, mine is true, I frigging hate it when people do that. Have you studied economics at the college level? I have. Consumer spending drives about 70% of an economy like that of the U.S. That's why the economy is sluggish.


You honestly want to argue that your college education was an unbiased look at how ecconomics actually works? The current keynesian ecconomic models used are rediculas, I'll stay with Austrian school I think, I have for the record studied some ecconomics, But certainly studied more in the areas of advertising and marketing tho.

This thread is about climate change, but you went there, so let me break it down to you using some arguments I've used before to keep it quick. These figures are about a year old and from memory. The four Walton heirs, owners of Walmart, are worth about $150 billion, or about 1% of the entire U.S. gross domestic product for an entire year. They employ about 1.4 million Americans and pay them about $27,000 a piece per year. That's an average, which includes not just floor staff, but managers and people at all levels of the heirarchy. So, a few years back, Walmart was in the news because they were collecting canned goods and donations from customers so that their employees could have Thanksgiving dinner. That's the sluggish economy in a nutshell. It's the reason "supply side economics," or "Reaganomics" has been proven not to work. When millions of people are out of work, and millions more are barely scraping by, a business owner may notice he has no customers, all of his employees are standing around, his inventory is collecting dust. How is the government giving him a tax break supposed to stimulate the economy? So he can hire more people to stand around? So he can buy more inventory to collect dust? Maybe open another location where more employees can stand around watching inventory collect dust? The alleged "job creator" can't do anything about the economy.

Not the case its a question of motives, if all he is interested is profits then he wont do anything however, if he was prepared to take less profit share more with the staff they would shop at other places and the staff at other places would shop at wall mart and so on, it's the gross and obsessive demands companies have for profits thats gonna kill them, it's a non ractional model of business in my oppinion.


He needs customers. His employees are those customers. Think about the Waltons. If they paid those 1.4 million people better, my fictional business owner would have busier employees. If McDonalds did the same, he would have even more. By paying his employees better instead of pocketing a big tax break, he is doing his part to make the consumer economy go.


Yeah ofcourse, my point, but you'll find companies today are not interested in their employees in the way they used to be, when complanies were smaller and more intermate.

You make some points I can sort of agree with in your illustration about pre-wrapped sandwiches. If you like those sorts of example and would like a better grasp of this subject, I suggest you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Wealth-Nature-Economics-Survival/dp/0865716730

Business responds to their demand by producing supply.

NOOO! utterly false it makes the demand, that's why marketing and advertising exist! "Get your new widge and get it while its hot, women will sleep with you if you do" Newspapers state the same lie- "We right the stories that our audience want to hear" Maybe thats not a lie, when you see it's all stories. "We newspapers have no effect on what people think, we just respond to demand" "we companies have no influence on what people consume, we just respond to demnand" could there be a bigger lie when most people do not even actually know what it is, they are consuming? "it's says blue berry pie, but theres no blue berries in it? really?"

No. The most common business model for success is to "find a need, and fill it."


Make a need and fill it. Drug dealers do that. You are putting individual agency in a position that really it does not hold in society and deminishing the affects of cohercion. Both are present but the individual does not have the resourses the cohercers do.

This goes back to your sandwich illustration. The inventors of the prewrapped sandwich probably had the foresight to realize people in cities were working long hours in factories and had a limited period of time for lunch. Great idea, but people were turned off by the idea of prepackaged food in those days when home cooked meals were more the standard. So, it took some marketing to get the "good idea" out there. Steve Jobs fits your illustration. He was brilliant, he created products so ingenious that everybody wanted them and were willing to stand in line for days at a time eating prewrapped sandwiches to get them first. Most people who call themselves "job creators" are not Steve Jobs material. They merely ride waves of supply and demand created largely by consumers spending money when they have it. By the way, that book I posted a link to also has an example that will help explain what happened to your blueberries; funny twist, at least to me, is that his best analogy is what happened to the shoe cobbler, not blueberry cobbler.

Yes and companies spend millions trying to keep them eating them, they even put chemicals in Cheese burgers they know are addictive. They also increase the suger and hype up the taste- can you guess why?

I know why. That's an excuse. I used to eat cheeseburgers pretty much every day. When I was 18 or 19, my diet was incredibly poor. I ate whatever I wanted, which was actually just a few things: Cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, potato chips, doughnuts, anything chocolate. You couldn't have force fed me a salad. I didn't have to go to rehab to get off junk food. I didn't have any withdrawal symptoms. I simply decided I needed to start eating healthier, and did.


And that's great and your choice.

I have a hard time believing people when they blame "food addiction" for being overweight. I get hungry too, just like everyone else. We are all quite literally addicted to food. It's a survival mechanism. 50,000 years ago, if you found something sweet or fatty, your body would respond and say, "Hey, that tastes good, eat more of that. We could use it to survive." Now, when there is a fast food restaurant on every corner, you have think about what you are doing. It's sort of like with the penis. I have a biological urge to reproduce. That doesn't mean I have to act on it every time it crosses my mind. If I did, I would be locked up.

 Similarly, I don't need to go diving into a bag of potato chips every day just because they taste good. I try to control my brain rather than letting it control me.

And thats great and everyone should, self control, education and responsibility are keys to human freedom, sadly human freedoms are not really being promoted socially, Going back to apathy issue, and global warming itself, wether true or false apathetic people are not interested. If humanity is to improve our enviromental situation, apathy will only get in the way. I am a community of soultions person, so I see that some technologies can take up the slack that apathetic people will cause, but really only self control and people actually caring about their world and society will really be able to cause a true change. If you just use technology to answer issues people might even become more destructive in their enviromental behaviour as no consideration is given to how they live and act. It's a real issue here systems of social control are preventing human development and slowing attempts at effective responces to enviromental issues.

Still I will say that I see habitat destruction as a far greater issue then global warming, if we can maintain, protect and increase habitates for all the different speacies that live on this earth, even if tempertures rise, many spieaces will be given a better chance at adapting and coping, wiping out the rain forests is a nightmare.   

I'm not a dog or cat. They get those same sorts of "addictive" chemicals you spoke of in their pet chow and respond by having brand preferences, but they don't know about nutrition like human beings, so they have an excuse.

Cant agree if a pet rejects a food it will be because of something they find wrong with it. They say cats are choosy, but in my experience they'll eat anything provided it does not have signs of danger.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 16/03/2016 21:31:23
Had to break it into to post too many words for one:

Important to note: it is a very time consuming process to research and look into the activity of a company, espically considering that companies do all they can to protect their image and the image of their products. To make informed decisions(if its even possible in that climate) about products is therefore by default an exhastive process, add-inf, if you gonna look at everything you buy. To blame consumers for poor choices is really a copout that defends the business community- it's all on the comsumers blame them and lets us the business world carry on: which ofcourse makes sense when you realise that democracy means "business rules" and provides for the dumb masses. The sad thing in all of that is ofcourse that while on the one hand big business can offer solutions to enviromental problems, often their own interests are more interesting, which brings us to the sad part that the planet and all its different forms of life should really be at the mercy of something better; Logically, reasonably and morally, but as for whatever that answer is, it should surely be reasonable and moral with at least a hint of logic in there somewhere.   
Again, I disagree. I'm 47, so I remember when it USED to be an exhaustive process to research a company. Now, we have the Internet, so there are really no excuses. It's pretty easy now. In fact, I heard about an app for your phone so specific that you can check and see if a company donated money to Republican or Democratic candidates and causes. Sorry, but a person's life is a person's life. Everyone has the right and the ability to find out whether or not the stuff they buy is good or bad for them and the environment they share with the rest of humanity.


An yet companies do everything they can to hide potencailly damaging information, you are ignoring reality, to say what you are. The media isnt interested in reporting, they risk losing their advertising fees.

I see you hold your self as a self made man, but you should not let that cause you to belittle those you feel are lower then you, I would say it would be better to show some understanding and try to encourage people to do the same, everyone is not like you, some things are harder for others than they are for you and vice versa, the 'If I can, you all can, and all should' attitude can come across as slightly elitist.

If it isn't important enough to a person to do that research and vote with their dollars,

Well sorry the entire idea of voting with dollars is a disgusting one, which inherently faviours the richest first, I could really careless how good a company is a making a product when it comes to decision making about the future of society, being a good cake maker bares no relation or qualifcation or right to answer those questions.

I believe in democracy, the coporate polyarchy that changed democracys defintion to mean "business rules" is utterly undemocratic.

If you work for a company what power does the manager have? They cant change anything, they follow proceedures, they have no say over the running of the company really save in the odd place where they are delegated a responsibility. As an employee what does it change if you can vote for who manages you? Who ever it is they are going to do the same job and demand the same things- as your manager. 

Now understand politician are managers in the current "democratic" system, they have no power really its been given away, without public consultation.

choosing instead to ignorantly empower big business with their dollars and ruin the health of themselves and the environment in the process,

You have not understood the Thatcher Reagun revolution to say this, politicains empowered business not the people.
 
then they really have no one to blame but themselves. This is a cultural issue in my eyes. Everyone wants to "live for the moment" because "we might not be here tomorrow." That just exacerbates the problem. People buy stuff to make themselves feel good. People don't want to think about consequences. Ours is a superficial, materialistic culture. I'm no fascist,

I would argue technically you could be considered one, if you feel that business control over society and politics- is a good thing. You are not seeing the wood for the trees on this issue.

but I do think there's been too much focus on the "individual" and "individual rights" in the U.S.

Cant agree, there has not been enought

"Socialism" is practically profanity here, as is "communism." God forbid people should sacrifice the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want to in order to be part of a larger community with common goals.

Well these things do not have to be mutually exclusive. And Groups themsleves can take on asspects of individual behaviour. Like it or not we are all a part of a larger group, however common goals is where it gets scarey.

I think being against socialism is "antisocial" to a degree.


Not at all, depends on what you mean by social, if you mean a group you hang with and that group is communist, being a socialist could be considered anti-social, if you mean society, certainly not, it's all relative, socailism has its good and bad points as does capitalism and any other ideology you might care to mention. I can't agree that simply being against a certain idea inherently makes a person anti social. unless their idea is anti-social-ism itself, in which case they are by definition.


We are social creatures like monkeys and dogs, not solitary animals like cheetahs. People seem to have forgotten,

Come on, people have forgotton? You really ignore the elephants in the room, seem to think you live in a society that has just appeared naturally with no influences or social planning.

Devide and conquer.

we're all part of a single entity: humanity. We're all part of that tiny blue pixel Voyager saw when it turned back and looked at Earth from billions of miles away. In an age when a perspective like that is even possible and nearly everyone on the planet is interconnected electronically, that's the one thing we shouldn't have forgotten.

Well it's a rather recent reality, some have not woken up to it yet, so it';s not really something that today can be forgotton, thats for tommorrow.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Jolly on 16/03/2016 21:43:57
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

What the F!

How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?

You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.

Hold his breath :)

Clean coal power plants would reduce co2 emmissions, as would moulton salt reactors.

Reverse combustion systems placed over cooling tanks to capture and so covert CO2 emmissions.

You can tell me there are not ways to reduce Co2 emmisions  without shutting off power.

we are wasteful even with waste.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turning-carbon-dioxide-back-into-fuel/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Totally possible to increase energy production and reduce Co2 emissions at the same time. Still I'd like to see more research into new forests really, and maybe new forest housing.
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://a.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2015/06/3047952-slide-s-2-in-these-new-neighborhoods-the-houses-look-like-trees.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047952/in-these-urban-forest-neighborhoods-the-houses-are-disguised-as-trees&h=422&w=750&tbnid=dTG3TBGlDi_c9M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=160&docid=GZk3xuYOFSjceM&usg=__ZL0snpL5JRsVo7QoKKXzZnK3Ktc=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk5-lmMbLAhVjQZoKHYUzDgEQ9QEISzAH

P.s we really dont have any wealth growth, it's all gone upstairs, we just have ever increasing bubles of fiat debt paper and the illusion of a house bubble.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2016 23:44:23
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
Stop farming animals for food.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 16/03/2016 23:59:56
Stop farming animals for food.
LOL,

That would help a lot.  Unfortunately, its difficult to persuade ppl to refrain from consuming animal products.

I'm a rather spotty vegan. Not because I want to be green, kind to animals, etc.  Its a personal choice, for my health.  I'm eating veggies & pasta, right now, infact.  Once in a while, I break down and eat meat, or some kind of processed cheese product.  Not too often, if I can help it, but us Yank's find it difficult to not eat meat, cheese &/or milk.

I urge friends & family to be more veganistic, and they scoff and contend with issues from not minding their diets better.  :(

Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 17/03/2016 15:29:01
Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to.
You said a mouthful. I agree 100%.

They did away with literacy tests for voters because that was considered unconstitutional, but it would be nice if we could at least make candidates for political office take a test.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 17/03/2016 15:40:54
I still await anyone's definition of global mean temperature, and an explanation of how it has been measured for the past 100 years. If you don't define your parameter, and explain how it is measured, you aren't doing science. No observational research.
I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif

See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2016 18:51:51
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.

It was exactly this superb, unequivocal and scientifically kosher data that first made me (and many others) question the "CO2 -> global warming" consensus, about 15 years ago. It is obvious that temperature determines CO2, not the reverse, at least in Antarctica. And as you can see from recent Mauna Loa data, the same applies in more temperate latitudes.

So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 18/03/2016 11:30:24
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.
So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading. Clearly, as anyone with eyes can see, temperature and carbon dioxide content ARE IN LOCKSTEP. One goes up, the other goes up. One goes down, the other goes down. Fred Astaire may have been "leading" Ginger Rogers, but they danced TOGETHER. And they stayed within the parameters of the dance floor. They didn't go flying up into the rafters at 400 parts per million.

Doesn't matter where those ice core samples are from, either. They still show a correlation between temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere, regardless of location. As I have already pointed out before in this thread, the ozone hole used to appear every year over the Antarctic, and there ARE NO CFC'S USED OR PRODUCED IN ANTARCTICA. That's a sign of atmospheric mixing. Also, when I lived in North Texas, I used to get moisture dumped on me that came all the way up from the Gulf of Mexico. Sorry to break it to you, but those ice core samples aren't made of "local" water. It's thousands of years of snow frozen from a mix of atmospheric moisture from all parts of the globe.

Your "global mean temperature" question is based on confirmation bias. Of course it's getting warmer.

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/4_c365-6-l.jpg

https://modernamerica2011.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ag_Upsala_Glacier.jpg/229426932/422x294/Ag_Upsala_Glacier.jpg

http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsMoncktonMcCartyGl.jpg

https://columbianewsandviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/glacier-melt1.jpg

http://www.thisisclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Mendenhall-low-resolution-jpeg3.jpg

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/user_data/file_data/201202/11/5925939b2.jpg

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/7_kyetrak_glacier_700-757x467.jpg

I can't make you open your eyes. I've been trying for several days now. Clearly, you're not interested in the scientific method. I would bet money you work for a big corporation and are motivated primarily by capitalist interests. That and ignorance are the only two reasons to disseminate flat earth misinformation like this, and you don't seem like the typical ignorant denier. You argue more like a well-informed lawyer working for the bad guy.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/03/2016 11:35:21
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

What the F!

How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?

You are not on the same planet as the rest of us. The idea was never taken up by anybody with a brain. You are deluded. I say this because somebody has to, otherwise you will become more mad.

Hold his breath :)

Clean coal power plants would reduce co2 emmissions, as would moulton salt reactors.

Reverse combustion systems placed over cooling tanks to capture and so covert CO2 emmissions.

You can tell me there are not ways to reduce Co2 emmisions  without shutting off power.

we are wasteful even with waste.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turning-carbon-dioxide-back-into-fuel/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Totally possible to increase energy production and reduce Co2 emissions at the same time. Still I'd like to see more research into new forests really, and maybe new forest housing.
http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://a.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/slideshow_large/slideshow/2015/06/3047952-slide-s-2-in-these-new-neighborhoods-the-houses-look-like-trees.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047952/in-these-urban-forest-neighborhoods-the-houses-are-disguised-as-trees&h=422&w=750&tbnid=dTG3TBGlDi_c9M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=160&docid=GZk3xuYOFSjceM&usg=__ZL0snpL5JRsVo7QoKKXzZnK3Ktc=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihk5-lmMbLAhVjQZoKHYUzDgEQ9QEISzAH

P.s we really dont have any wealth growth, it's all gone upstairs, we just have ever increasing bubles of fiat debt paper and the illusion of a house bubble.

Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.

Secondly you do not undersntand that it will take much more energy to convert the CO2 coming out of the power plant back into fuel than it gets by burning the coal in the first place.

Thirdly you have no clue about the time scales and costs of the things you are talking about. How exactly would you finanace all this without taking wealth from somewhere else and thus reducing living standards?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/03/2016 11:36:20
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
Stop farming animals for food.

Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 18/03/2016 11:50:48
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
Stop farming animals for food.

Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
See ?? That's your problem right there. You're more worried about yourself than you are about the human race as a whole. Who cares if your lifestyle gets taken down a couple of pegs? I sure don't. You already unclog toilets for a living. What's to lose?

Speaking of which, between you and alancalverd, this thread has become constipated. Cram a veggie burger into your face so I don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore. FYI, it's less likely to clog your toilet on the way out.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 18/03/2016 11:57:13
Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.
Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.

This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the Entropy law. The amount of mass lost as heat in a chemical reaction between a few grams of substances is so negligible that chemists usually don't factor it into their results, and that's even when the reactions are dramatic; to a degree, chemists "ignore" the physics in that case. However, the entropy created in the environment is significant when a mass/energy transformation like combustion is applied to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels. Any chemist could tell you that.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2016 13:35:33
Let me chuck a spanner in the conversation,

Global warming is when entropy S can not emit fast enough to compensate for entropy S gain.

>E=>T

Simple rules of thermodynamics.






Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2016 13:41:46


This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics,

Should that not be Photon potential energy transformations?

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/03/2016 16:06:39
Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.
Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.

This isn't just about chemistry anyway. It's about mass/energy transformation and the laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the Entropy law. The amount of mass lost as heat in a chemical reaction between a few grams of substances is so negligible that chemists usually don't factor it into their results, and that's even when the reactions are dramatic; to a degree, chemists "ignore" the physics in that case. However, the entropy created in the environment is significant when a mass/energy transformation like combustion is applied to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels. Any chemist could tell you that.
And they would be barking up the wrong tree.

When the best steam turbine in the world works at peak efficency it converts about 32% of the heat energy into electricity. If you wish to convert the CO2 back you will lose more energy.

Of course if you are using Co2 or other substances then I don't know because I don't know what cobalt has to do with GW. That is why I know you never did any chemistry.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2016 16:10:53

I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it. You cannot possibly say that the bullet leaving the gun was the cause of your finger on the trigger (well, you might, but nobody would believe you) or that the light coming on was the cause of your pushing the switch. Or that pregnancy causes sex.

If A always precedes B, you can't control A by modifying B. 

Now it is established (at least by the Vostok ice cores, probably the only untainted data we have) that temperature leads CO2 concentration, both upwards and downwards. The Mauna Loa annual data confirms this, and the mechanism is pretty clear.

So however desirable it might be to stop burning fossil fuel (no question there), it won't change the direction of climate, which is obviously driven by something else. All it will do is provide a short-term means for politicians and other parasites to blame you and me for the inevitable (and divert tax subsidies to their friends' "renewables" industries) instead of getting off their backsides and doing something to mitigate the looming disaster.

I have to give the Cameron government credit for one thing, at least - reducing the subsidies for unreliable energy sources. But it's a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2016 16:18:08
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some  years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."

Your wealth and lifestyle will come under serious attack when large populations begin to migrate in search of food. Why not take action to prevent it happening, or at least to seriously investigate the cause of climate change? 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/03/2016 16:37:08
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some  years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."

Your wealth and lifestyle will come under serious attack when large populations begin to migrate in search of food. Why not take action to prevent it happening, or at least to seriously investigate the cause of climate change?

1, Not being able to eat the food I choose to is a loss of wealth.

2, I think there should be no agricultural subsidies at all. They are highly destructive.

3, As you have pointed out the link between CO2 and climate is not at all strong, or at least the cause and effect are not know which way round they are. So why do we need to panic about CO2?

4, Technological progress will make the use of fossil fuels rare soon, next few decades.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 18/03/2016 17:40:38

I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif

See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.

If one only concentrates only on temp and CO2, one might fail to recognize methane seems to be the precursor  to spikes in others.  While it may or may not be indicative of human activity.  It suggests that increased hydrocarbon abundance in the atmosphere has a causal effect.

AFAIK, recent human activity has increasingly influenced hydrocarbon abundance... [:-\]
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/03/2016 20:00:22

I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.20d892f132f30b443080003064/1376383198054/PB5-fig3.gif

See the peaks and valleys of the graph? Those high and low points delineate the parameters for not just temperature, but also CO2 and methane. The graph clearly shows that all three sets of parameters are inextricably linked, and have been not just for 100 years, but for at least 800,000 years.

If one only concentrates only on temp and CO2, one might fail to recognize methane seems to be the precursor  to spikes in others.  While it may or may not be indicative of human activity.  It suggests that increased hydrocarbon abundance in the atmosphere has a causal effect.

AFAIK, recent human activity has increasingly influenced hydrocarbon abundance... [:-\]

I'm affraid it's the same counter though;

Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?

To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 18/03/2016 20:39:20
I'm affraid it's the same counter though;

Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?

To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.

Truth be told, this doesn't look "almost flat" to me.  But I can see how you might choose to read it that way.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 18/03/2016 22:02:09
I'm affraid it's the same counter though;

Since we have been putting out more methane recently especially since the present warmish period has caused some melting of permafrost why has the temperature not shot up and has remained flat for almost 2 decades?

To me this says that other factors are more significant and the effect of humans is slight.

Truth be told, this doesn't look "almost flat" to me.  But I can see how you might choose to read it that way.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/450px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png)

Not sure what data set you(or they) are using there. But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/03/2016 00:27:07
the link between CO2 and climate is not at all strong, or at least the cause and effect are not know which way round they are. So why do we need to panic about CO2?


The object of my experiment (reducing the number of farmed animals) is to test the hypothesis. The production and consumption of farmed meat accounts for about 25% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. It can be reduced very quickly by simply not breeding animals for food, and if CO2 is a strong causative factor, this should produce an immediate change in the rate of change of global mean temperature.

The effect should be detectable within 5 years. If the effect is deemed to be desirable, we can continue the experiment until it becomes the norm. If there is no detectable effect, or things get even worse, we can reverse the experiment (I allowed for a reserve of breeding stock) and be fully carnivorous within a further 5 years or so.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 19/03/2016 10:27:14
Based on the Ice Core graph, it seems the topic of this thread is clearly answered.  Skeptics are wrong to claim no link.

Cause/effect somewhat debatable.  Looks like increased atmospheric hydrocarbons drives temp &co2 spikes.

What are the most likely causes for increased hydrocarbons? 

Animal population explosions
Plant population explosions
Methane trapped in crust released
Fracking
Tar & oil extraction

What else could be added to the list?
 
I suspect many of the past spikes have followed seizemic events, where the crust was ruptured, exposing methane in large quantities.  Most likely precipitated by earth quake. 

Can't rule out cosmic events rupturing crust or meteors carring methane, both seem unlikely, but possible.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 19/03/2016 10:43:03
The object of my experiment (reducing the number of farmed animals) is to test the hypothesis.
...

Changes in habitual behavior, often meets denial and resistance.  If you really wish to change habitual behavior, one needs to concentrate on educating the ignorant first.

Factory farming is problematic, w/regard to co2 and probably more culpable methane released by these activities.  Antibiotic use, imposes epidemic effects, worthy of fear-mongering.

This video is encouraging and disheartening, but worth a watch, it's somewhat educational. [:)]

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 10:50:05
Based on the Ice Core graph, it seems the topic of this thread is clearly answered.  Skeptics are wrong to claim no link.

Cause/effect somewhat debatable.  Looks like increased atmospheric hydrocarbons drives temp &co2 spikes.

What are the most likely causes for increased hydrocarbons? 

Animal population explosions
Plant population explosions
Methane trapped in crust released
Fracking
Tar & oil extraction

What else could be added to the list?
 
I suspect many of the past spikes have followed seizemic events, where the crust was ruptured, exposing methane in large quantities.  Most likely precipitated by earth quake. 

Can't rule out cosmic events rupturing crust or meteors carring methane, both seem unlikely, but possible.

I must have missed the strong evidence that the climate is driven by hydrocarbon gasses. Which post was it in? That would be that hydrocarbons are more significant than any other factors in climate change.

Just because you want it to be so does not make it so!
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2016 11:15:15
LISTEN, you are ALL talking of things that is not the cause of global warming, they are factors of global warming.

The cause is exchange rate and the laws of thermodynamics.


Following the wrong path will only lead to the wrong answers.

factors -

1. For every person or animal born   >S
2. For every person that dies   >S
3. For every fire >S
4. For every action >S
5. For every EM source >S


Now if S releases E at rate A, but S gains E at rate B which is greater than A, then S only goes and can only go one direction, which is ''UP''.  I.e when S gains B at a rate that is way greater than A, in this example we will use air,
it will go ''up'' and not come back down.



 

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/03/2016 11:44:30
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 19/03/2016 12:01:51
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it. You cannot possibly say that the bullet leaving the gun was the cause of your finger on the trigger (well, you might, but nobody would believe you) or that the light coming on was the cause of your pushing the switch. Or that pregnancy causes sex.

If A always precedes B, you can't control A by modifying B. 

Now it is established (at least by the Vostok ice cores, probably the only untainted data we have) that temperature leads CO2 concentration, both upwards and downwards. The Mauna Loa annual data confirms this, and the mechanism is pretty clear.

So however desirable it might be to stop burning fossil fuel (no question there), it won't change the direction of climate, which is obviously driven by something else. All it will do is provide a short-term means for politicians and other parasites to blame you and me for the inevitable (and divert tax subsidies to their friends' "renewables" industries) instead of getting off their backsides and doing something to mitigate the looming disaster.

I have to give the Cameron government credit for one thing, at least - reducing the subsidies for unreliable energy sources. But it's a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
Here's the part I want to focus on. You said, "It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it." So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?

Oh, I know, it probably has something to do with applying combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels. When you burn stuff, that produces heat.

What you are talking about is natural. Let's say the Sun's output was a bit higher. That would raise temperatures, which would thaw permafrost, releasing greenhouse gases. In that case, temperature would lead.

However, human beings are now part of the equation. That's what you're not considering. In the last 150 years, we've obviously added a lot of extra heat to the system by releasing lots of stored solar energy that was trapped in fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide isn't just "following" the temperature lead anymore, coming up out of thawed permafrost and such. We are adding a lot of it to the atmosphere through combustion, and removing less of it because of deforestation.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 19/03/2016 12:08:07
But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.
Technology is the problem. If it wasn't for technology, there wouldn't 7 billion people blazing through resources at breakneck speed on an exponential growth curve. We would still be living at a balance with what the environment was able to support.

It is time for humans to take stock of our situation and do something about it. Blind faith in technology and "progress" is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2016 12:08:33
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?


I am not 100% clear on your question Alan, what I consider is when air rises the thinner air up top becomes more dense , and the dense air at sea level becomes more thin, opposite and equal reaction, so I consider if up top becomes more dense, then up top becomes warmer , and if down below becomes less dense, it becomes colder.   Less energy per parts volume.



Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2016 12:12:04

 Blind faith in technology and "progress" is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Oh yes, those who tried to stop the industrial revolution were not wrong. I agree with you totally that we should have never ''ate the apple''.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
Here's the part I want to focus on. You said, "It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it." So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?

Oh, I know, it probably has something to do with applying combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels. When you burn stuff, that produces heat.

What you are talking about is natural. Let's say the Sun's output was a bit higher. That would raise temperatures, which would thaw permafrost, releasing greenhouse gases. In that case, temperature would lead.

However, human beings are now part of the equation. That's what you're not considering. In the last 150 years, we've obviously added a lot of extra heat to the system by releasing lots of stored solar energy that was trapped in fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide isn't just "following" the temperature lead anymore, coming up out of thawed permafrost and such. We are adding a lot of it to the atmosphere through combustion, and removing less of it because of deforestation.

No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.

The hypothesis that explains the increase in CO2 after a warming of the world is that CO2 dissolves in water better when the water is cold. As the water heats up the CO2 comes out. The oceans have lots of CO2 dissolved in them and take a long time to fully adjust to temperature changes on the surface of the world. This is why there is an 800 year lagg between temperature and CO2 peaks and troughs. At least that's the hypothesis.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:23:24
But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.
Technology is the problem. If it wasn't for technology, there wouldn't 7 billion people blazing through resources at breakneck speed on an exponential growth curve. We would still be living at a balance with what the environment was able to support.

It is time for humans to take stock of our situation and do something about it. Blind faith in technology and "progress" is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

Evil drivel. If you mean that we should return to some sort of hunter gatherer society with a total population of a few million using fire to hunt with etc then be my guest to try it and find out that being incompetant in the modern world has the prediction that you will still be incompetant trying to hunt for yourself.

You will also quickly find out that us humans can't live at all without technology. The thrown stick is technology. The spear is advancing tec. Fire is tecnology. How are you going to eat the root vegitables you will need to without fire?

Mods; Should such anti-hunam, anti-technology, anti-science types as these drivel speaking hippies be allowed anywhere near a science forum?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 19/03/2016 12:25:56
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
Have you ever had a fever? Did your temperature go back down?

The "biosphere" on the surface of the earth is basically an organism. All the interactions of plants and animals, predators and prey, cause gradual changes to the planet and atmosphere. Ice melts, reflecting less sun, so even more ice melts, moving cubic miles of ice off land masses and into the ocean, triggering volcanoes, which cool things off. Animal populations explode, shifting the dynamics of grasslands and forests. All these thing work together to keep temperature and CO2 content within certain parameters. However, right now, the Earth has a fever. We are the organism causing that fever. That fever is the earth trying to keep us in check, just like your body does when you have a fever.

Ever wonder why we haven't found intelligent life yet? IMHO, a big part of the reason for that is because planets like earth are rare. I think there are a whole bunch of rare coincidences that make the Earth habitable. Just the right distance from the Sun, just the right size to hold an atmosphere that happens to be just the right mix of gases, just the right amount of water to make ice/albedo effects possible, just the right core for a protective magnetic field, just the right planetary system to sweep up asteroids and debris to keep us safe, etc. To me, the Earth essentially "won the lotto." Self-regulating planets with biospheres aren't an everyday occurrence.

"Life force" operates under the same sort of "invariance principle" or "gauge symmetry" that any other force does. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As a life force, we are increasing entropy in our environment, and the environment is starting to push back. This is to be expected according to the laws of physics.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 19/03/2016 12:41:31
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.

It is NOT hyperbole to say that we have quite literally, in the course of 150 years, released millions and millions of years' worth of stored solar energy that was previously stored safely away, trapped in fossil fuels.

Here's an analogy, just for you. Let's say every person that lived in America since 1776 had thrown a dollar in a hole. That wouldn't affect the GDP very much, or the economy. It's just a dollar. However, let's say you stumbled upon that hole in 2016 and decided to take it all out. There are over 300 million people alive today in the US. You would find something like a billion dollars. That's enough to effect the economy a little bit when you spend it all at once.

Now, imagine the U.S. had been around since 1.776 billion years ago, replace the Americans with trees, replace those dollar bills with lumps of coal, and you have a better idea what I am talking about.

I don't know why I bother to explain these things. After more than 25 years, I've concluded that skeptics are always going to believe what they want to believe no matter how much they get slapped in the face with the truth. An ex-girlfriend of mine used to call it "stuck on stupid."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 19/03/2016 12:47:49
Evil drivel. If you mean that we should return to some sort of hunter gatherer society with a total population of a few million using fire to hunt with etc then be my guest to try it and find out that being incompetant in the modern world has the prediction that you will still be incompetant trying to hunt for yourself.

Should such anti-hunam, anti-technology, anti-science types as these drivel speaking hippies be allowed anywhere near a science forum?
Okay, I'll go, but only if we also kick out all the plumbers and fiscal conservatives. You're the ones disseminating misinformation. I've got news for you, pal. You don't get to decide what's best for the whole human race, and you are not even close to smart or informed enough to make that decision for us, so maybe you should lay off the right wing fascist streak and go unclog a toilet, because apparently you are at least competent enough for that.

Heck, forget about my college degree. I cleaned carpet professionally for just under a year before I moved to California. I had three professional certifications. I'll bet I know more about chemistry than you just from that. I'll bet I can get a crap stain out of carpet better than you can unclog a toilet, and I can fully explain the science of how it works. Incompetent hippie my foot.

e·vil
ˈēvəl/Submit
adjective
1.
profoundly immoral and malevolent.

I resent that. I further propose you are a hypocrite. You're worried about your own self interest more than the whole of humanity. That's not just immoral and malevolent. It's antisocial and uncivilized.

I mentioned "gauge symmetry" and the "invariance principle" to alancalverd a couple of posts back. That applies to your comments, too. Keep trying to silence the "hippies" like some kind of fascist, and you can expect some pushback from people who want to silence the climate change deniers. Yes, the laws of physics and entropy manifest themselves in politics and economies, too. I'm positive, you're negative, and this thread is roughly as politically charged as our democracy right now.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2016 14:06:07
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. 
I don't know why I bother to explain these things

Ok lets look at the numbers
First off let's see how much heat the Earth gets from the sun.
The solar constant is of the order of 1.3 kilowatt per square metre.
The Earth's area facing the sun is pi r^2
(That's the area of the shadow it casts rather than the surface area.)
the radius is about 6.4 million metres.
So the area is 128E 12 square metres
So we get about 1.7 E 17 Watts from the sun

In a day we get 4 E 18 Watt hours and in a year we get 1.5 E 21 Watt hours
That's 1.5 E 9 TWHr per year.

By comparison we use something like 100,000 TWHr/ year
(from here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.

So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true

I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.

But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 14:41:25
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. 
I don't know why I bother to explain these things

Ok lets look at the numbers
First off let's see how much heat the Earth gets from the sun.
The solar constant is of the order of 1.3 kilowatt per square metre.
The Earth's area facing the sun is pi r^2
(That's the area of the shadow it casts rather than the surface area.)
the radius is about 6.4 million metres.
So the area is 128E 12 square metres
So we get about 1.7 E 17 Watts from the sun

In a day we get 4 E 18 Watt hours and in a year we get 1.5 E 21 Watt hours
That's 1.5 E 9 TWHr per year.

By comparison we use something like 100,000 TWHr/ year
(from here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.

So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true

I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.

But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.

Thank you for injecting some actual science.

I think it is a reasonable idea that more CO2 should have a significant effect on the climate but I don't see it as being anywhere near the top end of the IPCC's predictions.

The reason I say this is because the amount of CO2 we have released since 1998 is more than the IPCC expected yet there has been no significant temperature change. This surely means that we can discount the top half of those predictions. At which point there is nothing to worry about at all.

For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 19/03/2016 17:33:57
Thank you for injecting some actual science.

... subjective science analysis removed ...

For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist.

I'm brewing a little oxymoron, anybody want some?

Sorry, just seems like we need a little levity and something about that post, struck me curious.


CO2 Not the driving force.  It's an indicator IMO.  The driving force of our climate is the mean temperature of the oceans.  If there's more CO2 more critters (bacteria, et al) are going to reproduce and deal with it.  But it's going to take time, like Tim said, our planet lives.

Human activities, combined with GREED and industrial scale technology has increased atmospheric content of both CO2 and hydrocarbons.  Both slow the process of heat escaping into space, opposed to nitrogen and O2.

I believe the oceans of this world, drive the wind and the rain and most (not all, but most) everything we term the climate.

Weather changes over night.  The climate changes on the decade (or longer) scales.

I can remember hearing about tornadoes and hurricanes when I was a child.  I don't believe human activity has ever caused them to occur.  But it seems that if we insulate (only a little) more heat in the oceans, their frequencies increase.  It seems to me, to be the case...  But historical human knowledge of these events is quite limited.

I counter all that with my "liberal" sense of morality.  We all seem to be greedy.  We will drive cars an a daily basis, when we can.  That's a form of greed.  Morally speaking, if we use up all the hydrocarbon resources, w/out providing for existence when they're gone, we not only greedy, we're pretty stupid.

Many, many societies would utterly collapse tomorrow, if the oil well goes dry today.  That's a morality, I have a hard time coming to terms with.  I think we're doing things wrong, burning fossil fuels for any purpose other than creating a sustainable "NOW."  I'd like to see a world where my kids won't blame my greed, or for not shouting, "Hey... Guys wtf..."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 18:00:22
1, it was not I who waxed on with the Gia gibberish.

2, 2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/noaa-number-of-major-tornadoes-in-2015-was-one-of-the-lowest-on-record-tornadoes-below-average-for-4th-year-in-a-row/

The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/03/2016 23:06:42
So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?
The distribution of water between the atmosphere and the surface, between its various states and formats, and in the circulation of ocean currents, appears to be the principal driver of climate change.

This bounded chaotic oscillation will lead to roughly periodic variations in temperature at any point on the globe. The shape of the temperature curve is consistent with the known positive feedback of the water vapor greenhouse effect, leading to rapid temperature rises and slow decreases. 

It is even arguable that the water cycle produces a cyclic variation in the mean surface temperature of the globe, but as I've pointed out previously, we don't have credible data on that parameter before 1970 so it would be unscientific to speculate.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 20/03/2016 09:21:23
So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?
The distribution of water between the atmosphere and the surface, between its various states and formats, and in the circulation of ocean currents, appears to be the principal driver of climate change.

This bounded chaotic oscillation will lead to roughly periodic variations in temperature at any point on the globe. The shape of the temperature curve is consistent with the known positive feedback of the water vapor greenhouse effect, leading to rapid temperature rises and slow decreases. 

It is even arguable that the water cycle produces a cyclic variation in the mean surface temperature of the globe, but as I've pointed out previously, we don't have credible data on that parameter before 1970 so it would be unscientific to speculate.

I think it is reasonable to say that the medeval warm period was global. We seem to have plenty of proxy data for that. Just because the data is a form that is not as "cool" as an easy number does not make it not credible.

Obviously the Holocene Optimal, the climate in the early bronze age 2200+ years ago, was even warmer than the MWP.

These periods are both within the present ice age so any time outside an ice age makes us look positively frigid now.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 20/03/2016 15:00:58
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.

So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true

I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.

But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.
What's the total combined mass of humanity? About 500 million tons? That's the teeniest, tiniest fraction of the planet's mass. Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet. All that combustion has caused the CO2 level of the whole entire atmosphere to increase a full 20% in ONLY 50 YEARS. That's the point I'm getting at. Our changes are relatively small if you only use the sun's total output as your metric, but they appear much larger when you compare them to the sorts of atmospheric changes that usually take thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years of geological time, like the changes brought about by continental drift and plate tectonics. That's why there's a sharp spike at the end of this graph the coincides with the invention of the mass-produced automobile:

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

See that? That spike is NOT representative of the statement that our paltry 1/15,000 of the suns output is "negligible."

I totally agree with you, that "even a small change will make a significant difference to our climate." But, instead of supporting my side of the argument, you're supporting the confirmation biased guy who's using this same information to support his flat earth, no-climate-change skeptic argument. Yeah, he's technically correct, but not really.

Besides, guys like him usually say the opposite when it's convenient. As in, "The sun's energy is simply too diffuse and weak to supply our power needs." Are you going to stand up for him when he pulls that one out too?

Just in case, I'll post a pre-emptive strike against that argument as well:


Two square meters of sunshine melts a rock that's been around for ten billion years. That could easily provide enough steam-generated power for an entire house, perhaps enough to move a train.


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 20/03/2016 15:14:16
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/noaa-number-of-major-tornadoes-in-2015-was-one-of-the-lowest-on-record-tornadoes-below-average-for-4th-year-in-a-row/

The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes. [/color]
FALSE. The vast majority of the tornadoes in the world happen in Tornado Alley. That's because of geography. Air masses travel over the Rocky Mountains and dump all their snow. What is left is very cold, very dry air. In Tornado Alley, that air mass meets up with a very warm, very moist air mass travelling up from the Gulf of Mexico. That's what powers most of the world's tornadoes.

http://www.universetoday.com/75828/where-is-tornado-alley/

When the climate gets warmer, that shifts climate zones. When you warm up the atmosphere, that affects circulation patterns. If you shift the movement of air masses away from the geography that makes them clash, you get less tornadoes.

http://sites.sinauer.com/ecology3e/ccc/CCC-24-01.jpg

Again, you are led by Confirmation Bias. You start with a theory (climate change is not real), then cherry pick information that you believe supports your non-factual claim. That's the exact opposite of the Scientific Method, and your hypotheses therefore have no place in a scientific forum.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2016 17:15:36
Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.
Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 20/03/2016 17:30:13
there has been no significant temperature change.

For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist. [/color]
For the record, science isn't about liberal or conservative points of view. Again, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is what matters in science. Empirical evidence and the predictive power of a theory is the ultimate test of that theory. Again, I read Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World" in 1988. He made a lot of predictions in that book. I have watched them come true one by one for nearly three decades, falling like dominoes. That's what's scary. We don't want the rest of the dominoes to fall, trust me.

Here's the reality, in a form you can easily visualize:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4252

Now, let's address your comments about politics, but from a scientific point of view. Political views are not linear in nature. They are more like a field. People visualize the linear view anyway, defining thing in terms of left, right and center. That's not how it works.

Picture a bar of uncharged iron. You align it with the poles of the planet and start pounding on it with a hammer. You will impart it with a charge, magnetizing it. It now has a north pole and a south pole. That's a "field," in this case, a magnetic field. The thing is, neither the positive nor the negative charge emerged first. They emerged together. At no point is the magnet more positive than negative, or vice versa. The charges are always equal. They are always symmetric. That property is invariant. Invariance and symmetry are important concepts in science.

Now, let's apply that to politics. When everybody is equal, and everybody makes the same amount of money, and nobody is disenfranchised, there's no reason to for people to steal from each other. There's nothing to get upset about. Everybody gets to eat their fair share of granola, so they can hug trees. That's not "the left," that's "the center." That's the uncharged bar of iron.

When everybody is not equal, and millions of people don't get paid a decent living wage because every job is considered "entry level," and millions of people are disenfranchised because of voter ID laws, there's plenty to get upset about. When people have to steal or fight just to get a bowl of granola, the last thing they are worried about is hugging trees. That's the charged bar of iron you pounded on with a hammer. Remember, positive and negative charges don't emerge separate from one another. They emerge symmetrically, and that is an invariant property. When the haves start taking more than their fair share of granola, that creates scarcity in the marketplace for the have nots, and because they get hungry too, they have demands for some of that supply, so the liberals and conservatives arise in tandem. The wider the gap between the haves and the have nots, the more politically charged the atmosphere becomes. If you want to get back to the Center, you have to lessen the differential between the charges. A good way to do that is to stop redistributing income earned by millions of hard working people up to the top of a pyramid where alleged job creators remove it from the economy and put it in offshore tax shelters because, news flash: money is just like granola.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2016 17:45:39
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.

So, Tim's comment "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature."
is true

I also therefore, don't understand why you say such things , and yes, I think we can forget about your college degree.

But what matters is that, because the sun's energy supply is so huge, even a small change in how much is absorbed (because of CO2 levels rinsing, for example) will make a significant difference to our climate.
What's the total combined mass of humanity? About 500 million tons?

 Yeah, he's technically correct, but not really.

Two square meters of sunshine melts a rock that's been around for ten billion years. That could easily provide enough steam-generated power for an entire house, perhaps enough to move a train.

My! what a lot of nonsense you managed to put in there.
The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.
He's technically correct, and he's really correct.
It's you who has missed the point.
It's not the direct heating effect of burning fossil fuels that matters a damn.
The effect that makes a difference is the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Two square metres of sunshine provides about 2.6 Kw.
I can use more than that trying to heat a single room
Good luck trying to heat a house with it.
And, for the record, a train uses something like a thousand times that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive#Diesel-electric

Please start posting stuff that's relevant rather than cobblers.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 20/03/2016 17:47:41
Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.
Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
Please remove your head from the sand. We've released the solar energy stored in a hundred million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, not to mention the carbon dioxide that goes with it. That is without precedent, unless you want to go all the way back to when organisms first figured out how to photosynthesize and store solar energy in the first place. Turns out, their success allowed them to change the atmosphere faster than organisms could adapt, which caused mass extinctions. And guess what? The changes they made took a lot longer than 150 years...
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 20/03/2016 18:13:16
1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.

2) It's not the direct heating effect of burning fossil fuels that matters a damn.
The effect that makes a difference is the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

3)Two square metres of sunshine provides about 2.6 Kw.
I can use more than that trying to heat a single room
Good luck trying to heat a house with it.
And, for the record, a train uses something like a thousand times that.
1) Here's a word for you: "Context." In the context of his argument, we're supposed to be comparing the energy output of our economy to the Sun's total output, which he claims is 1/15,000. That's a silly argument because the context is all wrong. We're talking about the TOTAL CO2 CONTENT OF THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE, which has DRAMATICALLY RISEN BY 20% IN JUST 50 YEARS. So, I don't CARE if he's correct, or technically correct about the 1/15,000. That's not the "context" that matters. It's the fact that, left to her own devices, natural laws apparently kept the limit of atmospheric CO2 to a MAXIMUM level of 320 ppm for at least 800,000 years that we know of, and we have now pushed that to a full 20% PAST those levels, and in just 50 short years of geological time. Our atmosphere is not supposed to resemble one in which most of the Earth's forests are on fire, and they will in fact respond by catching fire. So will grasslands.

2) FALSE. That's what combustion is in the first place. Combustion is literally the act of unlocking energy from a fossil fuel, using the heat to produce work. That's why the hood of your car gets hot. When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. Your body temperature stays warm because on the inside you are unlocking molecules to release the energy they contain. Fossil fuels are just really just incredibly old, compressed versions of those same molecules. It is a FACT that combustion produces heat. It is also a FACT that our atmosphere operates according to the so-called Greenhouse Effect, which is what makes the Earth a habitable planet in the first place. The atmosphere keeps energy from bouncing off the planet and back out into space, so the planet's surface retains some heat instead of becoming cold. That's exactly how a blanket works. Without our atmosphere and the particular mix of gases it contains, conditions would not be suitable for life as we know it. The problem is, when we release a lot of heat into an atmosphere that already has properties that make it want to retain heat rather than letting it escape into space, plus we add a lot of carbon dioxide that helps the atmosphere retain even more of that heat, we're asking for trouble. Our old blanket worked fine, but we replaced it with an electric blanket, and turned up the heat setting. I hate trying to sleep when it's too hot and I'm sweating. I get the same sorts of dreams I do when I have a fever because in those circumstances, I can only attain a sort of "half-asleep" state. Is that what's wrong with you? Try soaking in a tub of ice.

3) Watch the video again. You must have missed something. Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2016 19:43:49
1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.

2) It's not the direct heating effect of burning fossil fuels that matters a damn.
The effect that makes a difference is the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

3)Two square metres of sunshine provides about 2.6 Kw.
I can use more than that trying to heat a single room
Good luck trying to heat a house with it.
And, for the record, a train uses something like a thousand times that.
So, I don't CARE if he's correct

So, you are trolling.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2016 19:48:47
Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.
Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
Please remove your head from the sand. We've released the solar energy stored in a hundred million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, ... yada yada yada
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2016 20:06:48
And while we are at it, lets do some actual numbers on this claim " You must have missed something. Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal."

OK I really don't think there's anything I can have missed here.
You say (twice) they are using two square metres of mirrors.
Well, that can't collect more power than falls on two square metres.
So that's two times the solar constant
which is 2 m^2 times 1.35 KW/m^2
which is 2.7 KW


And then there's your second unsupported claim there
"you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal"
That sounds more credible, but it's no great challenge to run the numbers.
Lets assume you are using an imperial gallon, rather than the smaller US gallon.
That's about 4.5 litres and you say "several"
Well, that's not very scientific, but lets pick a number and say 10, which I think is generous.
So that's 45 litres of "metal".
Again, I'm going to have to make an assumption or two here- firstly that the metal is steel and secondly that the heat of fusion of steel is comparable with that for iron.
So 45 litres of steel is (measured near room temp- which introduces an error- but it's in your favour) is about 350kg
And, the data from here
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fusion-heat-metals-d_1266.html
tells me that it takes 272 KJ to melt each Kg of metal
So that's about 100,000 KJ of energy.
Sounds a lot.
Now lets also consider a 1 bar electric fire
That's 1KJ per second or about 85000 KJ per day.
But that's hardly going to heat your home.
To do that you need the sort of boiler they use for central heating.
This sort of thing
https://www.mrcentralheating.co.uk/boilers/boilers-by-type/combi-boilers/35kw-42kw
And it seems tha a typical boiler draws something like 30 KW
Which is about 25 times more energy each day than is needed to melt ten buckets of steel.

So, while I have no doubt that you were "certain", it doesn't detract from the fact that you are wrong.

And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
And I think that's going to make more difference to the debate than randomly TYPING in all CAPS.
Also, please look up the meaning of the word "literally" because this
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is just plain ignorant.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/03/2016 08:58:58
Some more numbers.

You need about 10,000,000 joules per day from food to stay alive

Most of that energy is actually used to keep you warm enough to digest your food, move the blood around your body, and keep your brain functioning. Very little (about 10%) is available to do "useful" work.

Western Man uses an additional 150,000,000 joules of "artificial" energy each day to grow food, process transport and cook it, pump water and sewage, build and destroy things, heat and cool space, and waste time with computers. The number varies with region - a bit less in the Mediterranean and at least double in North America.

At least two thirds of the world's population regards 1.5 kW per capita as an aspirational figure, and intergovernmental "climate agreements" recognise this as some kind of human right.

So whatever you propose as a reasonable level of population or a sensible means of supplying its energy needs, you will have to find a way of providing at least 1.5 kW per head.

I beg to differ with BC in one small way. We ingest carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, inhale oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide and water. The energy conversion efficiency of human digestion is around 90%, which is as close as you need to "combustion". Admittedly the chemistry is a lot more subtle, but the physics is indistinguishable.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 21/03/2016 13:59:27
So, you are trolling.
Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are.

I am Craig W. Thomson.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=craig%20w%20thomson

Nothing anonymous about that. Now, is your name really "Bored Chemist" ?? I don't think so. Practice what you preach, troll.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 21/03/2016 14:10:51
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.
Please stop pretending you are a chemist. You are not a big fan of reality, huh? Remember my analogy about having a fever? It only takes a few little degrees above 98.6 Fahrenheit, and you will die. That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?

Also, your logic is flawed. Of course, EVERYTHING that happens on earth is tiny compared to the sun, because the sun is HUGE. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 21/03/2016 14:25:00
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

Again, it's not the size of the 1/15,000 ratio of our output vs. the sun's that is important. I worked with live tropical fish for 4 1/2 years and raised them at home even longer. One thing you need to know about aquariums is that they require STABLE conditions. If you let the pH of the water or some other condition drift the tiniest fraction from where it should be, you can throw off the whole system and kill your fish, your reef, everything. As a chemist, you should be able to understand that. It doesn't take a whole lot extra of something to make a huge difference in the system to which you introduced it when you start tinkering with stable or self-regulating systems.

If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 21/03/2016 14:33:00
Some more numbers.

You need about 10,000,000 joules per day from food to stay alive

Most of that energy is actually used to keep you warm enough to digest your food, move the blood around your body, and keep your brain functioning. Very little (about 10%) is available to do "useful" work.

Western Man uses an additional 150,000,000 joules of "artificial" energy each day to grow food, process transport and cook it, pump water and sewage, build and destroy things, heat and cool space, and waste time with computers. The number varies with region - a bit less in the Mediterranean and at least double in North America.

At least two thirds of the world's population regards 1.5 kW per capita as an aspirational figure, and intergovernmental "climate agreements" recognise this as some kind of human right.

So whatever you propose as a reasonable level of population or a sensible means of supplying its energy needs, you will have to find a way of providing at least 1.5 kW per head.

I beg to differ with BC in one small way. We ingest carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, inhale oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide and water. The energy conversion efficiency of human digestion is around 90%, which is as close as you need to "combustion". Admittedly the chemistry is a lot more subtle, but the physics is indistinguishable.
Thanks for that. Don't know where you got your numbers, but they fall in line with what I know. Jeremy Rifkin stated a figure in his Entropy book around 1988 that it takes about 2,000 calories to sustain a human, but in the US, it was more like 200,000 calories per capita at the time, which seems to agree with your numbers that take into account European countries.

I also agree with your "aspirational figure" comment. I am very ambivalent about this issue. I am a Democrat because I want to see the Middle Class expand. When all the wealth is concentrated in just a few hands and masses of consumers don't have money to spend, consumer economies get bogged down and resource consumption slows. When Middle Class consumers have money, the economy reaches full steam and resource consumption increases drastically. Sharing the wealth is great in principle, but resource depletion is more likely that way. I don't know what to do about that.

I can stop myself from buying a lot of stuff I don't need, but I can't stop anyone else. That would require a change in the entire culture. In the US, "winners" make lots of money and buy lots of stuff, "losers" hug trees and eat granola. For most of my adult life, I've chosen to not own an automobile whenever possible. I'm paraphrasing here, but do you have any idea how many Americans have said to me over the years, "Yeah, sure you're an environmentalist. You probably don't own a car because you can't afford one, eat vegetables because you can't afford steak either, recycle because you need the spare change, and don't have kids because nobody wanted to have kids with a broke loser, hyuck hyuck." Surprisingly, that goes for Texas AND California. Sadly, that's just part of our materialistic culture. Low entropy lifestyles are mocked in the US, and discouraged in a capitalist society in general.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/03/2016 17:02:11
So we have some agreement on the figures.

It happens that the "aspirational figure" is equal to the average daily solar input on 2 square meters of the earth's surface. The earth's surface area is about 5 x 1014 sq m, so even if we had already achieved the aspirational figure (and remember that only one third of the population has actually done so) our net additional contribution from fossil fuel consumption would be equivalent to

7.4 x 109/2 x 5 x 1014 = 0.74 x 10-5

of the solar energy - less than one part in 100,000.

Since at least half of the heat reaching the earth's surface actually comes from radioactive decay inside the planet, the largest possible effect of direct heating from fossil fuels is probably closer to 3 parts per million, or about 0.001 degree.   
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 21/03/2016 17:38:00
Since at least half of the heat reaching the earth's surface actually comes from radioactive decay inside the planet, the largest possible effect of direct heating from fossil fuels is probably closer to 3 parts per million, or about 0.001 degree.
"Probably" isn't good enough for me. This is what the IPCC has to say about it:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

That's what's important. When your average body temperature increases by a couple of degrees in a relatively short period of time, you are probably getting sick. I don't see why the Earth would be any different. The Earth's atmosphere has maintained its temperature and carbon dioxide content between well defined parameters for at least 800,000 years, and in about 50 years, it is now 20% above the high spot for one of those parameters, and at the same time, there's visual evidence that glaciers around the world are dissappearing at an unprecedented rate, and lots of elderly people saying things like, "I remember when I was a kid, the lake used to freeze over every year, and we would go ice skating." That's not just a coincidence.

Now, let's talk about some basic physics. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence. So, when you apply combustion to a pile of coal or a barrel of oil, all you're doing is turning a teeny, tiny bit of mass into energy. However, in the overall context, part of that process is that the set of molecules you have after the reaction are a different set of molecules, with a different set of properties. Think about burning a solid log, which turns it into a wispy pile of ash, floating dust and soot particles, and dissipated heat. All those substances and their properties are absorbed by the environment; it is all part of the mass/energy transaction of combustion. One of the molecules created by processes like these is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide molecules have properties that make them especially good at absorbing heat radiation and re-emitting it, an insulative property in the context of the atmosphere.

So, long story short, combustion doesn't just supply you with energy. The mass left over after the chemical transformation has different properties than the mass before the combustion process. The warming caused by extra CO2 is a byproduct and a manifestation of that same combustion process, not some completely different, separate phenomenon. Extra warmth from extra CO2 is ultimately a byproduct of combustion on a mass scale, just another facet of the original mass/energy transformation that took place, plain and simple.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/03/2016 18:42:48
Even allowing for the fact that nobody has even defined, let alone measured, mean global temperature for the last 100 years, the IPCC assertion cannot be directly ascribed to heating from combustion of fossil fuels, by three orders of magnitude.

If you want to blame fossil fuel for the allegedly observed temperature rise you have to invoke the notion of carbon dioxide being a vastly more significant greenhouse gas (by a factor of at least 3000 times) than water. Which, by measurement, it isn't.

Only a fool would deny that climate changes - it is inherently and observably unstable. But it takes a committed liar to insist, or a gullible nonscientist to believe, that CO2 is the driver of climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2016 21:50:23
So, you are trolling.
Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are.

I am Craig W. Thomson.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=craig%20w%20thomson

Nothing anonymous about that. Now, is your name really "Bored Chemist" ?? I don't think so. Practice what you preach, troll.
Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2016 21:57:20
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

Again, it's not the size of the 1/15,000 ratio of our output vs. the sun's that is important. I worked with live tropical fish for 4 1/2 years and raised them at home even longer. One thing you need to know about aquariums is that they require STABLE conditions. If you let the pH of the water or some other condition drift the tiniest fraction from where it should be, you can throw off the whole system and kill your fish, your reef, everything. As a chemist, you should be able to understand that. It doesn't take a whole lot extra of something to make a huge difference in the system to which you introduced it when you start tinkering with stable or self-regulating systems.

If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?


OK, I will try again.
Do you understand that the problem with the Earth getting hotter would carry on- even if we stopped burning anything- because the CO2 in the air would still keep on trapping CO2 for years until it was absorbed by plants and/ or the ocean?

That's why it's not an issue of the tine heat produced by  burning fossil fuels it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

That's why the combustion heat (which is tiny) is irrelevant.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2016 22:06:14

I beg to differ with BC in one small way. We ingest carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, inhale oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide and water. The energy conversion efficiency of human digestion is around 90%, which is as close as you need to "combustion". Admittedly the chemistry is a lot more subtle, but the physics is indistinguishable.
The physics is very easy to distinguish, one of the differences is subtle. The process by which the body oxidises glucose takes place in a number of smaller steps. This makes it more nearly a reversible system and thus more efficient at getting work from that energy.
The other difference is less subtle- there are no flames. or as WIKI puts it "Combustion  or burning is a high-temperature exothermic redox chemical reaction between a fuel and an oxidant, usually atmospheric oxygen"
Well, 37C isn't high a temperature.

There's a fairly close analogy but my point was that while the body's use of food might figuratively be described as combustion it can't be (legitimately) described as "literally" combustion- because the two process are different.

If you want to put a word into a sentence, make sure it's the right word.
This
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is plain wrong but this
"When you eat, your body uses combustion. " is acceptable hype.
Adding the wrong word is pretentious and ignorant, no matter what the underlying science looks like.


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2016 22:13:20
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.
Please stop pretending you are a chemist. You are not a big fan of reality, huh? Remember my analogy about having a fever? It only takes a few little degrees above 98.6 Fahrenheit, and you will die. That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?

Also, your logic is flawed. Of course, EVERYTHING that happens on earth is tiny compared to the sun, because the sun is HUGE. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.
I remember it- it wasn't relevant then, and it isn't relevant now.
"That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?
I don't think that humans can't affect the planet.
In fact I'm perfectly convinced they have done, and are doing so.

And I have never said otherwise.
And that's why your point has no relevance here.

If I pointed out that the old story about "if all the Chinese jumped in that air at the same time it would cause an earthquake" was nonsense- because the energy release simply isn't big enough and the uncorrelated waves wouldn't reinforce anyway- would you somehow think that I'm saying that we can't do anything?

Are you beginning to understand what you got wrong yet?
It's not that humanity has not had an effect.
It's just that the effect isn't the direct one you think it is, but the much bigger one caused by CO2.
(I have a lot of patience in this sort of discussion- around 8000 posts compared to your less than 200. If I was as daft as you think, do you not realise they would have kicked me off the site before now?)

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2016 22:16:29
If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?
It's nice to know that irony is alive and well.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 21/03/2016 22:52:51
When I first became concerned about global warming, like many others associated heat from fossil fuels as a potential culprit.  So I did some research on the Internet.  Been a few years ago (somewhere around 2007) when I did this, but I was kind of shocked.  I might have been a little biased one way or the other, can't remember...

This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).  The 2nd number is the 1st divided by 1 trillion divided by 1000 (quadrillions).  The spreadsheet didn't paste as nicely as I would have liked.


Coal BTUs/yr
188,190,000,000,000,000
188
Oil BTUs/yr
187,573,685,712,000,000,000
187,574
Fossil BTUs
Fossil BTUs per hour
21,434,004,076,712,300
21
Fossil BTUs per day
514,416,097,841,096,000
514
Fossil BTUs per year
187,761,875,712,000,000,000
187,762
Square feet on planet
5,490,383,247,360,000
Fossil BTUs per square foot per hour
3.9
Solar radiation
BTUs per solar day
56,621,224,353,374,200,000
56,621
BTUs per solar year
20,666,746,888,981,600,000,000
20,666,747
Solar radiation
429.7
+
BTUs Solar & fossil fuel per day
57,135,640,451,215,300,000
57,136
2007 fossil percentage
0.90%
2005 remaining coal
997,748
Million tons
2007 rate of consumption
6,150
Million tons
Years remaining at 2007 rate
162
2007 remaining oil
1,327,000
Million barrels
2005 consumption rate
30,660
Million barrels
Years remaining at 2005 rate
43
2005, 2007 baseline numbers for oil and coal consumption pulled from http://www.peaktoprairie.com/?D=188 (http://www.peaktoprairie.com/?D=188)
The solar constant is defined as 429.7 Btu/sq. ft./hour, a ball of hydrogen that has a 12 year cycle isn't very constant, but somewhat predictable.
In 2007 nearly 1 percent of the heat on earth came from fossil fuel.  2013 – 2014 when the sun shifts into it's hottest part of the 12 year cycle, it will be hotter!
A wild guess 10% of the excess fossil heat was consumed by air conditioners relocating excess heat.  Ahh the luxuries of being the one's heating the earth
If I were a wise race of beings, I'd be saving that fuel for an ice age, when it was really needed, and hope it lasts.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 22/03/2016 14:06:14
Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
FALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation. And again, I'm doing that as myself, not anonymously like you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 22/03/2016 14:15:41
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

Again, it's not the size of the 1/15,000 ratio of our output vs. the sun's that is important. I worked with live tropical fish for 4 1/2 years and raised them at home even longer. One thing you need to know about aquariums is that they require STABLE conditions. If you let the pH of the water or some other condition drift the tiniest fraction from where it should be, you can throw off the whole system and kill your fish, your reef, everything. As a chemist, you should be able to understand that. It doesn't take a whole lot extra of something to make a huge difference in the system to which you introduced it when you start tinkering with stable or self-regulating systems.

If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?


OK, I will try again.
Do you understand that the problem with the Earth getting hotter would carry on- even if we stopped burning anything- because the CO2 in the air would still keep on trapping CO2 for years until it was absorbed by plants and/ or the ocean?

That's why it's not an issue of the tine heat produced by  burning fossil fuels it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

That's why the combustion heat (which is tiny) is irrelevant.
Yes, I DO understand that. You still don't. You can't burn a zillion tons of fuel without getting a bajillion tons of carbon dioxide. Then, you have a FEEDBACK LOOP, because the carbon dioxide helps you trap the heat you got from burning the fuel in the first place. That makes it hotter, so plants could die, at which point they release even MORE carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 22/03/2016 14:20:02
it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
If you want to put a word into a sentence, make sure it's the right word.
This
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is plain wrong but this
"When you eat, your body uses combustion. " is acceptable hype.
Adding the wrong word is pretentious and ignorant, no matter what the underlying science looks like.
Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite.

(shrugs)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 22/03/2016 14:33:22
If you want to blame fossil fuel for the allegedly observed temperature rise you have to invoke the notion of carbon dioxide being a vastly more significant greenhouse gas (by a factor of at least 3000 times) than water. Which, by measurement, it isn't.

Only a fool would deny that climate changes - it is inherently and observably unstable. But it takes a committed liar to insist, or a gullible nonscientist to believe, that CO2 is the driver of climate change.
No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Again, I've posted a graph several times in this thread. Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parameters for at least 800,000 years, moving in lockstep. Just like your body temperature, the earth's temperature goes up and down a little bit. Just like your body temperature, that's entirely random and unpredictable, but what is predictable is that it will stay within certain boundaries. When it steps outside those parameters, it is sick, just like you. We are like a bacterial infection.

I've never said carbon dioxide is "the" driver of climate change. It is "a" driver of climate change. As I keep pointing out, carbon dioxide content and temperature are inextricably linked, as evidenced by 800,000 years worth of ice core samples.

It takes a dedicated liar or ignorant nonscientist to propose that carbon dioxide is NOT a driver of climate change, or that the heat produced by combustion is ALSO NOT a driver of climate change. I have now heard both of those opinions in this thread. I feel like the only voice of reason right now. Am I at the wrong site? Is it too early and I'm still half asleep? I think I might be posting at FOX news site.

Here's the most basic physics I can come up with for you deniers. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You guys are basically telling me, we can apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, and there will be no consequences, no equal and opposite reaction.

Here's some slightly more advanced physics for you. The first law of thermodynamics says it is possible to get energy from fossil fuels, the Second Law says there are going to be consequences, known as "entropy." Carbon dioxide is part of the entropy.

End of story.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 22/03/2016 14:50:23
This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).
I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.

Bored Chemist's perspective is MEANT to confuse the issue. He's clearly cherry picking facts and information that support his argument.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 22/03/2016 16:19:27
I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that.

Perhaps a chemist shouldn't worry about that.  e=mc² which is applicable to fusion.

Burning hydrocarbons is a chemical reaction which is more subtle than e=mc², although there are similarities.

If fusion were a problem here, the conversation would have ended.

In 97 I came up with 0.90% heat of the earth generated by fossil fuel consumption.  I can't attest to the accuracy of the numbers because I used various undocumented sources on the Internet, but I was diligent.

That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 22/03/2016 20:14:50
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/noaa-number-of-major-tornadoes-in-2015-was-one-of-the-lowest-on-record-tornadoes-below-average-for-4th-year-in-a-row/

The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes. [/color]
FALSE. The vast majority of the tornadoes in the world happen in Tornado Alley. That's because of geography. Air masses travel over the Rocky Mountains and dump all their snow. What is left is very cold, very dry air. In Tornado Alley, that air mass meets up with a very warm, very moist air mass travelling up from the Gulf of Mexico. That's what powers most of the world's tornadoes.

http://www.universetoday.com/75828/where-is-tornado-alley/

When the climate gets warmer, that shifts climate zones. When you warm up the atmosphere, that affects circulation patterns. If you shift the movement of air masses away from the geography that makes them clash, you get less tornadoes.

http://sites.sinauer.com/ecology3e/ccc/CCC-24-01.jpg

Again, you are led by Confirmation Bias. You start with a theory (climate change is not real), then cherry pick information that you believe supports your non-factual claim. That's the exact opposite of the Scientific Method, and your hypotheses therefore have no place in a scientific forum.

No. I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.

Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2016 22:07:59
This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).
I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.

Bored Chemist's perspective is MEANT to confuse the issue. He's clearly cherry picking facts and information that support his argument.


What argument do you think I'm trying to support?
Chemists do take account of the mass change, it's tacitly included in the relative atomic mass.
Since you seem very keen on the "bacteria" analogy let's try it.
If you get an infection, and it leads to a fever, do you think that the raised body temperature is due to the metabolic heat of the bacteria?

Re "Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment "
Why should I take it back?

"FALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics."
Nope, I'm not doing anything on their behalf. I'm pointing out errors in your posts. It would be better if you made fewer.
And I remind you that you are the one who said, after I pointed out that someone was actually correct (and you had said he wasn't) that you didn't care if he was right or not.
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.
 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2016 23:44:58
No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."
Please use correct mathematical terminology. A chaotic oscillator is inherently unstable - it wouldn't oscillate i9f it was stable. There is short-term rationale within the behavior of climate, but the different periodicities of the components make it unpredictable. And of course it is observable (even if most of the so-called observations are massaged proxies) - we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise.

Quote
Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parameters
Temperature and CO2 content are parameters. A parameter is not a limit.

Quote
I've never said carbon dioxide is "the" driver of climate change. It is "a" driver of climate change.
The only data you have presented, clearly shows that it is an effect, not a cause.

Quote
You guys are basically telling me, we can apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, and there will be no consequences, no equal and opposite reaction.
Nobody has said that. But a few of us have asked you to put numbers to the "consequences" and offered some suggestions. And the whole business of climate scaremongering depends on the reaction not being equal and opposite! 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 23/03/2016 11:23:41
I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.

Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
That's not my claim, never has been. Why are climate skeptics so inclined to tell lies? Desperate to prove your case? You're misquoting me. What is changing is tornado season. Summer is getting longer. Winter is getting shorter. Tornado season is just shifting. And, just like I said earlier, temperatures are starting to affect circulation patterns, so while the number of tornadoes is going down, there are actually more tornadoes just outside tornado alley, in places like Colorado and Minnesota.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 23/03/2016 11:26:02
blah blah blah
Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense. Your arguments are ignorant and silly enough to post at FOX news.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 23/03/2016 11:36:11
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.
I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. You are the one sowing discord, along with "global moderator" alancalverd. Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 23/03/2016 11:47:10
That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.

Give me a break. You can't burn stuff without creating heat. That's a fact. All that heat doesn't escape into space because the atmosphere traps heat. That's a fact. Carbon dioxide released during the combustion process exacerbates the problem. That's a fact.

Those are the SIMPLE facts. You guys just keep overcomplicating things and cherry picking information that you hope suggests otherwise.

This is the whole race of humanity we are talking about. I'm really sick of skeptics controlling the conversation. Of course, I didn't have any biological children, so my conscience is clean. I'm not leaving anyone a mess to deal with.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/03/2016 17:20:35
Not even the "scientists" who contribute to the IPCC consensus suggest that the heat from burning fossil fuels is significant. You are of course entitled to  your opinion but you are not entitled to claim the support of those who disagree with it.

Aas for skeptics controlling the debate, if it were not for a few clearthinking people who study the actual evidence and ask whether the consensus is justified, there would be no debate. Democritus, Galileo, Bruno, Columbus, Cayley, Newton, Whittle, Michelson & Morley, Semmelweiss, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Darwin, Snow, Einstein....it's hard to think of a "known" scientist who wasn't derided as a skeptic, denier, apostate, or plain bloody crank, until he was proved right.

We make progress by critical analysis of actual observations, not by finding convenient scapegoats.

If observing that A always precedes B is called cherrypicking, what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2016 19:08:27
blah blah blah
Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere,
Straw man.
I said all along that it changes the composition of the atmosphere.
Why are you pretending I didn't?
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.

"I haven't said anything "wrong."" Yes you did. You said that Tim the plumber was wrong when he was perfectly correct.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2016 19:10:23
That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.

It's not me or the plumber who say it (though the fact that he and I agree on that while we disagree on just about every other aspect of this area is significant)
It's the numbers that say it.
You are trying to pretend that 1 is the same as 15000
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 24/03/2016 14:05:30
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.
There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.

Maybe you're just trying to make me angry by calling me a lazy liar. You can insult me all you like. The simple fact is, I am concerned about humanity, that's the only reason climate change is important to me.

And you're fighting me on that ...
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 24/03/2016 14:09:33
You are trying to pretend that 1 is the same as 15000
You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences.

How much arsenic would it take to shut you up? I would be willing to bet less than 1 part in 15,000.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 24/03/2016 14:14:17
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?
"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2016 14:56:51
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.
There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.

Maybe you're just trying to make me angry by calling me a lazy liar. You can insult me all you like. The simple fact is, I am concerned about humanity, that's the only reason climate change is important to me.

And you're fighting me on that ...
No.
I'm not fighting you. I support the idea that people are causing global warming.
You want to convince people of the truth of your belief.
I'm just pointing out that you won't do that by saying things that are obviously not true.
You undermine the credibility of your view by doing so.

And I'd much rather you stopped doing it.
The reality is that  the direct heating effect of burning fossil fuel is tiny.
and the global warming is due to CO2


So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
 whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.

if you think that sounds "just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me." then you need to clean your ears out.

The answer toy your silly question is that it would take roughly 1 in 80,000 of my weight in arsenic to kill me- unless I had the sense to consume it slowly enough.
But that's not the relevant question is it?
The relevant question is
"would raising the amount of arsenic that is currently present in your body by 1 part in 15000 make any difference to you?"
And the answer is no- of course not. I probably raise it  by more than that every time I have a tuna sandwich.

Why would anyone care?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: JoeBrown on 24/03/2016 14:57:29
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?
"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."


I declare Craig the winner.  He's most successfully ground to argument down to nothing.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 24/03/2016 15:15:24
So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
 whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.
I'm not misrepresenting your views. You are misrepresenting science's views. Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. When you apply combustion to a log, that changes its mass. You get heat and carbon dioxide from that log AT THE SAME TIME. It's ALL part of the same process.

You are obfuscating the issue because you're misrepresenting the relationship between carbon dioxide and heat, BOTH of which are produced by combustion. BOTH of those come from a burning log, or a barrel of oil, or a pile of coal. The heating isn't the only thing "directly" dumped into the atmosphere when you burn things. Combustion DIRECTLY releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere AT THE SAME TIME that it dumps heat into the atmosphere.

When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things. They BOTH came from the act of combustion, they are both a result of the mass/energy conversion that took place.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 24/03/2016 15:27:54
I declare Craig the winner.  He's most successfully ground to argument down to nothing.
Thanks. I tend to agree with scientists, that the simplest, most widely applicable theory is probably the correct one.

Nothing makes more sense to me than, "Burning stuff makes it hotter." Even cavemen figured that one out.

Now, we know something the cavemen didn't know. "The atmosphere is like a blanket."

So, applying that knowledge to observations, we have the basis for anthropogenic climate change theory: "Burning stuff creates warmth, and the atmosphere is like a blanket."

Hard to discredit a theory when you state it in the simplest terms like that.

Here's the twist: "Burning stuff makes the blanket work better." That's the extra carbon dioxide.

All together now, in ever so slighly more scientific terms: "Combustion produces heat and carbon dioxide, causing the temperature of the atmosphere to warm."

I honestly can't put it any more simply than that. It seems pretty silly to quibble about the details.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 24/03/2016 15:40:45
The answer toy your silly question is that it would take roughly 1 in 80,000 of my weight in arsenic to kill me- unless I had the sense to consume it slowly enough.
Yes, I see how you operate. You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument.

That's where you're getting ALL your arguments, not just the toy, silly ones. Google. You don't comprehensively understand climate change. You're looking facts up on the fly, copying and pasting information willy-nilly to support your claims, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2016 18:29:54
So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
 whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.
I'm not misrepresenting your views. You are misrepresenting science's views. Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. When you apply combustion to a log, that changes its mass. You get heat and carbon dioxide from that log AT THE SAME TIME. It's ALL part of the same process.

You are obfuscating the issue because you're misrepresenting the relationship between carbon dioxide and heat, BOTH of which are produced by combustion. BOTH of those come from a burning log, or a barrel of oil, or a pile of coal. The heating isn't the only thing "directly" dumped into the atmosphere when you burn things. Combustion DIRECTLY releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere AT THE SAME TIME that it dumps heat into the atmosphere.

When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things. They BOTH came from the act of combustion, they are both a result of the mass/energy conversion that took place.
I have always said all along that you get both heat and CO2.
So why do you bother to say "Combustion DIRECTLY releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere AT THE SAME TIME that it dumps heat into the atmosphere."?
It's not as if I or anyone else had said otherwise.

So, once again you are misrepresenting what I said.
One of them is much more significant in heating the world.
The mass change is tiny, irrelevant and, not actually applicable to the Earth as a whole.

Now,as it happens, I'm a chemist with a background in pharmacology and I have done some work in toxicology. I didn't need to look up the LD50 for arsenic because I know it's of the order of 13 ppm w/w.
But if you keep going on about blankets, perhaps you should admit that you got that analogy from somewhere. Have a look at post 114 in this thread.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47800.msg413680#msg413680


Re."I honestly can't put it any more simply than that. It seems pretty silly to quibble about the details."
No, and there's no reason why you should have done so.

More importantly, there's no reason why you should have described Tim's comment as false when it was true.
And that's been my point all along.
It doesn't help if you say stuff that is clearly wrong.
Don't say things like like you can heat a house with the energy from a few buckets of molten metal or that you can run a train on two horsepower or that the heat released by burning fossil fuel is a significant part of the heat budget or
"Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen."
or "I'm really sick of skeptics controlling the conversation. "
or any of the other cobblers you came up with.
(I think the most bizarre one was "I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. ". Try reading it carefully)

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/03/2016 22:57:28
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 14:06:19
But if you keep going on about blankets, perhaps you should admit that you got that analogy from somewhere.
Yeah, Mrs. Pivik's 2nd grade class. Is there anything else you can nitpick at me about? Perhaps you would like to chastise me for not inventing English before speaking?

I took 8 hours of Biology in college, and 8 hours of Astronomy. You can barely hold your own in this conversation as a degreed chemist. That speaks volumes. Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler." THAT'S why I keep getting your comments mixed up with these other guys.

Sorry, I'm not taking climate science lessons from a pill salesman today, or ever. Pharmacologist, LOL. Like I said earlier in this thread, chemists don't even count the mass/energy conversion when they do experiments. They round off and disregard that change. That alone make you less of a physics guy than me. I don't believe for an instant that you are any more qualified to have this conversation than I am.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 14:20:32
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.

CO2 very definitely is the problem, because it's the thing that we are changing (and have been doing for a couple of centuries)
Water vapour just makes it worse.

Even you say "The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen".
Well, if the climate change wasn't due to CO2 then there wouldn't be anything making it "go wrong" so there wouldn't be a problem.

Craig,
I was just pointing out that some of us know stuff without having to look it up on the web. (and also pointing out that I have been saying that CO2 is a problem for a long time).
For you to say "Yes, I see how you operate. You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument." was just flat out wrong
And, even if it had been substantially correct; so what?
Are people not allowed to use Google to find evidence?
Perhaps you should try it. That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 14:26:30
That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.
Maybe you should lay off the pharmacy products. Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels ("direct energy use") warms the planet, even when you are wacked out of your mind on pills. And I have never even used the words "horsepower" or "bare electric fire." Purple haze all in your brain, voodoo child?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 14:36:22
But if you keep going on about blankets, perhaps you should admit that you got that analogy from somewhere.
Yeah, Mrs. Pivik's 2nd grade class. Is there anything else you can nitpick at me about? Perhaps you would like to chastise me for not inventing English before speaking?

I took 8 hours of Biology in college, and 8 hours of Astronomy. You can barely hold your own in this conversation as a degreed chemist. That speaks volumes. Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler." THAT'S why I keep getting your comments mixed up with these other guys.

Sorry, I'm not taking climate science lessons from a pill salesman today, or ever. Pharmacologist, LOL. Like I said earlier in this thread, chemists don't even count the mass/energy conversion when they do experiments. They round off and disregard that change. That alone make you less of a physics guy than me. I don't believe for an instant that you are any more qualified to have this conversation than I am.

OK once again. I'm on record saying (about climate change denial) that
"It's the equivalent (as I have said before) of having 3 blankets on the bed, adding a forth, and saying that you don't expect it to make any difference."

And yet you say
"Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler." THAT'S why I keep getting your comments mixed up with these other guys."

So you really think the other skeptics are saying that sort of thing?

And, not that it matters, actually you are wrong about the mass changes- for two reasons
as I pointed out before- it's taken account of in the definitions of relative atomic mass and
it doesn't matter because the mass is conserved overall- you just need to take proper account of the mass of the energy that's released too.

You say stuff like "I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. "
and then say I'm the one not holding my own in this discussion.

Have you actually read what you have written?

(Incidentally, I didn't say "cobbler", I said "cobblers" -perhaps I should have said "cobblers'" because it's a possessive of a plural.
It's rhyming slang, and they generally come in pairs.)

It doesn't matter that you didn't say "horsepower" does it?
Nobody said you used the word.
What you said was that you can run a train on the power from 2 square metres' worth of sunlight That's about 2.7 Kw or about 3.6 Horsepower (oops, I got the conversion factor wrong earlier- big deal).
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 14:38:33
That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels ("direct energy use") warms the planet, even when you are wacked out of your mind on pills.
Why even bother to say that?
It's not as if anyone said otherwise.
What we said was that the indirect heating is so much bigger that you don't even need to account for the tiny amount of direct heat.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 14:51:18
I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.

Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
That's not my claim, never has been. Why are climate skeptics so inclined to tell lies? Desperate to prove your case? You're misquoting me. What is changing is tornado season. Summer is getting longer. Winter is getting shorter. Tornado season is just shifting. And, just like I said earlier, temperatures are starting to affect circulation patterns, so while the number of tornadoes is going down, there are actually more tornadoes just outside tornado alley, in places like Colorado and Minnesota.

So are you claiming that there are more tornadoes?

Because there have been less.

I agree that the current climate is somewhat warmer than it was in 1979. That winter is somewhat shorter. You cliamed that this had lead to more tornadoes, which would be expected, but it has not.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 14:55:47
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.
I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. You are the one sowing discord, along with "global moderator" alancalverd. Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch.

Your claim that burning fossil fuels directly increases the temperature of the atmosphere to a degree beyond the 15,000th of the earth's energy budget is false.

This is clear from the numbers. Your inability to do numbers is astounding.

The hypothesis that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures is the idea of climate change/global warming etc.

Please stop posting drivel.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 15:01:21
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.
There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.

Maybe you're just trying to make me angry by calling me a lazy liar. You can insult me all you like. The simple fact is, I am concerned about humanity, that's the only reason climate change is important to me.

And you're fighting me on that ...

In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.

Posting lies, such as claiming to be a degree level chemist when you are not, will not help anybody.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 15:05:45
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.

Well, that's the additional heating the IPCC says will cause the heating beyond the direct effects of additional CO2 and much more than double the increased temperature.

But since for most of the earth's history it has been out of any ice age, such as the present one, with temperatures up to 20c higher than now without this runaway heating I do not think that there is any chance of us getting into a Venus II scenario.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 15:13:45
Your claim that burning fossil fuels directly increases the temperature of the atmosphere to a degree beyond the 15,000th of the earth's energy budget is false.

This is clear from the numbers. Your inability to do numbers is astounding.
On the contrary, you're the one who seems to think applying combustion to a trillion tons of fossil fuels adds up to nothing. Go figure.

I've got news for you. It would be almost absolute zero on the planet's surface if there was no atmosphere. That's the context, that's the baseline for the 1/15,000 figure, not the limited 200 degree range of an insulated atmosphere. When 15,000/15,000 of solar energy is enough to make the earth habitable for life, then yes, taking that up to 15,001 or 15,002 by releasing previously stored solar energy CAN make a noticeable difference of a couple of degrees.

I'm fine with numbers. You sweep them under the rug.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 25/03/2016 15:21:26
I've got news for you. It would be almost absolute zero on the planet's surface if there was no atmosphere.

I suggest you fact check that using google. The actual value is somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 Kelvin based on the thermal radiation from the Sun and Earth's current albedo.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 15:24:15
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.

Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.

When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 15:41:43
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.

Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.

When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.

Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues;

1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?

2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.

3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 16:38:07
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.

Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.

When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.
Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that  the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
And if you are wrong, it doesn't matter what you have studied
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 16:53:27
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.


When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority.

Really?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65777.msg483855#msg483855
where you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 17:23:15
when you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"
Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 17:26:50
The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.
Is that what's turning your letters blue?

You clearly don't want to listen to sense and have a strong tendency toward confirmation biases, but let me explain this for you anyway. The Antarctic is MELTING. Guess what? Water doesn't take salt with it when it evaporates. That snow and ice on Antartica is FRESH water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and freezes faster. So, you get seasonal, temporary ice shelf when melted fresh water freezes for a while just off the Antarctic coast. This new ice will eventually melt and mix with the ocean. It is NOT permanent ice pack. It is a fleeting skin of frozen fresh water, not proof Antarctica is growing in ice mass.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Ice sheet is not ice pack.

NASA says that the ice mass of Antarctica is gaining mass.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 17:43:19
Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues.
I don't need or want your respect. I have something better than your silly pop quiz, anyway. It's a Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook used by the US Military Academy. There's a section on linear regression functions, interpolation and extrapolation. Long story short, I bought it used. It's an old book. They used data from 1980 to 2000 in that section to predict that CO2 levels would reach 400 parts per million by 2020.

This is 2016. We passed that a year ago.

Looks like they should have put that example in the "exponential functions" section.

I'll tell you what happens, that almost no one is talking about. If you melt thousands of cubic miles of ice, and the water runs off into the ocean, what happens is the mass distribution on tectonic plates is going to shift. That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. The problem is, the earth's surface isn't made of rubber, its plasticity is limited. It takes time to alter its shape and respond to changes like that, which are supposed to happen gradually. We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Those are the very basics of the issue. Temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere are obviously related. Anything you post to try to discredit that relationship is a B.S. argument.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 17:56:35
NASA says that the ice mass of Antarctica is gaining mass.
Silly argument. Even if this is true, just because the average temperature of the Earth is going up, that doesn't mean every single location on the planet is going to raise by exactly x number of degrees. The atmosphere circulates randomly. For example, if you continue to blow hot air, it could push some cold air into the corner of the room, giving you a colder reading there. You're still making it warmer overall. This is how Jim Inhofe made a snowball.

Again, Antarctica was the location of the ozone hole, and there is absolutely no CFC production or consumption in Antarctica. Obviously, local effects can differ from the entire atmosphere.

You approach science like Ronald Reagan. He wanted to take millions of people off welfare because a handful of people abuse the system, as if they represent the entire data pool and behavior across the system in general. Your argument is more damaging than helpful.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:04:05

Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that  the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
Can you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?

IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS.

I'm not just an authority on that. I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points, ESPECIALLY those with science degrees who work for large corporations and have a slanted point of view to begin with.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 18:04:30
when you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"

Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.
Indeed, and it didn't stop you pontificating about it.
But even that isn't the real problem.
The point was that you say  that you don't do that sort of thing. The evidence says otherwise.

Do you realise that nonsense like that undermines your other arguments.

So, it really doesn't matter how long you have been watching the weather.
You keep saying things that are clearly not true.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 18:10:04

Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that  the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
Can you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?

IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS.

I'm not just an authority on that. I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points.
well, yes and no
Obviously the emerge together- you keep banging on about that as if anyone is saying anything else.
They are not.
So you ought to shut up about it and think harder.
Why is someone like me who is- whether you like it or not- actually quite bright repeating the assertion about the heat released not being a major factor?

Here's a hint; it gets cold at night, but the CO2 doesn't go away that quickly.
So, yes- as everyone agrees- the heat and the CO2 are released together .
And, as I pointed out a while back, the heat leaves, but the CO2 stays around.

Do you now understand why the heat that was released over 200 years or so- and which has all gone away- is less important the The CO2 released over the same period but which is still here?

Frankly I wonder what sort of climate study you might have been doing that didn't teach you about the importance of time scales.
Perhaps you should stop bragging about your college courses and go and ask for a refund.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:13:02
You keep saying things that are clearly not true.
That's a comprehensively false statement. All you've done is SAY I'm saying things that aren't true. You haven't proven your point about anything. You're obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs, nothing more. The only thing I'm unclear about is your reason for doing so.

Again, in the simplest terms possible, applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does 2 things. It adds heat to the atmosphere, and it increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide.

You can haggle about the percentages involved and their significance all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and poses a real threat.

End of story.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:18:46
Frankly I wonder what sort of climate study you might have been doing that didn't teach you about the importance of time scales.
Again, you've gotten things completely backwards. I'm the one who posted the graph showing that temperature and CO2 content have moved in lockstep for 800,000 years, I'm the one who pointed out that it only took 50 years to raise CO2 content a full 20% higher than it has been in 800,000 years, and said changes are supposed to be gradual. I'm the one who said changes in climate should take thousand or even tens of thousands of years, so it's strange when grandparents say things like, "I remember when the lake used to freeze over every year, and we would go ice skating." My grandma was old, but not geological epoch or Vostok ice core old.

So, clearly, I have no problem appreciating the significance of time scales. That's YOUR problem, as you obviously didn't fully appreciate these statements of mine.

What is the deal with blowhards and posers telling lies about people in forums? I don't believe for an instant you have a degree in chemistry. Hooked on pharmacological products, maybe.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 18:22:12
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.

Can you see why the one which has gone away is less of a problem than  the one that is still here?

Or are you still trying to claim that the direct heating effect is important?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 18:26:54

"Again, in the simplest terms possible, applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does 2 things. It adds heat to the atmosphere, and it increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide."

Actually it does three things: burning most stuff also adds water vapour to the air- lots of it.
And, of course, water vapour is a greenhouse gas too.
But the IPCC etc don't consider this factor so much, because water vapour in the air has a fairly short retention time.
And that's exactly the same reason why they don't consider the direct heating effect.

"You can haggle about the percentages involved and their significance all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and poses a real threat."
You seem to think that I disagree with that.
I don't disagree.
Can you possibly get that fact into your head?


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 18:33:19
Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues.
I don't need or want your respect. I have something better than your silly pop quiz, anyway. It's a Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook used by the US Military Academy. There's a section on linear regression functions, interpolation and extrapolation. Long story short, I bought it used. It's an old book. They used data from 1980 to 2000 in that section to predict that CO2 levels would reach 400 parts per million by 2020.

This is 2016. We passed that a year ago.

Looks like they should have put that example in the "exponential functions" section.

I'll tell you what happens, that almost no one is talking about. If you melt thousands of cubic miles of ice, and the water runs off into the ocean, what happens is the mass distribution on tectonic plates is going to shift. That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. The problem is, the earth's surface isn't made of rubber, its plasticity is limited. It takes time to alter its shape and respond to changes like that, which are supposed to happen gradually. We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Those are the very basics of the issue. Temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere are obviously related. Anything you post to try to discredit that relationship is a B.S. argument.

1, Posession of an old maths book is noted. Well done.

2, Your inability to do any maths is also noted.

3, When the great ice sheets that covered North America and Eurasia melted there was no vast out flow of lava. No massive volcanic disruption. There seems to be no support for any massive melting in the first place so...... Yet another made up drivel point.

4, Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:37:54
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.

Can you see why the one which has gone away is less of a problem than  the one that is still here?

Or are you still trying to claim that the direct heating effect is important?
YES. Combustion doesn't just produce carbon dioxide. It produces heat. Even if you didn't produce any carbon dioxide at all during combustion, just pure heat and nothing more, the atmosphere has insulative properties, so it wants to keep that heat from escaping into space. That's a factor. That's a fact. Yes, it is important.

Yes, you are correct, though I don't know if you understand why. The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Transform mass to energy, and you get disorder. The more mass to turn to energy, the greater the disorder. That's building up in the atmosphere. That's the carbon dioxide you're talking about. It used to be concentrated, safely stored away in fossil fuels. Now, it is diffuse. I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice. You know about Entropy right? We've released carbon dioxide from those chemical bonds, dissipating it throughout the atmosphere. But rest assured, some of that combustion heat is still there, being trapped by the carbon dioxide. That's how the atmosphere works.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:42:58
Your inability to do any maths is also noted.
False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.

Humans burn a lot of stuff to power the economy. It's no surprise to find the earth is getting warmer from that, unless you are some sort of backward, flat earth caveman, or maybe a Republican plumber.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:45:19
When the great ice sheets that covered North America and Eurasia melted there was no vast out flow of lava. No massive volcanic disruption. There seems to be no support for any massive melting in the first place so...... Yet another made up drivel point.
Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 25/03/2016 18:57:40
Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?[/color]
It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Less than expected, so that's sort of like if somebody predicted you would get killed in a car crash, but you just got maimed because a large puddle they didn't account for affected your course. The prediction was close enough to be helpful if you ask me. You should have paid attention. Now you're maimed, yet you sound like you want to get right back in the car and head off the wrong way down a one way street at top speed.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 19:07:58

Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?


That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes....We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.
So we are talking about some "special" volcanoes you  have invented which erupt, but don't make lava.
OK
Glad we got that cleared up
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2016 19:53:49
1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?
They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.

Quote
2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.
Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.
Quote
3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference.
Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2016 19:57:30
I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice.
Except that you keep using nuclear physics - conversion of mass to energy. The significant energy in a chemical process has nothing to do with mass loss: chemical laws are all based on conservation of mass.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 22:41:28
Your inability to do any maths is also noted.
False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.

Humans burn a lot of stuff to power the economy. It's no surprise to find the earth is getting warmer from that, unless you are some sort of backward, flat earth caveman, or maybe a Republican plumber.

You need to do maths in order for you to understand the level of significance of such heat. If it was 2% of the earth's energy budget then it would be significant but it is not it is of the order of 1/15000 of the overall energy budget of the earth. So it does not matter.

The CO2 produced, it is argued, causes heating. Or more accurately causes heat retention by reflecting some of the IR from the ground back down.

It is further argued that this will cause increased water vapor in the air and that this will cause further heating. Can't see it myself but....
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 22:46:36
Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?[/color]
It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Less than expected, so that's sort of like if somebody predicted you would get killed in a car crash, but you just got maimed because a large puddle they didn't account for affected your course. The prediction was close enough to be helpful if you ask me. You should have paid attention. Now you're maimed, yet you sound like you want to get right back in the car and head off the wrong way down a one way street at top speed.

1, If the ocean is absorbing so much CO2 (it is not) why is the amount in the air higher than expected?

2, Why has this not produced the expected warming?

3, If the prediction was of a car crash, which was ignored, scoffed at by the driver and the effect happened but rather than it being a terminal car crash was a bit of dust or smoke that the car drove through with no problem why would you expect the driver to panic when you told him that there was more to come?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2016 22:53:57

The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics....  I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice. You know about Entropy right?
Yes, I know about it.
And what you have written

"The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
is simply factually incorrect.
The combustion of methane, carbon monoxide or hydrogen (as examples) leads to a small decrease in entropy overall.
Perhaps you should find a language you actually understand and write in that.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 25/03/2016 22:56:33
1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?
They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.

Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.

I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.

The way the ocean circulation works it always going to produce the same temperature profile. Only the top few hundred meters can be altered by any amount of heating. But that's a separate threads worth.

Quote
Quote
2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.
Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.
Quote

Again I was after the simple number of how much temperature would rise using heat capacity but given that there are loads of graphs fired about showing the amount of heat energy being absorbed by the oceans, it's a needed fiddle factor in order to somehow explain the pause, all the heat that would be heating the earth is going into the oceans etc, I was giving the warmest side the benefit of the doubt. But yes I agree, heat going into the surface ofe the ocean, especially from warmer air, will just cause more evaporation.

Quote
3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference. Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.

Ah! I see you are on the skeptic side like myself. Yes I agree. Although it would be nice to hear from the other side for their chosen number.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Claude Garneau on 26/03/2016 04:14:38
According to a simple research study I made recently, I have made the determination that it is  jet flight that is destroying the ozone layer. In 2012, the world used one billion pounds of jet fuel per day.
Jet fuel is comprised of kerosene, benzene, formaldehyde and sulfur.
One molecule of jet fuel requires approximately twenty-two molecules of Oxygen. In other words, 22 billion pounds of Oxygen per day.
The combustion of jet fuel per day, also produces billions of pounds of CO2, NO, CO, benzene, formaldehyde and sulfides. All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet. Ozone is produced by the reaction of free oxygen molecules reacting with solar radiation. The oxygen molecule absorbs this energy to produce O3-ozone. The reaction allows oxygen to absorb energy to create ozone and the ozone cools back to free oxygen and this cycle allows the safe dissipation of energy. It is the energy that is getting thru that is heating the atmosphere.  The oxygen that is required for this constant bombardment of this radiation, is produced at the earths' surface by plants. The oxygen produced must run the gauntlet of an atmosphere that is constantly in flux and the high speed winds of the upper atmosphere. I believe that the oxygen levels in the upper atmosphere are being depleted by jet flight and this trend is increasing. We should be very concerned. Increasing the surface temperature of the earth will weaken the crust and increase volcanism. Ice ages are caused by volcanic dust encircling the earth and preventing any energy from entering the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Claude Garneau on 26/03/2016 04:24:19
Thank you for your response. I understand entropy. The break down from ozone to oxygen, or to a more stable molecule. Because of the constant rain of energy from the sun causes an unstable environment for the free oxygen to remain in an entropic state. The constant reaction and subduction releases the energy out into space. The reduction of oxygen allows abnormal absorption these high energy particles into the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Claude Garneau on 26/03/2016 04:39:09
Entropy is going from a state of instability to a state of stability. The combustion of an unstable hydrocarbon into a more stable state, ( carbon dioxide et al, with reaction of free oxygen, ( unstable and reactive) This reaction follows the premise of the first law of thermodynamics.
The reaction cycles of ozone to oxygen to ozone, cannot apply in this case because of the constant bombardment of high energy solar particles. These reactions are in constant flux and create a dissipation of energy.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2016 08:14:22
All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet.
i.e., below the ozone layer.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 10:25:41
"Jet fuel is comprised of kerosene, benzene, formaldehyde and sulfur."
No it isn't.
"One molecule of jet fuel requires approximately twenty-two molecules of Oxygen. In other words, 22 billion pounds of Oxygen per day."
No, weight for weight is not the same as molecule for molecule.
a pound of jet  fuel needs about 3.5 pounds of oxygen to burn.
"Entropy is going from a state of instability to a state of stability. The combustion of an unstable hydrocarbon into a more stable state, ( carbon dioxide et al, with reaction of free oxygen, ( unstable and reactive) This reaction follows the premise of the first law of thermodynamics."
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.

And so on.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2016 10:41:33
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.

The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...

Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.

Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 11:07:19
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.

The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...

Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.

Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?
No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
But this is still more useful, and more interesting  than talking about entropy with someone who clearly doesn't understand it..
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 11:49:49
Perhaps you should find a language you actually understand and write in that.
I write in English just fine. I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you.

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

I've also got a dog-eared copy of this book on my shelf that I've read at least 4 times over the years.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8z4829bp#page-1

So, maybe I just need to find a language YOU understand.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 11:54:38
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.

I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
Ice is less dense than water, it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder. Water takes up more space when frozen into a crystal lattice.

I know how to do long division, plus I have a calculator. You don't have any business testing anyone until you understand this subject better yourself.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 12:01:35
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 12:40:46
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 12:43:31
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand,
I it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder.
You seem utterly unable  to read
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 13:22:58
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.
Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

So, you're wrong again. If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. Apply combustion to fossil fuels, you get entropy. Despite your protests, the two processes are inextricably linked.

The classic example is the burning log. You don't actually lose any mass/energy when you burn a log, the total is still the same, but you lose the potential to do work. You dissipate heat, ashes and smoke into the environment, and those are less usable forms of mass and energy, being in a diffuse state. It would take more energy than you got burning the log to collect all that mass and energy back together into a log. That's the essence of the entropy law. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, dissipated heat and carbon dioxide in the environment is part of the entropy. All the mass and energy are still there, but they are now in more diffuse, less usable forms.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2016 13:27:22
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.
I would be delighted to promote or take issue with this statement, or its converse, if anyone would tell me what "it" is and how it was measured. These are the most fundamental questions of any scientific discussion, yet when it comes to climate change, nobody ever answers them.

AFAIK the only worthwhile data we have are the Vostok ice cores, which clearly show CO2 concentrations following, not leading, the local temperature, for hundreds of thousands of years, and some recent Mauna Loa data that shows the same effect north of the Equator for the last 50 years.

Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2016 13:31:44
If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law.


You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between "first" and "second". This may explain why you think CO2 affects global temperature, when the historic evidence shows otherwise.

You might think us bored and boring old scientists are being unnecessarily pedantic, but athletes also consider the difference between first and second to be significant, and lawyers depend on sequence to establish causality and liability.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 13:44:15
Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.
How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts, I'm tired of the dishonesty about climate change. Most of it is promulgated by corporate interests, and there are a lot of corporate scientists in public forums. Lots of them like to cast doubt on the opinions of people like me. Yeah, I don't have a degree, but I'm not clueless. I know my science.

Being a mere smart guy who is interested in science, I see these data and picture Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Like I said, he was the one leading, but they stayed within the parameters of the dance floor. They didn't go flying up into the rafters.

According to those Vostok ice core sample, when there aren't 7.125 billion people blazing through fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and temperature MOVE IN LOCKSTEP, and they STAY WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.

Incidentally, those parameters include 320 parts per million as a RECORD HIGH CO2 content over the last 800,000 years. Now, we're "up in the rafters" far above the dance floor, at over 400 parts per million, and the news media keep reporting record high temperatures. That's no coincidence.

So, all this nitpicking gets on my nerves. CO2 is leading, temperature is leading, who cares? There's still a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't believe nitpicking about which came first, the chicken or the egg, is important. Eggs come from chickens. Chickens come from eggs. Those two processes can't be separated. Acting like they are two separate things is silly.

Using combustion to produce heat also produces carbon dioxide that, added to the carbon dioxide that already exists, increase the atmosphere's ability to retain the heat produced by that same combustion process. That makes it warmer, melting permafrost, releasing more CO2, which makes it still warmer, so we turn up the air conditioning, etc. Eggs, chickens, eggs, more chickens, more eggs, even more chickens, etc. That is a fact, no matter how many hairs you split, no matter how many science degrees I don't have, or you do have. This is clearly a feedback loop, and that is dangerous.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 13:53:18
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.
Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

So, you're wrong again. If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. Apply combustion to fossil fuels, you get entropy. Despite your protests, the two processes are inextricably linked.

The classic example is the burning log. You don't actually lose any mass/energy when you burn a log, the total is still the same, but you lose the potential to do work. You dissipate heat, ashes and smoke into the environment, and those are less usable forms of mass and energy, being in a diffuse state. It would take more energy than you got burning the log to collect all that mass and energy back together into a log. That's the essence of the entropy law. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, dissipated heat and carbon dioxide in the environment is part of the entropy. All the mass and energy are still there, but they are now in more diffuse, less usable forms.

Guess again; here's the 2nd law together with the bit that says that reversible processes don't have an entropy change.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged.

But that's not the point.
Do you realise that the first law is different from the second.
Only one of the laws (never mind the processes) is about entropy
And, since it was the laws we were talking about, you remain wrong.


Re. "How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts,"
No, you quite plainly are not.
every time someone points this out, you ignore it.
For example, all this stuff about entropy is beside the point- at least some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy- it's just that you don't understand this.
Anyway I'm off for Easter - I won't post so much.
I anticipate that you will still be wrong IN BLOCK CAPITALS when I get back.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 13:56:01
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 14:01:18
Do you realise that the first law is different from the second.
Only one of the laws (never mind the processes) is about entropy
And, since it was the laws we were talking about, you remain wrong.
No, I am not wrong. You can't transform mass to energy or energy to mass according to the first law without getting entropy according to the second, EVER. Yes, they are listed as two laws, but they don't operate outside each other's realms. They have everything to do with one another. You can't get entropy without some sort of mass/energy conversion, and you can't perform mass/energy conversion without producing entropy.

If you're saying anything other than that, YOU are wrong. In fact, you said, "Never mind the processes." That's about the most unscientific thing you could possibly say... except you followed that by saying, "some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy." FALSE. That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law. Natural gas is concentrated in reserves, we take that out of the ground, put it in thousands of trucks, ship it around the world, turn it into dissipated heat and waste products that spread throughout the atmosphere. That's taking mass/energy that was in an ordered state and making it so diffuse that it is no longer useful to do work, otherwise known as "entropy."

You are so wrong it's not even funny anymore.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 14:26:48
In the real world the 1st law doesn't mention entropy and that's what I said- so I'm still right.
I was also right about CAPITALS becaause you said "FALSE. That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law."
Actually it's not a violation at all.
You are denying the facts about entropy- like I said- you don't understand it.
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.


So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2016 14:27:52
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
I didn't actually say that did I.
Strawman again.
You really are acting like the denialists.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 14:41:47
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.

So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.

Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."

That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther. That is the act of taking apart a complex, high energy molecule to get the energy, leaving you with less complex molecules in more stable forms. For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 26/03/2016 15:01:56
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
I didn't actually say that did I.
Strawman again.
You really are acting like the denialists.
From Wikipedia: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

There is no straw man here. You said we're only adding about 1/15,000 of the solar heat budget, and you said that's "inconsequential," attributing warming to CO2 alone. I say you're oversimplifying. Warming from combustion IS a factor. YOU'RE acting like denialists. Again, even cavemen understood that burning stuff creates heat, and that burning lots of stuff creates even more heat. That heat doesn't just disappear as if by magic. It is trapped by the atmosphere, which has properties and contents that want to trap the heat produced by combustion, even if we use scrubbers to remove all the CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere. We're STILL putting a hundred million years worth of stored solar energy back into the system by applying combustion to fossil fuels, and that's NOT inconsequential AT ALL.

Personally, I think this is specifically BECAUSE of your education. I'm almost tempted to cut you some slack because you're a specialist. You see the chemistry side of things, and you're used to dealing with small, closed systems. That's why you would say something silly like, "Methane combustion reduces entropy." That's why you're focused on things like carbon dioxide in your "what is leading what" arguments, ignoring the mass that changed to heat and dissipated into the environment in combustion reactions. Heat is actually the same thing as light, or electromagnetic energy, or photons. Photons and mass/energy conversion/transfer are more in the realm of physics. You likely have a better understanding of chemistry than I do in general and in far greater detail, but I did take 8 hours of biology for majors, plus, I actually took 8 hours of college physics courses, so I know how the periodic table of elements works, I know how elements get their properties, I can draw a DNA molecule model from memory, double bonds, weak hydrogen bonds, phosphate groups, pentose sugars and all, I know how that DNA builds the plants and animals that become fossil fuels, I could roughly sketch a chlorphyll molecule built in a daisy shape with a Magnesium atom in the middle that absorbs photons, I know how chloroplasts store that energy as mass/binding energy that holds together complex molecules like sugar as per photosynthesis, I know how high energy molecules like those are broken apart to free the binding energy of those photons in combustion, cellular respiration and digestion, I know that one of the properties of carbon dioxide molecules is that they have a tendency to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, I understand that process is random for each carbon dioxide molecule, so statistically almost half of those emissions would be in a direction back toward Earth's surface, plus, I've been reading all sorts of science books for almost 40 years now in addition to my college biol/phys credits. There's more to climate change than just chemistry. I'm not sure if you can see that, and I think if you did, we might not be having this debate in the first place.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2016 17:02:16
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.

The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...

Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.

Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?
No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
But this is still more useful, and more interesting  than talking about entropy with someone who clearly doesn't understand it..

Since your chosen data set has a trend of +1f per century for the period since 1998 I would call that as close to nothing as makes no difference.

So given that amount of warming about 0.5c (I think) by 2100 would be at the bottom or below the bottom of the IPCC's poredictions. Why do you think that this is at all alarming?

And again why can we not narrow down the range of predictions by now?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2016 17:03:47
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.

I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
Ice is less dense than water, it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder. Water takes up more space when frozen into a crystal lattice.

I know how to do long division, plus I have a calculator. You don't have any business testing anyone until you understand this subject better yourself.

Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting. [2]
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2016 17:09:29
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.
I would be delighted to promote or take issue with this statement, or its converse, if anyone would tell me what "it" is and how it was measured. These are the most fundamental questions of any scientific discussion, yet when it comes to climate change, nobody ever answers them.

AFAIK the only worthwhile data we have are the Vostok ice cores, which clearly show CO2 concentrations following, not leading, the local temperature, for hundreds of thousands of years, and some recent Mauna Loa data that shows the same effect north of the Equator for the last 50 years.

Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.

Well yes but you will not convince anybody who wishes to believe in the great climate change terror by that argument.

Climate can clearly be measured. Understanding that it is silly to measure it to thousanths of a degree involves having enough imagination to be in the skeptic camp in the first place.

In order to kill off this hideously evil bad science it will be necessary to actually get the other side to debate their big points and try to justify them. Onlyh when they are unable to do so is there a chance of changing their mind. Appealing for scientific rigor is not worth the effort.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 26/03/2016 17:12:51
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.

Yes it does. It equals 1.

Wow!!!! You realy neveer did any maths at all did you?

Try it on your calculator.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2016 17:45:08
Not on my calculator. Nor I hope on anyone else's.

15,000/15,000 + 1/15,000 = 15,001/15,000 = 1.00007 or thereabouts

Whether the 0.00007 is significant is, of course, another matter.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2016 17:49:29
According to those Vostok ice core sample, when there aren't 7.125 billion people blazing through fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and temperature MOVE IN LOCKSTEP, and they STAY WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.

1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.

2. A parameter is a measure, not a limit. Please do not misuse scientific language.

Quote
CO2 is leading, temperature is leading, who cares?
Scientists. It's how we distinguish between cause and effect.

But since you care so little for science, let's turn to literature. T S Eliot (The Wasteland) said "The last temptation is the greatest treason - to do the right thing for the wrong reason." I dare you to disagree!

 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/03/2016 02:10:35
Be warned Alan. You are challenging a man with a vast skill set and a high IQ.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/03/2016 10:42:26
That would be a rare and welcome pleasure. Pope Urban VIII, Caiaphas, Lysenko, Goebbels, and many other malign figures in history possesed these qualities. Fortunately, science requires neither: it's all about beng humble in the face of evidence. And I don't think any correspondent in this forum can close his argument with a death sentence.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/03/2016 12:19:57
That would be a rare and welcome pleasure. Pope Urban VIII, Caiaphas, Lysenko, Goebbels, and many other malign figures in history possesed these qualities. Fortunately, science requires neither: it's all about beng humble in the face of evidence. And I don't think any correspondent in this forum can close his argument with a death sentence.

That is the best definition of a decent scientist I have ever heard. Obviously being clever is an advantage but the first thing required is the humility to say "I don't know".

I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 14:51:06
But since you care so little for science, let's turn to literature.
It takes a pretty crappy moderator to flame someone so blatantly.

I love science, and I respect scientists. It's the arrogant blowhards that I have a problem with. Even when I say things I learned from a professor who worked for NASA for 30 years, even when I post direct quotes out of a book written by a PhD, somebody tells me I am wrong. Guess what? I didn't get good grades in the science courses I DID take in college by failing to understand the subject matter, and I didn't take them as electives because I dislike science when I could have taken blowoff courses instead.

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/ <--- I write my own literature. I minored in English composition, not reading other people's stuff.

Again, I'm a smart guy with a solid education. In my estimation, you're a public nuisance, not an expert. You might like science, but you obviously disdain science hobbyists in public forums, even when they are fighting the "good fight" to save humanity from their own screwups, a.k.a. anthropogenic climate change.

That's your problem. But that's not all. You have another problem. You don't use the scientific method. That applies not only to your climate change comments, but your lies about me as well.  Of course I care a great deal for science. You can suck it for suggesting otherwise, moderator or not.

So, kick me out now for expressing myself. That's how this usually goes, right? A moderator and a couple of jerkfaces spread discontent, I react to the flaming, I pay the price, everyone else gets to keep spreading misinformation because I wasn't polite enough. Whatever.

Is there ONE physics forum out there NOT full of jokers?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 14:57:28
Be warned Alan. You are challenging a man with a vast skill set and a high IQ.
At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 15:08:19
Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting.
No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/03/2016 17:03:22
Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting.
No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.

The number 1 represents a range of values between 0.5 (inclusive) and 1.5 (exclusive). Thus 1 is the same as 1 + an insignificant number. 

If I had written 1.0000 + 1/15000 = 1.0000 then that would be wrong. But 1 is not the same as 1.000. At least that's how it works in science and engineering.

The reason you keep getting kicked out of science forums is that you consistently lie. You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics talked about entropy. It does not. Being wrong is poor but happens. It is forgivable if embarassing. You then went on to claim that you had not been wrong. Why????? That's the bit where you provide the evidence that you have no real relationship with truth.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 17:19:51
I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.
You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.

I tried to break it down for you in the simplest terms possible.

The atmosphere is like a blanket. It helps the earth keep warm by not letting all the sun's energy just bounce off the surface and back out into space. It retains heat.

When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you release solar energy stored by ancient organisms. That heat energy doesn't just escape into space. A lot of it stays here because the earth's atmosphere is like a blanket.

That same combustion process releases carbon dioxide, which helps the atmosphere act like a thicker blanket, insulating us even better, both trapping more of the sun's energy, AND keeping part of that combustion heat here.

That's all you really need to understand. The rest is just details. Of course, the earth is a complicated system, but don't get bogged down in the details, or cherry pick local examples to suggest they somehow apply to the rest of the globe. Don't lose sight of the forest and focus on a couple of trees that seem to be anomalies. I suggest you listen to the experts at the IPCC. Like all scientists, they use the Scientific Method to construct theories and make predictions, unlike politicians and corporate interests, who are motivated not by truth, facts or empirical evidence, but by profits. Nothing on the order of "a few thousand in grant money for my environmental science career" profits either, but rather, "selling billions of people oil while also getting tens of billions in tax breaks and subsidies" profits, for example.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 17:32:31
The reason you keep getting kicked out of science forums is that you consistently lie. You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics talked about entropy. It does not. Being wrong is poor but happens. It is forgivable if embarassing. You then went on to claim that you had not been wrong. Why????? That's the bit where you provide the evidence that you have no real relationship with truth. [/color]
That's 100% false. I've only been kicked out of a forum once. That was on my birthday, and I was drunk.

It's also false that I lied. About what? And what's this "consistently" nonsense? Didn't I supposedly just meet you in this forum when you joined recently, "Tim"?? You're lying about who you are. I know who you are now. It's as plain as the earth's equatorial bulge, so I'm surprised I didn't see it before. Hey, did you choose to post in blue because you are a Democrat? LOL, and rolling my eyes.

I also never said, "The first law talks about entropy." That's an example of YOU telling a lie. I specifically said the first and second laws of thermodynamics are RELATED to one another. That's a fact. You can't change mass and energy from one form to the other without creating entropy.

Entropy is like a "transaction fee." Let's restate the laws of themodynamics in banking terms.

First Law: Cash and change can neither be created or destroyed. They can only be changed from one form to another.

Second Law: Whenever you get change for a dollar, or cash in change to get a dollar, there's a ten cent fee for that.

Here's the rub. If you decide you want to go the other way, and get a dollar bill for a dollar's worth of change, tough break. You're going to have to chip in some extra money, because you only get 90 cents back because of the transaction fee.

That's a lot like trying to collect dissipated heat, carbon dioxide and ashes back together to make a log.

Your money just went up in smoke with your arguments.

If you still can't see that, it's because the smoke is getting in your eyes.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/03/2016 17:59:15
I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.
You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.

I tried to break it down for you in the simplest terms possible.

The atmosphere is like a blanket. It helps the earth keep warm by not letting all the sun's energy just bounce off the surface and back out into space. It retains heat.

When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you release solar energy stored by ancient organisms. That heat energy doesn't just escape into space. A lot of it stays here because the earth's atmosphere is like a blanket.

That same combustion process releases carbon dioxide, which helps the atmosphere act like a thicker blanket, insulating us even better, both trapping more of the sun's energy, AND keeping part of that combustion heat here.

That's all you really need to understand. The rest is just details. Of course, the earth is a complicated system, but don't get bogged down in the details, or cherry pick local examples to suggest they somehow apply to the rest of the globe. Don't lose sight of the forest and focus on a couple of trees that seem to be anomalies. I suggest you listen to the experts at the IPCC. Like all scientists, they use the Scientific Method to construct theories and make predictions, unlike politicians and corporate interests, who are motivated not by truth, facts or empirical evidence, but by profits. Nothing on the order of "a few thousand in grant money for my environmental science career" profits either, but rather, "selling billions of people oil while also getting tens of billions in tax breaks and subsidies" profits, for example.

You have had this explianed to you as being drivel. It is.

In the day the place warms up. At night it cools. It is easy to understand how much of yesterday's heat stays around. The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.

You know this. Reverting to the deny everything approach just makes you look mad again.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 18:03:09
1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.
You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.

Again, for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide content HAS NOT RISEN ABOVE 320 PART PER MILLION. So, in a nutshell, this in unprecendented, this is uncharted territory, so you have a lot of gall suggesting you know better than I do what's better for the human race, because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.

Again, 400 ppm is A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 800,000 YEARS.

What do you think would have happened if Ginger Rogers decided mid-dance that she wanted to lead Fred Astaire, and suddenly broke into a foxtrot?? That's a rhetorical question. I honestly don't need any more of your mumbo jumbo.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 27/03/2016 18:09:03
The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.
False on two counts.

Yes, the heat released by trillions of tons of coal and trillions of barrels of oil is significant.

Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. Heat islands, or "urban warming," happen because asphalt roads and brick buildings absorb heat better than grassy fields and forests.

If you have dark asphalt shingles on your roof, there's a heat island up there, too. Urban warming is just a bunch of those heat islands in close proximity. Replace them with white shingles to reflect some of that heat, or with wood shingles, which are a poor thermal conductor, to save electricity, money, and the earth.

Heck, I'll help you do it. I used to lay almost a square of shingles an hour when I was younger. Got a lot of work after a thunderstorm dropped baseball-sized hail on Abilene, TX, way back in the late 1980's.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/03/2016 19:38:37
Tectonic plate activity in the past added much more co2 to the atmosphere than is currently present. This did not significantly impact life on earth. In fact the largest creatures, the dinosaurs, existed at this time. Continental drift is also a large factor in this process. Mr Thomson your over simplifications show the lack of depth in your knowledge on this issue.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/03/2016 21:06:07
1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.
You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.

Again, for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide content HAS NOT RISEN ABOVE 320 PART PER MILLION. So, in a nutshell, this in unprecendented, this is uncharted territory, so you have a lot of gall suggesting you know better than I do what's better for the human race, because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.

Again, 400 ppm is A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 800,000 YEARS.

Yes. We do not know what happens if CO2 is increased due to factors other thanhappen normally when the temperature rises. Or at least we know that this CO2 in the air is almost certainly due to us burning coal etc.

We can look at the longer historical record and see that there have been periods of earth's history where the CO2 level was very high, 20% or so. This did not seem to lead to any sort of catastrophic warming.

The main point, however, is that you do not know either.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 27/03/2016 21:09:30
The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.
False on two counts.

Yes, the heat released by trillions of tons of coal and trillions of barrels of oil is significant.

Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. Heat islands, or "urban warming," happen because asphalt roads and brick buildings absorb heat better than grassy fields and forests.

If you have dark asphalt shingles on your roof, there's a heat island up there, too. Urban warming is just a bunch of those heat islands in close proximity. Replace them with white shingles to reflect some of that heat, or with wood shingles, which are a poor thermal conductor, to save electricity, money, and the earth.

Heck, I'll help you do it. I used to lay almost a square of shingles an hour when I was younger. Got a lot of work after a thunderstorm dropped baseball-sized hail on Abilene, TX, way back in the late 1980's.

So you are saying that even in cities where these fossil fules are being burnt the effect of black roads and roofs is much more significant.

Well, yes it is. The temperature rise from actual combustion is low compared to this but I think it's some rather than diddly squat which it is compared to the overall energy budget of the earth 1/15000 remember?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2016 00:21:39
because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.



At what point in the last 150 years did the laws of physics change? Until last year, temperature still led CO2 according to the Mauna Loa data, so you must be party to some information that is not in the public domain. Your source would be of great interest.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 28/03/2016 01:24:14
Just to make sure everyone is aware of all the evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

In particular this video specifically sites a paper that explains the current ice core record:


The simple and brief answer is that historically orbital factors have initiated changes in global temperatures. When an increase in temperature was initiated the decreased solubility of CO2 in the warmer oceans caused a release of CO2 that enhanced the relatively weak orbital forcing. This is why in the ice record the CO2 lags the temperature changes. However, it is well known that the orbital factors are not strong enough to account for the observed temperature changes. In fact because it was known that orbital forcing wasn't enough it was actually predicted that the ice record should show a lag between CO2 and temperature for the reasons above before it was actually observed experimentally. We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 28/03/2016 06:40:29
The simple and brief answer is that historically orbital factors have initiated changes in global temperatures. When an increase in temperature was initiated the decreased solubility of CO2 in the warmer oceans caused a release of CO2 that enhanced the relatively weak orbital forcing. This is why in the ice record the CO2 lags the temperature changes. However, it is well known that the orbital factors are not strong enough to account for the observed temperature changes. In fact because it was known that orbital forcing wasn't enough it was actually predicted that the ice record should show a lag between CO2 and temperature for the reasons above before it was actually observed experimentally. We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.
Nice video. I happen to have one too, the whole reason I'm posting this late, which I usually don't. Mornings are my time for math and physics. US news coverage is geared more toward Atlantic than Pacific storms, so I first heard about this in a greatest natural disasters of 2015 documentary on Hulu I watched today and thought about this thread:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2015/07/Tropical-Cyclones.gif

You know, despite our disagreements in the past about how to correctly put into words descriptions of things like math, photons and electromagnetism, I agree with your comments here 100%. Glad to see you're well informed on this issue.

However, while I agree that orbital factors might be important in understanding the climate record, I think volcanism might also be important. You probably remember me saying I took some basic physics, math and biology in college. I have not studied geology since Mr. Tyrell's 9th grade "Earth Science" class way back in 1984, but I remember the principle of Isostasy. The basic idea is that the earth's crust floats on the mantle sort of like a comforter on a waterbed. Press down at some location, and the surface has to rise somewhere else to compensate. When tens of thousands of cubic miles of ice melt and run off into the oceans, this weight redistribution on tectonic plates could trigger volcanoes; subsequent eruptions create "nuclear winter" conditions, reducing temperature, and ice starts to reform. Tectonic plates move to new locations over time, so the randomness of continental drift combined with volcanism vs. ice formation could account for the same sort of chaotic behavior in climate change as factoring in a variable orbit.

Personally, I think life itself might be the most important factor in the randomness of the climate. Different proportions of plants to animals changes the composition of the atmosphere, I believe even faster than changes in geology. There is evidence it has happened before, like when cells figured out how to capture the sun's energy via photosynthesis in the first place, causing the first great mass extinctions for organisms that had evolved in an oxygen free atmosphere. Ever since the first bacteria went forth and multiplied, subduing the planet, the composition of the atmosphere has been linked to the chemical processes happening in life forms inhabiting the biosphere. Now, they keep each other in check, and I believe that's fundamental to Darwin's "survival of the fittest." I think that when organisms are so successful that they disrupt the entire biosphere at this advanced stage of its evolution as a whole, that might be an evolutionary disadvantage. At any rate, since the composition of the atmosphere is a factor in determining the temperature of the planet, I would say life is indeed a primary factor in determining what sort of climate the Earth is experiencing.

In my opinion, we would be changing the composition of the Earth in measurable ways by our sheer numbers, just 7 billion or so humans feeding ourselves, burping and passing gas, even if we didn't do things like burn logs to warm ourselves or fuel our economy with fossil fuels. In fact, I just checked: humanity globally contributes approximately 3.5 billion liters of farts per day.

I got an art degree. I always wonder why artists like to portray the "struggle of man vs. nature" in their work. They live in houses, with air conditioning. I think that cultural idea is archaic. We seem to have won that struggle, mastering even things we don't fully understand, like quantum technology. We almost never get killed by lions and tigers and bears. As such, we like to think of ourselves as apart from nature, but we are still in fact a part of nature. We're not just part of a global economy, we're part of a global biosphere. We are decreasing its property value. Just ask any animal. When humans move in, there goes the neighborhood.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 28/03/2016 07:26:38
At what point in the last 150 years did the laws of physics change? Until last year, temperature still led CO2 according to the Mauna Loa data, so you must be party to some information that is not in the public domain. Your source would be of great interest.
What in blazes are you talking about?

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

As anyone can clearly see, the maximum percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for at least 800,000 years was 320 parts per million. We are currently A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN THAT. Remember that number. It's important.

You mentioned Mauna Loa, so here:

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mlo_full_record.png

As anyone can clearly see, that data says we've increased the carbon dioxide by a full 20% IN JUST 50 YEARS. Remember that number too. It's also important.

Now, you're suggesting that temperature leads. You've been suggesting that in this thread for several days. So, a quick rhetorical question: why is it that people are arguing about whether or not global temperatures have risen by a measly degree or two? It seems to me that if temperature led carbon dioxide in the manner you suggest, temperatures would have risen first, quite noticeably in fact, because it would be a 20% rise in temperatures starting "about 5 - 800 years" earlier. Yes, I put that in quotes, because that's what you said. Those graphs basically move in lockstep despite which is leading, you admitted as much. So, it looks like temperatures have some catching up to do. CO2 is up 20% in 50 years, while people say temperatures may have risen as much as a couple of degrees, and lots of people aren't convinced that's enough to even say it has risen for sure. In other words, we might be in for a surprise. Some climate scientists think we may already have added too much CO2 to the atmosphere, and it will therefore continue to warm far into the future whether we add more or not until those graphs are back in sync.

I personally think tectonic activity and volcanic "nuclear winters" triggered by tens of thousands of cubic miles of ice shifted off tectonic plates might fix the problem first.

Are you actually a moderator, or is that just your username? I still have a hard time believing a moderator of a SCIENCE forum would be so lackadaisical about interpreting empirical evidence.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2016 09:17:41
So let's put it very simply, once again.

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

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

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

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

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

To summarise: yes, the climate is changing. Always has and always will, because it is inherently unstable. And it is likely to lead to a humanitarian disaster - that is the inconvenient truth. But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2016 11:54:48
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.

So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.

Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."

That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther. That is the act of taking apart a complex, high energy molecule to get the energy, leaving you with less complex molecules in more stable forms. For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out.

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
And that's reality for you.
The combustion is not a closed system (that's what you didn't understand)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2016 12:01:40
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math...
I entered the debate in this thread by doing your maths for you (about how little actual heat we use) and showed that you were wrong.


And what I have said (if you really want to paraphrase it in those sort of terms) is that you cant't tell 15000  +/- 500 and 15001 =/- 500  but you can tell 300+/- 10 from 400 +/- 10.

So, would you like to discuss what I did say, rather than strawmanning what I never said?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/03/2016 15:34:35
Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 28/03/2016 16:32:12
Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?
NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 28/03/2016 16:38:30
But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 28/03/2016 16:50:06

"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
Well, somebody's wrong. Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. Negative entropy is the opposite of entropy, and that's not supposed to be possible according to the 2nd Law. To create more order locally, you MUST increase entropy in the environment.

This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong. There's no way you're a chemist. You would understand this stuff better than an artist if you did. I didn't even take chemistry in college. I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 28/03/2016 16:58:44
I entered the debate in this thread by doing your maths for you (about how little actual heat we use) and showed that you were wrong.

And what I have said  is that you cant't tell 15000  +/- 500 and 15001 =/- 500  but you can tell 300+/- 10 from 400 +/- 10.

So, would you like to discuss what I did say, rather than strawmanning what I never said?
That's not math. That's nonsense. You couldn't prove a counting horse wrong with that math. A horse could stomp out the answer to a math problem about carrots more accurately than that. Are you in fact a horse? That would explain a lot.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/03/2016 17:20:32
There you go again with the insults Craig. As soon as someone challenges your view you have a tantrum.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 28/03/2016 17:29:58
The moderators and the professionals who participate in this forum don't have to be here. It is a very unique place where I personally learn something new every day. Maybe you should tone it down mate.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2016 23:12:41

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.



"Proof by assertion" has no place in science. I won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a priest, politician or philosopher, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by scientists.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2016 23:45:03
BC: there is a caveat in your reference, which may be the cause of young Craig's confusion:

Quote
However, there is a way to calculate the entropy change in any reaction, at least at standard conditions of 25 oC and 1 bar (atmospheric pressure).


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

Were it not so, you would have the basis for a chemical perpetual motion machine!   
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 29/03/2016 14:38:04
There you go again with the insults Craig. As soon as someone challenges your view you have a tantrum.
What tantrum? Do you imagine that you are making me angry? Is that your motivation? Do you derive pleasure from your thinly veiled agression?

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

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

Keep pushing, psycho.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2016 14:42:58
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 29/03/2016 14:49:29

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.


"Proof by assertion" has no place in science. I won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a priest, politician or philosopher, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by scientists.
Okay, that's not offensive at all, so just to keep things even, I similarly won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a mentally incapacitated brain fart, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by anybody but climate change skeptics and deniers.

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

"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."

Okay, you converted me. Now what?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 29/03/2016 14:54:56
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.
Excuse me, miss, but I'm not a lady.

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

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

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

End of story, but you go ahead and obfuscate some more. People already can't see the forest for the trees. It's the middle of Fall, I'm pointing out all the pretty colors, you're the guy saying, "No, this isn't a deciduous forest, that's clearly a pine tree over there."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2016 17:00:04
"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."
Calm down, dear. Nobody said it doesn't add heat or carbon dioxide. All the adults did was calculate how much heat, and then you started throwing your toys out of the pram when they pointed out that it wasn't very much.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2016 18:38:38
But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.


Specifically, extra CO2 is the biggest aspect of it.
By quite a long way.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2016 18:57:16

"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
Well, somebody's wrong. Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. Negative entropy is the opposite of entropy, and that's not supposed to be possible according to the 2nd Law. To create more order locally, you MUST increase entropy in the environment.

This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong. There's no way you're a chemist. You would understand this stuff better than an artist if you did. I didn't even take chemistry in college. I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist.


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

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

However you are still simply flat out wrong about entropy.
Here's the obvious proof
Either water or ice has a higher entropy than the other state- I don't even need to specify which.
Sometimes the melting of ice is spontaneous
Sometimes freezing is spontaneous.
So in one case or the other, the spontaneous change involves a decrease in entropy.
as Alan pointed out, you need to look further to get the whole story.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 30/03/2016 15:20:29
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.
The earth isn't a closed system- so discussion of combustion here isn't actually up to the mark.

However you are still simply flat out wrong about entropy.
Here's the obvious proof
Either water or ice has a higher entropy than the other state- I don't even need to specify which.
Sometimes the melting of ice is spontaneous
Sometimes freezing is spontaneous.
So in one case or the other, the spontaneous change involves a decrease in entropy.
as Alan pointed out, you need to look further to get the whole story.
False. There's nothing spontaneous about it if you have to either add heat (photons) to ice for it to melt, or remove photons from water to freeze it. If the environment is a stable temperature, no such changes will occur.

You're right, the earth is not a COMPLETELY closed system, but it can be "rounded off" to a closed system for practical purposes. Of course, the only way to escape earth is by rocket, meteorites occasionally get through, that's about it. Other than that, it is essentially a closed system. In fact, there really is no such thing as a 100% closed system, not even a box you perform combustion in, not even a black hole with its Schwarzchild radius, not even a cell with a cell wall, not even you with your skin, but those are still more or less "closed" systems to a degree, being separated in part from the rest of the environment, much like the earth is separated in part from space by an atmosphere.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 30/03/2016 15:33:20
"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."
Calm down, dear. Nobody said it doesn't add heat or carbon dioxide. All the adults did was calculate how much heat, and then you started throwing your toys out of the pram when they pointed out that it wasn't very much.
Maybe you got hit in the head with a toy before you did your calculations. Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.

Again, I don't know why you guys feel the need to pick apart every argument I present. Here's my main point: Anthropogenic climate change is real, and is causing the planet to warm slightly. Nitpick all you like about my accuracy of the details, but you're not going to get me to change that point of view, ever. The fact remains that we are addicted to energy production, and that is NOT consequence free.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 30/03/2016 15:42:25
If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law.


You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between "first" and "second". This may explain why you think CO2 affects global temperature, when the historic evidence shows otherwise.

You might think us bored and boring old scientists are being unnecessarily pedantic, but athletes also consider the difference between first and second to be significant, and lawyers depend on sequence to establish causality and liability.
I think YOU have the "first" and "second" problem. The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. That's just the order they wrote them down in. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, the first and second laws take place simultaneously. Old particles are "annihilated" to "create" new ones in a single reaction. The combustion and the entropy aren't two separate things. The entropy is in the new collection of particles, which are more disordered and contain less energy than before.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2016 16:53:06
I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.

"More than not very much" is indeed a mathematical statement, but your argument would have more scientific credibility if you used numbers instead of adjectives.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 30/03/2016 18:26:27
Maybe you got hit in the head with a toy before you did your calculations. Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.

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

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

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

Quote
Here's my main point: Anthropogenic climate change is real, and is causing the planet to warm slightly. Nitpick all you like about my accuracy of the details, but you're not going to get me to change that point of view, ever. The fact remains that we are addicted to energy production, and that is NOT consequence free.

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

There is also nothing to worry about from the consequences of human produced CO2. At least as far as I can see.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2016 20:19:36
The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality.

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

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

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

Nobody is picking apart your argument. You have made a number of assertions, some of which you have refused to support by calculation, and others that are contradicted by the data on which they are allegedly based.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2016 20:47:59


Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on Today at 15:20:29 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg484479#msg484479)[
You're right, the earth is not a COMPLETELY closed system, but it can be "rounded off" to a closed system for practical purposes. Of course, the only way to escape earth is by rocket, meteorites occasionally get through, that's about it. Other than that, it is essentially a closed system....

FFSEither the Earth is a closed system or it's not.
And since we are talking about greenhouse gases it's pretty damned obvious that you have to treat it as an open system. Do you not understand that the earth can gain and lose energy?
And that's why
we need to consider the heat we get every day from the Sun and why
 we can largely ignore the heat that was added- and lost- over the last 200 years.
And, while it's been pointed out before, just to reiterate"
Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat."

That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey.It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.

While we are at it, re." The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".

But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 31/03/2016 13:08:15
What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present?  Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet? If you look at the map below, why isn;t the entire earth now under water with the amount of melting that occurred? What is left is chicken feed but that much is supposed to count for much more.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.humberriver.ca%2Fimages%2Fworldmap1.jpg&hash=68a14e3878e47def9728eeea2c771c83)

One mantra, connected to manmade global warming and climate change is "we are destroying the planet". Based on warming from the last ice age, this is not real, unless destroy the planet has a new PC definition, that is detached from formal science. Why does't science formally refute, destroy the planet theory, since this is not proven science? It appears consensus science is content to allow misunderstanding for some unknown reason.

How does CO2 destroy the planet, since this theory is not being refuted by the consensus of science? Will the planet become another asteroid belt? Is there some insider information that is being withheld to prevent panic?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 31/03/2016 14:19:34
But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.
I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988. Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?

I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those.

This is my second physics forum in 3 years, so I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 31/03/2016 14:53:56
And since we are talking about greenhouse gases it's pretty damned obvious that you have to treat it as an open system. Do you not understand that the earth can gain and lose energy?
False. If I locked you in a small, airtight room, that's a closed system. Breathe, and the CO2 content goes up. Try burning a pile of wood in there and you're going to see what makes it a closed system.

I'm going to let you open a window, but only 1/16 of an inch. That's enough to consider it an open system. Now let's lock a few more people in there with you, and have them set fire to a few more piles of wood. That system now contains several hot, choking people.

Sorry, the earth doesn't have a window we can open to let in some fresh air. The appropriate analogy is that the earth's window is open, but only a crack, and it cannot be adjusted. That's what I meant when I said it is "essentially a closed system," and that is correct.

And anyway, I strongly suspect that if I had said, "The earth is an open system," you would have taken the opposite point of view simply because you like to argue.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 31/03/2016 14:57:52
Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.
Why don't you just start being right about something.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 31/03/2016 15:15:47
I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".
Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png

Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 31/03/2016 15:51:07
What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present?  Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet?
When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition. As the bacteria multiplied, they changed the composition of that atmosphere by feeding on one substance and creating waste products. As bacteria evolved into more complex life forms, those had to be adapted to the new atmosphere being created. In fact, when plant cells first evolved photosynthesis, they changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically, killing most species. Remaining species had to find ways to cope with the new atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Here's the point: Yes, a species can be so successful that it changes the entire atmosphere. The atmosphere's contents are determined in part by the complex web of life on Earth. There are lots of checks and balances that provide the atmosphere's contents stability. Species fit into niches and don't normally overrun the entire planet, which helps stabilize the atmosphere's contents. Humans are different. We learned how to control fire only recently in geological terms, and now there are more than 7 billion people relying primarily on the release of stored solar energy from fossil fuels for their livelihood, releasing lots of CO2 as we do, and chopping down forests in the process to make room for cities and farmland, and grazing land for almost a billion and a half cattle that make their own greenhouse contributions, comparable to an automobile as they weigh almost half a ton and eat almost 25 pounds of grass a day each. I don't know what it is today, but about 25 years ago, I was shocked to learn the Earth was losing about one Indiana-sized state worth of forest land every year, over a hundred square miles a day. That's important, because forests are the best way to take CO2 back out of the system. That's what coal deposits are: ancient forests that trapped the sun's energy, and CO2 in the process. In a very real sense, when we burn coal, we're turning the atmosphere back into what it was before those ancient forests helped make it livable for today's life forms.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png

It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that the invention of fire, the Industrial Revolution, and the explosion of human population from a few million to a few billion coincide with the dramatic spike at the end of that chart. All the previous information in that chart indicates that the news media should have been reporting on a cooling trend for the last two decades, not telling us we've experienced yet another year of record high temperatures.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 31/03/2016 17:08:15
That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey. It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.
As far as I can see, you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks, you're stubborn as a mule, and your third leg gets stiff when you pretend to be an authority.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 31/03/2016 17:32:32
What caused the earth to warm from the last ice age to the present?  Did this much global warming, for such a long period of time, destroy the planet?
When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition. As the bacteria multiplied, they changed the composition of that atmosphere by feeding on one substance and creating waste products. As bacteria evolved into more complex life forms, those had to be adapted to the new atmosphere being created. In fact, when plant cells first evolved photosynthesis, they changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically, killing most species. Remaining species had to find ways to cope with the new atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Here's the point: Yes, a species can be so successful that it changes the entire atmosphere. The atmosphere's contents are determined in part by the complex web of life on Earth. There are lots of checks and balances that provide the atmosphere's contents stability. Species fit into niches and don't normally overrun the entire planet, which helps stabilize the atmosphere's contents. Humans are different. We learned how to control fire only recently in geological terms, and now there are more than 7 billion people relying primarily on the release of stored solar energy from fossil fuels for their livelihood, releasing lots of CO2 as we do, and chopping down forests in the process to make room for cities and farmland, and grazing land for almost a billion and a half cattle that make their own greenhouse contributions, comparable to an automobile as they weigh almost half a ton and eat almost 25 pounds of grass a day each.

Today the rain forrests of he world are being chopped down to plant sugar crops. This is used to make bio-diesel. Well done the green movement.

Quote
I don't know what it is today, but about 25 years ago, I was shocked to learn the Earth was losing about one Indiana-sized state worth of forest land every year, over a hundred square miles a day. That's important, because forests are the best way to take CO2 back out of the system. That's what coal deposits are: ancient forests that trapped the sun's energy, and CO2 in the process. In a very real sense, when we burn coal, we're turning the atmosphere back into what it was before those ancient forests helped make it livable for today's life forms.

Yes those numbers were all the rage back then. Then they put up a satelite and found that the Amazon was not being chopped down very much at all. The greenies had made it all up. Then we had climate change appear.

Quote
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png

It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that the invention of fire, the Industrial Revolution, and the explosion of human population from a few million to a few billion coincide with the dramatic spike at the end of that chart. All the previous information in that chart indicates that the news media should have been reporting on a cooling trend for the last two decades, not telling us we've experienced yet another year of record high temperatures.

Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 31/03/2016 18:19:44
When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.

So you mean before that no chemicals existed?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2016 19:37:10
I think you will find that causality and the second law are rather closely related- via "time's arrow".
Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png

Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry.
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2016 19:48:24
But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .
Maybe like someone who studied thermodynamics as part of university chemistry, rather than someone who doggedly muddles the 1st and 2nd laws without realising that they don't apply to an open system like that under discussion.

Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.
I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988. Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?

I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those.

This is my second physics forum in 3 years, so I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better.
"I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988."
Speaking of 1988, here's a film clip from then (or thereabouts)

"Why don't you stop pretending you understand it better than I do?"
I'm not pretending- I keep demonstrating it and then you wander off to some other nonsense.
"I've got news for you, pal. I have a college degree, so I am familiar with the idea that lots of people graduate and still don't understand what they studied. I think maybe you are one of those."
and, once again, get a mirror. Come to think of it, get a refund.

"This is my second physics forum in 3 years"
This isn't a physics forum.

"I'm also familiar with the idea that lots of crackpots and failures with science degrees tend to gravitate toward public forums after being spurned by actual scientists, and they like to pick on laymen like me to make themselves feel better."
Feel free to make up your mind are you a scientist or a layman.

And I'm not picking on you to make me look good- if I was doing that I wouldn't have posted the bit about playing chess with a pigeon.
I'm picking on you because you keep polluting this site with nonsense.
I am a scientist by the way, it's what I'm paid for by her majesty's government; but I'm not allowed to say which bit- that's why this isn't posted under my real name)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/03/2016 19:53:41
That's like saying I don't need maths to say there are six legs on a donkey. It's technically true that I don't need maths to say it- but if I could use maths I'd realise it wasn't true and I'd not say it.
As far as I can see, you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks, you're stubborn as a mule, and your third leg gets stiff when you pretend to be an authority.
No,  the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.

But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 01/04/2016 13:02:07
When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.
So you mean before that no chemicals existed?
http://sanfranciscotutoringservice.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjwuPi3BRClk8TyyMLloxgSJAAC0XsjhRYSBteOqNFozxKh2s1y-QGiewtlHOTKbVbIxr2LWBoC0e_w_wcB
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 01/04/2016 13:05:35
No,  the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.

But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.
Yes, I'm a donkey, you're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000, Jeffrey H. is the guy who can't read. Any other empty barrels care to make a sound?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 01/04/2016 13:15:46
Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]
I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.

The medieval warm period was caused by people chopping down trees to fuel industry. Of course, back then, pretty much everything was made of wood: Plates, bowls, spoons, buckets, troughs, pails, houses, furniture, roads, bridges, factories, plows, wagons, etc. Wood was burned for heat, and trees were cut down to make charcoal for factories. Then, Black Death ensued, killing about 1/3 of the human population, mostly in Asia and Europe, which caused the economy to grind to a halt, followed by a cooling period when people weren't cutting down and burning trees so fast. That is known as the Little Ice Age.

We are currently in the Medieval Worm Period, when flat earth climate change deniers populate science forums.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 01/04/2016 13:24:05
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.

rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
Wrong on two counts.

A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent.

When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/04/2016 13:31:12
Them can you explain the medeval warm and the holocene optimal, in the bronze age, where it was even warmer?

I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]
I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.

The medieval warm period was caused by people chopping down trees to fuel industry.

1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.

2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.

3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.

Quote
Of course, back then, pretty much everything was made of wood: Plates, bowls, spoons, buckets, troughs, pails, houses, furniture, roads, bridges, factories, plows, wagons, etc. Wood was burned for heat, and trees were cut down to make charcoal for factories. Then, Black Death ensued, killing about 1/3 of the human population, mostly in Asia and Europe, which caused the economy to grind to a halt, followed by a cooling period when people weren't cutting down and burning trees so fast. That is known as the Little Ice Age.

Black death happened 50 years after the little ice age started.

Quote
We are currently in the Medieval Worm Period, when flat earth climate change deniers populate science forums.

Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 01/04/2016 14:17:19
1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.

2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.

3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.

Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.
1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

2. False, that's hyperbole, also known as "talking drivel," which is not scientific.

3. Bronze Age ?? You said there was no industry until the Industrial Revolution, now you're citing ancient industry.

So, you not only don't understand physics, chemistry, biology or math, I guess now we can add history to the list. Maybe you should stick to talking about something you are familiar with, like pipes and toilets.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 01/04/2016 14:27:04
1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.

2, If the earth's climate was that sensitive to tiny amounts of CO2 we would be boiling now we have added many many more times those amounts.

3, What about the bronze age Holocen Optimal? So called because it was considered the optimal climate for humans.

Talking drivel is not scientific. Stop it.
1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

Quote
2. False, that's hyperbole, also known as "talking drivel," which is not scientific.
No, if the impact of the tiny changes in CO2 level that would have resulted from the slight amount of wood burnt and trees cut down or regrown was enough to cause significant climate changes then we should be boiling now. By which I mean we would be seeing the oceans boiling at the surface.

Quote
3. Bronze Age ?? You said there was no industry until the Industrial Revolution, now you're citing ancient industry.
No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?

Quote
So, you don't understand physics, chemistry, biology, math or history. Maybe you should stick to talking about something you are familiar with, like pipes and toilets.

You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/04/2016 17:02:31
No,  the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.

But if you want to stretch that silly argument then the argument I made was that if you cut the donkey's hair from time to time but someone else is attacking it with a meat cleaver, the's the guy with the cleaver that is going to trouble the donkey more.
Yes, I'm a donkey, you're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000, Jeffrey H. is the guy who can't read. Any other empty barrels care to make a sound?

Hey Craig. Maybe you can teach me how to read. Maybe start here and then move on to more sophisticated models using some of that calculus you love so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/04/2016 17:07:01
Just to let you know Craig I worked for 8 years developing hydrological modeling software. Look up hydrology if the term is new to you. So I spent an awful lot of time with climatologists. I also did sewer flow modeling and analysis, but that is a different story. There's your intro for another rash of insults. Look it's on a plate waiting for you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2016 18:18:36

You're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000,
Since there was never any call to do that sum three is no way you could know whether I can do it or not is there?
No.
OK so it's another strawman.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/04/2016 18:33:20
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.

rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
Wrong on two counts.

A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent.

When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy.
the particular quote from the file (about a minute into that clip)
"Apes don't read philosophy. Yes they do; they just don't understand"
it is  not a random tangent, it's a reply to your implication that this
"I understand entropy just fine. Like I said, I have a dog-eared copy of Jeremy Rifkin's book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World that I've read at least 4 times since 1988."
has any baring on the matters under discussion.
You may own a book.
You might even read it.
But you still know nothing about entropy.

If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/04/2016 00:37:18
No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]

Because the Romans invented underfloor heating and introduced it to Britain, and being greedy bastards without the essential hardiness of woad-clad Brits they cut down all the trees and set fire to them thus causing massive global warming so they could grow grapes and introduce malaria to East Anglia in order to weaken the invading Norse and Saxon hordes. Really, the historical ignorance of you deniers is appalling. You'll  be telling us next that the 12th century global cooling wasn't a punishment from God for the invention of Protestantism and Bruno's challenging of Papal authority.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 02/04/2016 10:50:22
No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]

Because the Romans invented underfloor heating and introduced it to Britain, and being greedy bastards without the essential hardiness of woad-clad Brits they cut down all the trees and set fire to them thus causing massive global warming so they could grow grapes and introduce malaria to East Anglia in order to weaken the invading Norse and Saxon hordes. Really, the historical ignorance of you deniers is appalling. You'll  be telling us next that the 12th century global cooling wasn't a punishment from God for the invention of Protestantism and Bruno's challenging of Papal authority.

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

If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.

It is never OK to allow a science forum to become a platform for drivel. Not only will this legitimize the drivel for the mad but it does not allow the inportant points of the thread to be hammered out. In this thread B.Chemist is on the warmist side of the argument. I would like to quiz him about why he considers all this to be at all dangerous to humanity. Because he is legitimately spending his time defending his good science from a nutter he is able, or even is forced to, avoid the more difficult questions. The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 02/04/2016 15:18:42
The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.
Yes, and the loudest nutter has a penchant for posting in blue.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 02/04/2016 15:28:14
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.
The industry of the time is determined by the technology of the time. Learning to control fire to cook food or clear farm land is still "technology" and "industry" for ancient man.

You have too many gaps in your knowledge to criticize anyone for not being able to think. I suggest you read a science book and maybe even take some science courses before you come here running off at the mouth with your pseudoscience and argumentative nonsense.

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

If you're saying anything other than that, YOU'RE polluting the forum with gibberish and need to be corralled in a separate sub-forum.

At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/04/2016 15:55:33
Tell me Craig when did you last see any environmental data close up? Ever done any base flow regression analysis? Selected any storm events from rainfall data. Or maybe contributed to the 100 year flood assessment? Our MD was the president of The British Hydrological society. He organised international conferences not only on hydrology but climate change. Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2016 16:04:07

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.
The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.

I'm still waiting for you to address this
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 02/04/2016 16:49:49
I'm still waiting for you to address this
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.
See? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.

Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow, and probably a lot of it, such as with a particle accelerator.

Entropy is often said to be the "arrow of time," and this is why. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was the cascading of all the mass/energy in its highly ordered, "singularity particle" state into more and more stable forms of mass and energy that are spread out and diffuse. Energy naturally wants to spread out, not stay crammed together in one place. The entropy law, among other things, reflects this tendency.

Remember the log? Burn it, and you get heat, ash and smoke. Together, those things technically equal the log. That's the 1st Law. Collecting the ash, smoke and heat back together to make a log takes more energy than you got burning it. That's the 2nd Law. Using a particle accelerator to create a heavy particle that hasn't existed in large numbers since the Universe was a few seconds old is a bit like putting ashes, smoke and heat back together to get a log. Think about how much energy it takes just to get a new particle or two out of an accelerator, enough to power whole cities.

In a sense, "creating" a heavier particle in a particle accelerator by colliding a lot of mass and energy at a single point is like "turning back the clock," because everything in the early universe was much closer together back then, so it still had a temperature and density similar to the conditions at that impact point in the particle accelerator.

In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself.

Is there anything else you would like to know?

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 02/04/2016 17:09:17
Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.
Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:

http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 02/04/2016 22:02:09
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.

You pollute this forum with gibberish and make it very difficult to have adult conversations. I strongly request the nutters are corralled into a separate sub forum and allowed out when they can think.
The industry of the time is determined by the technology of the time. Learning to control fire to cook food or clear farm land is still "technology" and "industry" for ancient man.

You have too many gaps in your knowledge to criticize anyone for not being able to think. I suggest you read a science book and maybe even take some science courses before you come here running off at the mouth with your pseudoscience and argumentative nonsense.

Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.

If you're saying anything other than that, YOU'RE polluting the forum with gibberish and need to be corralled in a separate sub-forum.

At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. You don't even have that.

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

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

Industry and technology are separate ideas.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/04/2016 23:26:00
Again, burning stuff creates heat and CO2. The CO2 helps the atmosphere trap that extra heat.
That's not what the IPCC says. How dare you contradict the consensus of the world's best-paid climate "scientists"?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 03/04/2016 01:09:57
From a purely black body radiation standpoint (neglecting albedo and emissivity) without its atmosphere the Earth would have a mean surface temp of 255 K or -18.15 °C/-0.67 °F. This is pretty much 100% from just the incoming solar radiation. The actual measured mean surface temp of Earth is 287 K which is a difference of about 32 K. The sun delivers approximately 783,000,000 terawatt hours of energy to the Earth over the course of the year and all this energy takes us from 3 K (the blackbody temperature of the universe) to 255 K for an increase of 252 K. This means it takes 3,110,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K and this is a significant underestimate because the rate at which energy is radiated away increases non-linearly with increasing temperature. So in reality the amount of energy is much higher than this. Now the greenhouse effect has added about 32 K so adjusting for that we get 2,760,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K. As of 2011 the world used about 150,000 TWh of energy per year (this counts all possible ways of consuming energy). So even taking into account the greenhouse effect and assuming all of this energy ends up as heat eventually the net increase of Earth's mean surface temperature due to just the actual heat humans produce is on the order of 0.05 K and of course this temperature increase would be basically a one time increase i.e we have to use this much energy each year just to maintain the unnatural extra 0.05 K increase if we stop it goes back to just the plain sun value. Thus, we would have seen the mean surface temperature increase by 0.05 K over pre-industrial values with slight yearly increases tied directly to increases in energy consumption which currently stand at about 3,000 TWh per year or 0.001 K per year.

So the takeaway from that is that if the heat generated by humans was a significant contributor to changes in global temperature than the total change should have been on the order of 0.05 K since say 1880 to today with a change of about 0.001 K per year. (Remembering that we've easily overestimated the impact of energy on temperature.) What we've actually seen is an increase of 0.8 K with yearly increases of about 0.02 K which are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 times the overestimated values of direct heating by humans. Does human activity directly heat the Earth? Of course it does. Is that effect significant? No it is easily 20 times smaller than the observed changes. Personally I believe the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change but I also understand that the direct heating of the Earth by the human use of energy is not significant.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 10:35:30

I'm still waiting for you to address this
If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction.
See? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.

Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow, and probably a lot of it, such as with a particle accelerator.

Entropy is often said to be the "arrow of time," and this is why. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was the cascading of all the mass/energy in its highly ordered, "singularity particle" state into more and more stable forms of mass and energy that are spread out and diffuse. Energy naturally wants to spread out, not stay crammed together in one place. The entropy law, among other things, reflects this tendency.

Remember the log? Burn it, and you get heat, ash and smoke. Together, those things technically equal the log. That's the 1st Law. Collecting the ash, smoke and heat back together to make a log takes more energy than you got burning it. That's the 2nd Law. Using a particle accelerator to create a heavy particle that hasn't existed in large numbers since the Universe was a few seconds old is a bit like putting ashes, smoke and heat back together to get a log. Think about how much energy it takes just to get a new particle or two out of an accelerator, enough to power whole cities.

In a sense, "creating" a heavier particle in a particle accelerator by colliding a lot of mass and energy at a single point is like "turning back the clock," because everything in the early universe was much closer together back then, so it still had a temperature and density similar to the conditions at that impact point in the particle accelerator.

In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself.

Is there anything else you would like to know?


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

I'm really looking forward to you posting the result of the calculation.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 10:43:00
From a purely black body radiation standpoint (neglecting albedo and emissivity) without its atmosphere the Earth would have a mean surface temp of 255 K or -18.15 °C/-0.67 °F. This is pretty much 100% from just the incoming solar radiation. The actual measured mean surface temp of Earth is 287 K which is a difference of about 32 K. The sun delivers approximately 783,000,000 terawatt hours of energy to the Earth over the course of the year and all this energy takes us from 3 K (the blackbody temperature of the universe) to 255 K for an increase of 252 K. This means it takes 3,110,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K and this is a significant underestimate because the rate at which energy is radiated away increases non-linearly with increasing temperature. So in reality the amount of energy is much higher than this. Now the greenhouse effect has added about 32 K so adjusting for that we get 2,760,000 TWh per year to increase mean global temperature by a single degree K. As of 2011 the world used about 150,000 TWh of energy per year (this counts all possible ways of consuming energy). So even taking into account the greenhouse effect and assuming all of this energy ends up as heat eventually the net increase of Earth's mean surface temperature due to just the actual heat humans produce is on the order of 0.05 K and of course this temperature increase would be basically a one time increase i.e we have to use this much energy each year just to maintain the unnatural extra 0.05 K increase if we stop it goes back to just the plain sun value. Thus, we would have seen the mean surface temperature increase by 0.05 K over pre-industrial values with slight yearly increases tied directly to increases in energy consumption which currently stand at about 3,000 TWh per year or 0.001 K per year.

So the takeaway from that is that if the heat generated by humans was a significant contributor to changes in global temperature than the total change should have been on the order of 0.05 K since say 1880 to today with a change of about 0.001 K per year. (Remembering that we've easily overestimated the impact of energy on temperature.) What we've actually seen is an increase of 0.8 K with yearly increases of about 0.02 K which are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 times the overestimated values of direct heating by humans. Does human activity directly heat the Earth? Of course it does. Is that effect significant? No it is easily 20 times smaller than the observed changes. Personally I believe the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change but I also understand that the direct heating of the Earth by the human use of energy is not significant.
Thanks for doing the maths for us.
I don't think it will make any difference to Craig, but the rest of us will now accept that the direct effect from heating is small and the big change comes from something else.
Of course, some won't accept that it's the greenhouse effect, even though we have trebled the amount of one of the two biggest greenhouse effect gases (the other is too variable to model well)- but that's a different problem.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/04/2016 11:18:49
Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.
Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:

http://www.businessinsider.com/proof-republicans-really-are-dumber-than-democrats-2012-5

I'm not American so I didn't bother to read the link. You are cherry picking parts of post to avoid answering any challenge.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 14:20:10
(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)
Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 14:22:49
I'm not American so I didn't bother to read the link. You are cherry picking parts of post to avoid answering any challenge.
You present no challenge to anyone. Your posts are devoid of useful information.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 14:26:44
I don't think it will make any difference to Craig, but the rest of us will now accept that the direct effect from heating is small and the big change comes from something else.
What makes no difference to me is you arguing which part is small and which part is large. I don't care. I only said, they are both factors. They ARE both factors. agyejy proved my point.

The heat is a factor because the extra carbon dioxide helps keep it here. It doesn't just escape into space, so yes, it IS a factor, no matter how small you claim that factor is.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 14:32:44
The word industry, today, refers to the organised use of labour to make stuff and to provide services.

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

Industry and technology are separate ideas.
Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 14:38:22
If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.
Have you even taken one college science course? You don't seem to recognize your own idiocy, hypocrite. Why don't you take your industry vs. technology argument to the kids table instead of drowning out our adult climate change discussion with nonsense?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 14:45:45
The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.
FALSE.

CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit heat, but not necessarily right back in the direction it came from. CO2 molecules aren't stationary, but rather tumble through space. Depending on the orientation of a CO2 molecule at the time of emission, that infrared photon might come back to earth, or it might escape into space. CO2 does NOT trap ALL the heat, just some. More CO2 traps more heat, but still not all of it.

You're a regular geyser of misinformation, aren't you?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 15:05:00
(Please stop talking about irrelevant stuff like logs- just answer the question I actually asked)
Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself.

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

Also, I already answered it twice.
I'm just checking if you have any idea what the answer is.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 15:10:34
I don't think it will make any difference to Craig, but the rest of us will now accept that the direct effect from heating is small and the big change comes from something else.
What makes no difference to me is you arguing which part is small and which part is large. I don't care. I only said, they are both factors. They ARE both factors. agyejy proved my point.

The heat is a factor because the extra carbon dioxide helps keep it here. It doesn't just escape into space, so yes, it IS a factor, no matter how small you claim that factor is.


You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.
It's the bit where Tim told you the difference between big an small and you pretended it wasn't.
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.


Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 15:16:14
The point is not that the CO2 traps the tiny little bit of heat generated directly by burning fossil fuels. The point is that it traps all heat- including a share of the 15000 times more heat that we get from the sun.
FALSE.

CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit heat, but not necessarily right back in the direction it came from. CO2 molecules aren't stationary, but rather tumble through space. Depending on the orientation of a CO2 molecule at the time of emission, that infrared photon might come back to earth, or it might escape into space. CO2 does NOT trap ALL the heat, just some. More CO2 traps more heat, but still not all of it.

You're a regular geyser of misinformation, aren't you?
Way to go on missing the point there.
it's as if you do it deliberately.
Anyway, the CO2 traps heat from all sources- not just the tiny bit produced by burning fuels.
So, yes it does trap all heat.
I didn't say it trap "all the heat" that's something you made up and pretended I said.
You really need to stop strawmanning or you will end up looking like this guy
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 03/04/2016 15:22:58
What makes no difference to me is you arguing which part is small and which part is large. I don't care. I only said, they are both factors. They ARE both factors. agyejy proved my point.

The heat is a factor because the extra carbon dioxide helps keep it here. It doesn't just escape into space, so yes, it IS a factor, no matter how small you claim that factor is.

You've quite severely missed the point. The numbers I calculated were a very large overestimate. For starters only about 60% of the energy humans use ends up as waste heat. Therefore the numbers I gave are at least two times bigger than they actually are in reality. The real numbers are definitely closer to 0.025 K total and 0.0005 K per year or closer to a factor of 40 than a factor of 20. I purposefully overestimated so badly to conclusively demonstrate that the impact of direct heating is so small that it is literally not measurable. For example try and find a commercially available thermometer with a precision of 0.01 K (or °C as they are equivalent) that works above cryogenic temperature ranges. There are several very expensive units designed for cryogenic temperatures that are specifically marketed to scientists but no one would ever use these to measure ambient temperature and if you did they wouldn't be nearly as accurate as when measuring cryogenic temperatures. At best the thermometers used to measure ambient temperatures have an accuracy of 0.1 K (which again is the same as °C) so the impact of direct heating due to human energy use literally is not measurable which means scientifically speaking it is completely ignored in all climate models and calculations.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 15:30:40
You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.
It's the bit where Tim told you the difference between big an small and you pretended it wasn't.
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
I pretended it wasn't what? The difference between big and small? That statement makes no sense. Do you even think about what you are posting, or do you just rattle off any sort of nonsense you like?

You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 03/04/2016 15:34:23
For starters only about 60% of the energy humans use ends up as waste heat.

The real numbers are definitely closer to 0.025 K total and 0.0005 K per year or closer to a factor of 40 than a factor of 20.
Citation, please.

Oh, never mind:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/26/us-wastes-61-86-of-its-energy/

At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 16:00:40
You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.
It's the bit where Tim told you the difference between big an small and you pretended it wasn't.
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.
I pretended it wasn't what? The difference between big and small? That statement makes no sense. Do you even think about what you are posting, or do you just rattle off any sort of nonsense you like?

You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
Tim told you the difference between big and small.
The energy from the sun is big. The energy from fossil fuels is small.
You pretended that the direct heating effect wasn't small and you pretended that the heating from the sun wasn't big.

In particular, re "Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. "
As I pointed out, even current rates of use (which means releasing as much of it "at once" as we ever have) ,mare small compared to the heat from the sun.


and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 03/04/2016 16:06:24
You're wrong. Every lump of coal in the ground represents solar energy that did not enter the atmosphere or warm the ground under a tree, but rather was stored in plants via photosynthesis. After hundreds of millions of years, those dead trees add up to a lot of stored solar energy. Releasing it all at once adds up to something significant ENOUGH. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

Except that I just calculated the magnitude of the impact of releasing that energy at the rate humans are currently releasing it and found that it was literally not measurable and therefore cannot be considered significant by any acceptable definition of the word significant.

Citation, please.

Oh, never mind:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/26/us-wastes-61-86-of-its-energy/

At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.

The best possible Carnot engine operating over a realistic temperature range would at best still reject about 40% of the energy fed to it as waste heat. This is the thermodynamic limit for any heat engine and real engines are always going to be significantly less efficient than this because they operate far from thermal equilibrium. Increasing the fuel efficiencies of cars would have reduced the overall amount of energy used by allowing people to drive further on less gas but the overall percentage of waste heat wouldn't have changed all that much. The efficiency of internal combustion engines has pretty much been maximized at this point and further gains in automotive fuel efficiency are mainly about reducing drag/weight and tricks like turning off the engine at stop lights.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/04/2016 17:26:16
Our
If you want to have a science forum you will have to be harsh with your allowance of idiocy. It's sort of OK to have a load of simple questions asked by those who have not done any science but this needs to be in it's own section otherwise more advanced discussions will be drowned out by the noise.
Have you even taken one college science course? You don't seem to recognize your own idiocy, hypocrite. Why don't you take your industry vs. technology argument to the kids table instead of drowning out our adult climate change discussion with nonsense?

You are the furthest from an adult discussion that you could possibly be.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2016 17:37:28

At any rate, Japanese car companies had several models that got more than 50 mpg, way back in the early 1980's. Now, after two and a half decades of technological development, we can barely squeeze 40 mpg out of a hybrid. Guess who's to blame for that? I'll give you a hint: highly profitable oil companies.

No, mostly Californian legislators. Battery hybrids are a lot heavier for a given power rating than simple internal combustion units, and the statutory reduction in particulate emissions, NOX emissions and lead content have produced significantly lower overall efficiency. Why do you think racing car manufacturers complain about noise limitation? Because everything you add to a car exhaust system makes the engine less efficient.

And of course your 1960s 50 mpg Jap rustbox didn't have airconditioning, power steering, antilock brakes, 4-wheel drive, airbags, auto gearbox, side impact protection, and all the other gubbins that makes its successors go slower.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 17:48:07
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat.
Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm

Ironically, this is the only bit where entropy gets involved, but it doesn't let Craig off the hook.
He should still be able to explain what the entropy change is for the reaction he cited.

I'm really looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 03/04/2016 18:12:41
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat. Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm

Actually a significant amount of the energy not rejected as waste heat by the engine goes into sound, moving the air as the car passes through (some of which might end up as a slight increase in air temp), any net gain in altitude between where the car started and where it stopped (a decrease in altitude actually gives you energy), and any electrical needs the car might have (some of that electrical use becomes heat but you can also get sound both from the radio and other sources as well as chemical energy stored in the battery). Not even 100% of the energy dissipated by breaking ends up as thermal energy. At least some of it goes into the mechanical deformation and grinding of the brake pads and rotors.

As for TV sets certainly some of the input electrical energy becomes heat but not 100%. In a relatively efficient TV set a good portion comes out as visible light. Now some of that visible light will get absorbed and reemitted as infrared radiation but a not insignificant portion will simply be reflected away as ambient scattered light.

Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 18:38:24
Sound doesn't carry indefinitely, it is degraded to heat by air viscosity.
The only energy that escapes from your car is if the lights shine up into the sky- and even that will eventually get degraded to heat when it hits something.
The light from the TV set is absorbed by the walls of the room within microseconds. (how long does it take for the room to get dark once you switch the lights off?)

Eventually you drive the car back home so the net change in gravitational energy is zero.

"Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy."
Oh yes it does.













Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 03/04/2016 19:53:53
Sound doesn't carry indefinitely, it is degraded to heat by air viscosity.
That can actually take much longer than you'd think depending on the frequency of the sound. Most of the sound energy from cars is below 2 kHz and below that frequency dissipation via the viscosity of air can take many miles. Enough that a good portion of that energy ends up in the upper atmosphere before it is eventually converted to heat. I will concede that if you wait long enough it eventually becomes heat but that heat is very likely not to be anywhere near the surface of the planet.
 
Quote
The only energy that escapes from your car is if the lights shine up into the sky- and even that will eventually get degraded to heat when it hits something.

Some portion of it will but some portion of it will also get reflected away and there is generally a greater chance of going in a roughly upward direction.

Quote
The light from the TV set is absorbed by the walls of the room within microseconds. (how long does it take for the room to get dark once you switch the lights off?)

Unless you happen to really like black windowless rooms a good portion of the light is free to escape through the windows.

Quote
Eventually you drive the car back home so the net change in gravitational energy is zero.

I did address that fact actually.

Quote
"Yes thermodynamics says that you can't do anything without generating some amount of waste heat but that doesn't mean every joule of energy you use eventually becomes thermal energy."
Oh yes it does.

I was trying not to be overly pedantic and confuse the point more than than it already has been. Yes given enough time eventually everything degrades and turns to dust but generally speaking not on a time scale relevant to a typical human lifespan. A good portion of the human use of energy goes into constructing things. Things like buildings, cars, toys, and even increasingly complex molecules. Energy goes into making those things and is stored in those things. Eventually given time they will degrade and eventually that stored energy will become heat but generally speaking not on the time scale of a single human lifetime and certainly not on the scale of a single year. I was attempting to illustrate that in terms of the analysis I did above less than 100% of the energy we use in a year ends up as heat by the end of that year and generally speaking a decent percentage of our energy use is locked up in various things we build for decades or centuries.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2016 20:08:00
I tell you what, rather than carrying on this debate here, why don't we just wait?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2016 22:41:04
Let's be really pedantic for a while.

The car moves from A to B. If they are at the same height, there is no change in gravitational potential and as BC has said, you will probably return to A anyway. So where did all the energy go?

Most of it was dissipated as air turbulence and noise. Same as heat - a change in the mean energy of air molecules.

Some was dissipated by the flexing of the tyres - heat.

Some was dissipated by the brakes - heat

Some was dissipated by other frictional losses - heat.

So if you really care about heating the planet, use the phone instead of travelling.

Try telling that to people who attend "environmental" conferences.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 04/04/2016 16:41:49
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.
All the energy ends up as heat, even if 40% of it started off moving a car; when the brakes go on that energy is dissipated as heat.
Some of the fossil fuel is used to generate electricity, but in the end, that too gets degraded to heat; that's why your TV sert gets warm

Ironically, this is the only bit where entropy gets involved, but it doesn't let Craig off the hook.
The only irony here is that you're basically repeating what I've said before [your car hood gets warm, light bulbs get warm, electrical outlets get warm] and using that argument against me now. I said the heat is important, you said it isn't, and here you've said "all the energy ends up as heat." That's what I said. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion, so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustion. That's what mass/energy conversion does. It changes mass and energy to other forms of mass and energy, and dissipates them in the process. The properties of those dissipated parts becomes part of the environment, and thus contributes to climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 04/04/2016 16:46:40
and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
I am not here to jump through hoops for you. I am not here to prove myself to you. You are not here to test me or to school me. I have been to college. I graduated cum laude.

Do the calculation yourself if it's so simple, or go get YOURSELF a damned clue.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 04/04/2016 16:51:55
So if you really care about heating the planet, use the phone instead of travelling.

Try telling that to people who attend "environmental" conferences.
On the other hand, who is going to take Al Gore seriously when he rides a bicycle across country? What is he supposed to do, move into a shack with no electricity in Idaho and send non-environmentalists bombs in the mail?

Stupid argument. Manufacture environmentalists an affordable car that doesn't use gasoline so they have an alternative, like they've been asking for for decades.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 04/04/2016 17:00:19
A good portion of the human use of energy goes into constructing things. Things like buildings, cars, toys, and even increasingly complex molecules. Energy goes into making those things and is stored in those things. Eventually given time they will degrade and eventually that stored energy will become heat but generally speaking not on the time scale of a single human lifetime and certainly not on the scale of a single year. I was attempting to illustrate that in terms of the analysis I did above less than 100% of the energy we use in a year ends up as heat by the end of that year and generally speaking a decent percentage of our energy use is locked up in various things we build for decades or centuries.
Yes. We are like trees or dinosaurs in that respect. The energy in many of the things we make, and in our bodies that get buried in graveyards, will become fossil fuels in time. At that point, the energy can be released to contribute to future climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 04/04/2016 17:08:33
Tim told you the difference between big and small.
The energy from the sun is big. The energy from fossil fuels is small.
You pretended that the direct heating effect wasn't small and you pretended that the heating from the sun wasn't big.
No, you're either lying, or your reading comprehension sucks. I think it's the former. It's pretty clear after a couple of weeks that you're merely trying to piss me off. You don't care about real science. You care about your limited, biased viewpoint, and about twisting and cherry picking facts to support it.

The "big" energy of the sun is just right to support life, has been for millions of years. The "small" energy of human combustion adds to that. It doesn't take much to make a difference. If two people are perfectly balanced on a seesaw, all it takes is a pound or two of extra weight on one side to tip the balance entirely.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/04/2016 17:18:56
Who cares what Al Gore does? Neither Jesus nor Karl Marx used a car, but both had a significant influence on human behavior.

Since it takes as much energy to manufacture a car as it uses in its lifetime, making new cars will do more damage to the environment than using old ones. But there's no law preventing environmentalists from manufacturing a car - except the laws of physics, which many seem not to understand.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/04/2016 17:24:43
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2016 21:52:59
so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustion
No it isn't.
and you really ought to answer the question about the entropy change - otherwise it makes it look like you don't have a damned clue what you were on about and you can't do the simple calculation- even after someone has told you the answer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
I am not here to jump through hoops for you. I am not here to prove myself to you. You are not here to test me or to school me. I have been to college. I graduated cum laude.

Do the calculation yourself if it's so simple, or go get YOURSELF a damned clue.
Well, as I said, I already did the calculation but, since you insist.
Let's just recap how we got here.
You started off by saying
" The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
and I pointed out that, through the arrow of time, they are in fact related.
And you bizarrely misinterpreted that and brought this up
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg/2000px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png
which is the Feynman diagram for electron positron annihilation.
and you said "Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry."

so, since you were off any sensible view of the point I said
"Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)"
to bring it back
Now, just remember I pointed out that the diagram has little to do with entropy.
You insisted it was, and that's the point wher I first asked you to prove it.

"If you want to show that I'm wrong and that you are right about this "When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
Just tell me what the entropy change is for that reaction."

And I wonder if, at that point you realised your mistake; but it seems not.
Even when I was saying things like "I'm really looking forward to you posting the result of the calculation."
You didn't realise, did you?
You can't have or I really don't think you would have said "Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. Answer it yourself."
Now I'm a bit surprised by that.
You have already lost the argument about combustion because the standard entropy change for combustion of, for example, hydrogen , methane or carbon monoxide is negative- the system loses entropy, yet here you are, once again pretending that the entropy change of a burning log is relevant.

But this bit " Answer it yourself" was either very brave, or very  dumb.

Now I'd just like to remind you of something I said earlier in the thread.

"here's the 2nd law together with the bit that says that reversible processes don't have an entropy change.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."
(That's a quote from somewhere- WIKI I think)

OK, so there's something really odd about thermodynamically reversible processes when it comes to entropy.
(I think some peole have guessed the punchline by now).
and here's the reaction you chose to illustrate entropy. (Heaven knows why- it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or anything like it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

And here's the bit which tells you something that, if you knew about entropy, would have set big sirens off telling you to be careful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation#Reverse_reaction

Yes, the reaction you used to illustrate your understanding of entropy, and which you tried to insist had something to do with the issue- even after I pointed it out- is a thermodynamically perfectly reversible reaction.

The reaction you chose to illustrate entropy is (as you had already been told- because I had explained it) one of the relatively small number of reactions where the entropy change is exactly zero.

Do you understand the significance of that?
It make it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.




Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 05/04/2016 14:43:46
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.

Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 05/04/2016 14:49:38
Do you understand the significance of that?
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
Here's what I understand: The insignificance of you. You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/04/2016 16:25:43
bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

I see the root of your confusion.

You would be well advised to go back to your sources and learn the difference between nucleon binding energy and covalent bonding between electron orbitals. It won't save your life, but it will make you much happier and more confident in the company of people who know what they are talking about. Then you won't have to resort to childish insults.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2016 20:28:56
Do you understand the significance of that?
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
Here's what I understand: The insignificance of you. You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments.
So, you understand essentially nothing.
I'm as insignificant as you are.
I have a real name and I explained why i don't use it (it allows me to post things that my employer might object to)
I have credentials,  and they look quite good- but, since I'm posting anonymously, i can't share them.
However, if you look at what else i have posted here over the years, you will find that I am well enough respected.
A sock puppet account implies a "puppet master"  but that's silly I'm posting entirely my own views.
And my arguments- like the last point I made- are generally based on established facts.

You, on the other hand seem unable to accept that you are frequently wrong.
You misunderstand and misinterpret a lot of things (I suspect that's sometimes deliberate).
And, when you are faced with someone who actually knows about a subject you think you understand- because you have read a boook on it- you assume that they are wrong.
Well, there are many ways  to describe that.
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

And, you still cited a reaction with no entropy change as an example of how important entropy is. Then you said it again.
You still think that an effect which, at best contributes a tiny percentage of the change in the Earth's temperature is important to that change.
You still think the Earth is a thermodynamically closed system.
You still said that you only claimed understanding infields where you were expert- but you were shown to pontificate , even in fields where you admitted that you didn't know what you were on about.
You misrepresent what others have said- and then repeatedly engage in strawman attacks.

I could go on, but there's no point; as far as I can tell you have a cognitive fault where  you can not understand that you don't understand.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/04/2016 20:38:47
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.

Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.

Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.
The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc (actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).
You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.

* If you understood entropy, you wouldn't have chosen the e p annihilation as an example of entropy; but you did. It's like discussion of pollination but using club mosses as an example or (for Tim's benefit) talking about Yorkshire fittings, but trying to explain them using push-fit polymer piping systems.

(Tim, you realise I'm kidding; I'm just trying to make the point about how stupid Craig's choice was.)

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 00:29:13
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/04/2016 06:52:26
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.

The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc

(actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).

You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.
FALSE.

http://www.decodedscience.org/is-there-a-connection-between-a-burning-log-and-emc2/22390

Again, I understand Entropy just fine. When you take a bunch of solar energy that's concentrated in fossil fuels, then use combustion to release it according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you get a bunch of dissipated heat, ash and smoke that includes carbon dioxide.

It takes more energy to collect all that energy and carbon dioxide back together than you got burning it in the first place. That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy Law. When you convert mass or energy from one form to the other, you are going to get Entropy.

By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/04/2016 06:54:22
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?
Don't make me laugh. Let me speak to you in your own language. You remind me of an affectatious Mensa poser who barely made it in on SAT scores and thinks substituting stilted pleonasm for vernacular passes for intellect. I would be more than happy to sit down and take a supervised IQ test with you, or perhaps we could merely compare college transcripts or skill sets. I would be willing to bet money I'm better than you at at least ten things, and I'm starting to think science is one of those.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: cheryl j on 06/04/2016 07:18:34
So what is wrong or biased with this article the other day from Nature?

 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html
http://www.nature.com/news/antarctic-model-raises-prospect-of-unstoppable-ice-collapse-1.19638
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 10:48:57
It's a model, based on an unproven and highly dubious hypothesis. Other than that, nothing.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 10:50:11
I would be willing to bet money I'm better than you at at least ten things, and I'm starting to think science is one of those.
Please show some evidence of the last conjecture. Or count the pleonasms in your last post. Whatever amuses you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 13:20:55
And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/04/2016 14:49:08
And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers
FALSE, and I can see why you didn't post the article I found looking for that graph, because it says so:

Neuroskeptic

Magnetism: From Neuroscience to Climate Change?
By Neuroskeptic | October 16, 2015 7:50 am

"A few weeks ago, a pair of Canadian scientists, David Vares and Michael Persinger, published a paper concluding that climate change is not caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels, as most people believe.

"Instead, they say, global warming and the rise in CO2 are both caused by decreases in the strength of the earth’s magnetic field: Earth’s Diminishing Magnetic Dipole Moment is Driving Global Carbon Dioxide Levels and Global Warming.

"Why is a neuroscience blogger like me writing about a climate science paper? Because the senior author, Michael Persinger, is a well-known neuroscientist.

"Persinger is a professor at Laurentian University in Canada. He’s perhaps best known for this researches in the field of “neurotheology“, the study of the neural basis of religious experiences. Much of his work has focussed on magnetic phenomena and their influence on the brain.

"In the new paper, Vares and Persinger report a correlation between the strength of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment, atmospheric CO2, and global temperatures.

"Then again, this is just a correlation, and correlation is not causation. A correlation exists between CO2 levels and any other variable which has increased or decreased since 1980, such as, say, the average ticket price at American cinemas. It seems unlikely that movie tickets affect the atmosphere directly.

"To provide a direct causal link between the diminishing of the earth’s magnetic field and increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, Vares and Persinger cite a 2008 paper that found that magnetism affects the solubility of CO2 in water. With a weaker field, CO2 would become less soluble in the oceans and some would be released into atmosphere.

"However, as John Mashey (who brought this paper to my attention) pointed out to me, the cited 2008 paper explicitly rejects the idea that geomagnetism can explain global warming (although acknowledging that it might exacerbate it):

"The magnitude of the [geomagnetic-CO2] mechanism is small compared to the magnitude of the preponderant mechanisms driving the exchange of carbon between ocean and atmosphere, such as water temperature, biological pumping, overturning circulation… it would be preposterous to make the weakening Earth’s magnetic field responsible for global warming.

"Vares and Persinger go on to say that although CO2 is rising, this in itself “does not cause global warming”. Instead, they say that the change in energy associated with the Earth’s changing magnetic field “translates into an equivalent temperature” and this may relate to climate change.

"However, I believe there is a serious error in their calculation here. Vares and Persinger write (my emphasis) that

"If the CO2 increases into the atmosphere from the sea water because of the diminished magnetic field are associated with the increased temperature, then that energy should translate into an equivalent temperature. Applying the classic definition that 4.18 J is required to increase 1 cc (10^−6 m3) of water 1˚C at standard temperature and pressure (STP), then the total energy within the 5.1 x 10^18 m3 will be 2.1 x 10^13 J.

"With 1.72 x 10^13 J equivalence available from the change, the analogous temperature shift will be 1.2˚C. This implies that there is an equilibrium system by which the removal of the source energy is related quantifiably to the increase or decrease of the two connected variables. Thus, the equivalent value of the 1.2˚C would be reflected in the increase due to the release of CO2.

"4.18 J of energy are required to raise the temperature of 1 cc (ml) of water by 1˚C. There are 10^6 (one million) cc in one m3 (cubic meter) volume. Therefore in order to raise the temperature of 5.1 x 10^18 m3 of water, we require 4.18 x 5.1 x 10^18 x 10^6 = 2.131 x 10^25 J. Vares and Persinger state this value as 2.1 x 10^13 J, which is too small by 12 orders of magnitude. The error is that they appear to have multiplied by 10^ -6 instead of 10^6.

"So I believe that the proposed “equivalence” between the amount of energy provided by the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of energy needed to cause global warming, is an error. Global temperatures have in fact risen by a bit less than 1 ˚C since 1970. If I’m right, the change in magnetic energy would in fact only heat the oceans by 0.0000000000012 ˚C, not 1.2˚C as Vares and Persinger state.

"I’m not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for the attempt to suggest a causal link to underlie the correlation that Vares and Persinger report."

I'm not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for a moderator at a physics forum to suggest a causal link to underlie that correlation based on the hypotheses of "neurotheologists" rather than climate scientists.

In your own words,

Today at 10:48:57 »

"It's a model, based on an unproven and highly dubious hypothesis."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/04/2016 15:18:40
So what is wrong or biased with this article the other day from Nature?

 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html
http://www.nature.com/news/antarctic-model-raises-prospect-of-unstoppable-ice-collapse-1.19638
Nothing. We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation.

Here's an article saying the same thing yours do, but from a ".org" site to add a bit of credibility.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189

Here's another one explaining the misinterpretations of NASA's data with some good citation at the bottom:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/03/nasa-study-of-antarctic-ice-melt-misunderstood/
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 15:31:03
I'm not a climate scientist, but this seems to me like a problem for a moderator at a physics forum to suggest a causal link to underlie that correlation based on the opinions of neurosurgeons rather than climate scientists.
But I didn't. I merely posted a graph of correlation. The inference of a causal link must have been yours.

So be warned that unidirectional correlation, however strong, is not proof of causation unless (a) the maths stacks up and (b) the same maths correctly predicts correlation in the opposite direction. And also remember that cause always precedes effect.

You are not unteachable, Craig.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/04/2016 15:51:19
I merely posted a graph of correlation. The inference of a causal link must have been yours.
FALSE. Here's your quote, with bold face type for emphasis:

"And here's an interesting graph, showing A MUCH STRONGER CORRELATION, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers."

cor·re·la·tion
ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
"research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime"
synonyms:   connection, association, link, tie-in, tie-up, relation, relationship, interrelationship, interdependence, interaction, interconnection; More
STATISTICS
interdependence of variable quantities.

I still can't believe they let a flaming troll be a moderator, spewing misinformation like a geyser. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I hope you're ready to do battle with me over this for a very, very, very long time. I can almost guarantee I'm more hard-headed than you, plus, I like the human race and the environment and don't want to see them go away, which is a pretty strong motivating factor for me.

What's your motivating factor? Narcissistic delusions of grandeur? To hell with decorum. I'm ready to go to war with people like that if necessary. I would rather die than let you flat-earthers take out the whole planet.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 16:23:28
The correlation shown in that graph is far stronger than any actual data relating temperature to carbon dioxide concentration. But those of us who speak English or understand science are aware that correlation is not proof of causation - the inference of causation was yours, not mine. To quote from the same paper - indeed your chosen sample of that paper

Quote
"Then again, this is just a correlation, and correlation is not causation. A correlation exists between CO2 levels and any other variable which has increased or decreased since 1980, such as, say, the average ticket price at American cinemas. It seems unlikely that movie tickets affect the atmosphere directly.

which is why I posted the graph in the first place.

The problem we have here is that you seem to be impressed by any mathematics that supports your preconceptions, but not any that challenges them. That is most unscientific.

If I have any motivation, it is a desire to help and encourage people to think critically and to value fact above hypothesis, opinion or propaganda.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 06/04/2016 17:01:51
The problem we have here is that you seem to be impressed by any mathematics that supports your preconceptions, but not any that challenges them. That is most unscientific.

If I have any motivation, it is a desire to help and encourage people to think critically and to value fact above hypothesis, opinion or propaganda.
Nonsense.

What you refer to as "preconceptions" come from books written by scientists, and from college courses taught by scientists. I find that in this forum, you consistently ask me to disregard this information in favor of your flat-earth climate change skepticism.

Not only that, when 97% of climate scientists in countries of all political stripes are in agreement, I don't need a non-expert like you telling me to "think critically" about their findings.

These are the Dark Ages of climate science. Instead of The Church controlling the conversation and keeping people ignorant, it is Big Business, money being the prime motivating factor of both parties. It's time for a Renaissance, flat earther.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 17:59:17
What you refer to as "preconceptions" come from books written by scientists, and from college courses taught by scientists. I find that in this forum, you consistently ask me to disregard this information in favor of your flat-earth climate change skepticism.

If you read what I wrote, rather than what you think I might have written, I merely asked you to consider the information and whether the interpretation that you may have gleaned from others was strictly in accordance with it.

In leaping to the defence of the consensus you first asserted that the order of events was irrelevant to the distinction between cause and effect, then confused atomic chemistry with nuclear physics, and now claim, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary in this forum, that I think the earth is flat. Remember that 97% of scientists used to think that the sun revolved around the earth, combustion released phlogiston, and the atom was indivisible. If you find yourself talking nonsense in support of a hypothesis, it's just possible that the hypothesis is wrong.

You may be right in one respect, however. Now that politics rules science (at least in Europe and the USA) we may be approaching another Dark Age. The Renaissance began with skepticism, so please try thinking for yourself - the world needs you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/04/2016 18:44:40
What you fail to appreciate Craig is that the members you are insulting would actually like to help you. The fact that this forum hasn't banned you should tell you something about its ethos.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/04/2016 20:16:38
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.

The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion etc

(actually,strictly speaking, they are- but you don't have the background to understand that- in any event, the effects are tiny ).

You don't understand entropy*- so you are not in a position to soundly base arguments on it.
So that whole rant is irrelevant.
FALSE.

http://www.decodedscience.org/is-there-a-connection-between-a-burning-log-and-emc2/22390

Again, I understand Entropy just fine. When you take a bunch of solar energy that's concentrated in fossil fuels, then use combustion to release it according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you get a bunch of dissipated heat, ash and smoke that includes carbon dioxide.

It takes more energy to collect all that energy and carbon dioxide back together than you got burning it in the first place. That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy Law. When you convert mass or energy from one form to the other, you are going to get Entropy.

By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry.
Thank you for citing that page.
It includes this
"A common misconception is that Einstein’s famous equation applies only to nuclear processes "
Now, who was it introduced nuclear physics to the discussion?
oh, that's right; it was you.
"bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus."

Meanwhile, what did I actually say ?
well- how about this
"Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.
The nuclear forces binding the nuclei together are not changed during combustion"
And that is perfectly correct- so it is clear that nuclear binding energies have nothing to do with the situation.
But you brought them in.
If only there was a term for pointlessly introducing words; perhaps we should coin a new one.
How does "pleonasm" sound?

in the mean time, perhaps you would like to comment on your inability to accurately assess things like the power needed to run a train, or heat a house.
But I'd really like to know why if you "understand Entropy just fine" you chose to illustrate it with a reaction that has no entropy change?

Why did you do that- if (as some of us do) you really understand entropy, it's obvious that it's a laughable choice- so why did you pick it?
 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/04/2016 21:24:27
Craig: ask  yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.

Which atom lost mass? Did it lose electrons, protons, neutrons, or something else?

If we now recycle all the atoms by photosynthesis and coal formation, then burn the carbon again, at what point will the carbon and/or oxygen atoms have lost enough mass to become some other species?
bind·ing en·er·gy
nounPHYSICS
the energy that holds a nucleus together, equal to the mass defect of the nucleus.

When you join particles together, that takes binding energy. Taking them apart releases the binding energy.

The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous.

Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum.

Why have you not either banned him or at least corralled him into the science for those who do not know the difference between chemistry and sub atomic physics?

Please tell me if ths thread ever egts to discuss the degree of warming we should expect from our release of CO2.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 06/04/2016 21:26:38
And here's an interesting graph, showing a much stronger correlation, based on much more reliable data, than the temperature/CO2 graph so beloved of believers

What mechanism would you suggest is the dirving factor behind that?

Without such a mechanism it's not much at all.

Having read your posts since I understand that you were talking to the crank.

That is why there can be no serrious discussion here untill he is restricted.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2016 01:12:53
 
What mechanism would you suggest is the dirving factor behind that?
The point is exactly that: the historic correlation between magnetic field and CO2 is as near perfect as you can wish for, but it is entirely spurious. There is no possible linking mechanism. Lesson 1: correlation does not imply causation.

Now if we add the observation from Vostok and Mauna Loa that temperature changes precede changes in CO2 concentration, we get lesson 2: causes must precede effects so CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature variation. However the evidence does suggest that temperature drives CO2, and we can propose several plausible mechanisms for that.

I have no desire to restrict anyone. Arguing with a convinced crank may at least encourage others to look critically at the facts even if he claims papal infallibility, and as he points out, Craig probably represents a majority in his denial of the obvious, though most of them can be excused on grounds of ignorance of the facts. As for the sixth-form insults, both BC and I have the thick skins you acquire with a sackful of professional qualifications and experience, and nobody else has complained.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 06:36:26
The Renaissance began with skepticism, so please try thinking for yourself - the world needs you.
If I think for myself, you'll say I'm not following science. If I follow science, you'll say I'm not thinking for myself. It's a classic Catch 22.

This isn't about a mindset, or about me not thinking for myself, or me being brainwashed, or any of that.

What this is about is you casting doubt on sensible arguments that are backed up by science, by nitpicking and obfuscating the issues. I'm just trying to determine why you would do such a thing. I expect arguments like these from FOX news' comment section, NOT in a physics forum.

I mean, you posted a graph correlating the rise in CO2 to changes in the earth's magnetic field. News flash: There are a lot of laymen here, and that definitely sends the wrong message. You didn't even post a disclaimer. In fact, I had to look up the article you gleaned it from, and the study was conducted by "neurotheologists." Talk about a crackpot link.

Luckily, I am not as scientifically ignorant as you would like to believe, or would like everyone else here believe. I have almost 40 years of general science knowledge gleaned from reading books and magazines, plus some college science credits to officially back that up, so I see right through skeptics, and I've already tackled most of their tired arguments several times over at this point. This is just rehash, just staying in practice.

Again, it doesn't matter who came first, Ginger Rogers or Fred Astaire, the chicken or the egg, the temperature or the carbon dioxide, because right now, there seem to be a lot of chickens and eggs, and Fred and Ginger are both moaning loudly as they dance up in the rafters.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 06:52:01
The fact that this forum hasn't banned you should tell you something about its ethos.
On the contrary, the fact that this thread is full of trolls moderated by a flamer me tells me something about its pathos.

You refuse to talk about science, choosing instead to post 100% passive-aggressive, thinly veiled, inflammatory tripe, and they let you get away with it, which tells me something else about the site, Sigmund Schadenfreude.

Again, if you don't believe applying combustion to fossil fuels can change the temperature and composition of a finite atmosphere, there's a simple test you can try at home. Drive your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down the windows, and leave your car running.

Are you willing to die to prove your point? Because I'm not willing to die if the skeptics are wrong, more on.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 06:57:10
Having read your posts since I understand that you were talking to the crank.

That is why there can be no serrious discussion here untill he is restricted.
Oh, look, the right wing fascist wants to crack down on my freedom of speech so he can talk about pseudoscience.

Big surprise.

FYI, that chart was produced by Canadian "neurotheologists," Liquid Drain-O.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 07:07:37
However the evidence does suggest that temperature drives CO2, and we can propose several plausible mechanisms for that.
Again, while that may be true historically, you seriously need to update your information. Only in the last 150 years did we start plowing through fossil fuels at breakneck speed. In the last 800,000 years, CO2 content of the atmosphere was NEVER above 320, and as I have pointed out at least half a dozen times in these threads, we added another 20% to that in just 50 years. So now you need to accept the fact that there's a new factor to consider. Maybe temperature USED to lead, but that was before there were 7 billion people relying of fossil fuel consumption for their livelihood, which is UNPRECEDENTED.

So, whatever you have to say about temperature leading carbon dioxide LIKELY DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE, because THAT WAS THE OLD ATMOSPHERE, which did not have a CO2 content of 400 parts per million.

Temperature is not leading. Carbon dioxide is not leading. Fossil fuel consumption is leading.

END OF STORY.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 07:27:07
both BC and I have the thick skins you acquire with a sackful of professional qualifications and experience.
Nonsense. If you had a sackful of professional qualifications, you wouldn't be in a public forum arguing with an artist. You would be hanging out with Stephen Hawking, publishing a scientific paper, or converting kinetic energy to mass. Public forums are for hobbyists and people who read pop science books, but they also harbor crank scientists and nobodies with science degrees eager to make themselves feel better by trashing out laymen and people who read pop science books. I am well experienced with this phenomenon.

I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics. I'm guessing I probably know more about chemistry than he does just from being a former professionally certified carpet cleaning technician. He's challenging me to do Calculus problems, but I would like to see him get urine, vomit, bile, feces, blood, wine, copy toner, Red Lake #40, tannins, and odors out of carpet. I guarantee you I'll totally school him in practical chemisty. He probably couldn't even clarify the distinction between detergents and surfactants without looking it up.

If the two of you have any real qualifications, I would guess you're corporate scientists for an oil or chemical company at best, which would also explain your tired skeptic arguments.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 07:32:44
If you read what I wrote, rather than what you think I might have written...

you confused atomic chemistry with nuclear physics
I read what you wrote. Care to define "atomic chemistry" ??

https://www.google.com/search?q=atomic+chemistry&oq=atomic+chemistry&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Doesn't seem to be an entry with that heading, LOL

God, you are so full of it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 07/04/2016 07:41:31
You are not unteachable, Craig.
No, but perhaps you are.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: cheryl j on 07/04/2016 17:58:36
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/04/2016 19:26:22
Craig doesn't want a discussion because he already 'knows' he is right. How can you have a reasoned debate with a guy who so easily resorts to insults? Just make sure that you don't point out when you think he is wrong.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/04/2016 19:44:57
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
If I was arguing with Craig  about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .
However he is unable to accept that he's wrong about other things.
He is, for example, still shrieking that he understands entropy.
Well, for a start it's not really relevant- not least because the sun/ Earth system isn't closed.
For an encore he has totally failed to grasp how stupid his choice of example was. (Nobody who understands it would choose to illustrate entropy with a reaction where the entropy change is exactly zero)

Even people with K-D syndrome will get something right by accident and in this case, he's one the right (or at least conventional) side of global warming.
But he's hopeless about anything else.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 07/04/2016 19:54:33
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.

Please tell us which climate scientist thinks that the direct heat released by combustion is significant in global warming.

If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/04/2016 19:56:29
I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics.
OK, lets have a look at that.
For a start, learn English before you criticise other's abilities.
You should have written "fewer qualifications" rather than "less qualifications ".

Then there's another question to address- why are you obsessed with qualifications? You have already said that you know people with formal qualifications who don't know what they are talking about. I told you to get a mirror.
Qualifications don't make people right or wrong, competently displayed evidence gets a lot closer and I have yet to see you do that.

And the final point is that, if you can pick holes in my arguments, please do so.
Thus far you have utterly failed. Indeed, as far as I can tell, you have not even understood them.

And just to reiterate; why did you choose a reaction with no entropy change to illustrate your "point" about entropy?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/04/2016 20:10:51
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.

Please tell us which climate scientist thinks that the direct heat released by combustion is significant in global warming.

If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.
Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.

I think Tim is wrong.


(Is that clear enough?)
I am pretty much convinced that the temperature is rising; that this rise is largely due to the effect of  CO2 in the atmosphere; and that we are responsible for that CO2.

Tim's view (unless I have misunderstood it) differs, at least in part, from that. (and, just for the moment Tim, if I'm not utterly wrong about that, just leave it- we can get back to details later).

Where I agree with Tim is that the direct contribution from heat released by burning fossil fuel is tiny.
I pointed out ( a long while back) that it only corresponds to about 1/15000 of the heat we get from the sun.

In post 334 someone (Thanks Agyejy) actually calculated the effective change in temperature that it would give rise to- and it's small (about 0.05 degrees) so it can not possibly be the cause of global warming which is much bigger than that.

So, when Craig continues to protest that the direct effect of heating is what's important (and that Tim was wrong to say otherwise) I will cheerfully stick my oar in in favour of Tim.
Because the one thing that really doesn't help any discussion is someone talking nonsense- whichever side they are on.
Since then Craig has shown a remarkable capacity to get thing utterly wrong.
using a reaction with no entropy change to illustrate entropy is the clearest example perhaps, but there are plenty of others to chose from

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2016 20:57:16
It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus

D & K demonstrated and explained a strong correlation between ignorance and arrogance, both of which appear to typify Craig's contributions here. Nothing to do with herd instinct or whatever else makes people prefer a consensus in the absence of conflicting data.

What interests me about this whole subject is why anyone supports a consensus in the face of facts.  It's the basis of religion, politics, antiscience, and practically every anthropogenic evil I can think of. I am not in the least concerned about Craig's affectation of DK syndrome, which has shed no light on the question at all, but he does seem to have a florid case of it.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: cheryl j on 07/04/2016 21:19:00
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2016 00:34:55
Just two points of evidence.
So what is wrong or right about these analyses?

Initially, two points of evidence, good scientific practice in questioning the validity of the data, and some simple undergraduate physics.

1. I was first shown the Vostok ice core data about 10 years ago (at an alumni conference of the Cambridge Earth Sciences department, just in case Craig wants to play the academic qualifications game) and immediately noticed that the temperature graph was always ahead of the CO2 curve. Now in my universe, the cause always precedes the effect, so CO2 cannot have been the cause of temperature fluctuations. Subsequent published analyses have confirmed what was visually obvious.

2. Notwithstanding point 3 below, we do have some very reliable recent data from a single sampling point - Mauna Loa. The temperature curve shows a smooth continuous upward trend in recent years, but the CO2 curve, whilst its mean follows the temperature curve, shows an annual cyclic pattern that is a very regular sinusoid. Now if this reflected anthropogenic carbon dioxide, as you might expect, you would expect to find the maxima in winter when we burn more carbon fuels to keep warm. But it isn't. The maximum occurs in early summer, every year. This clearly implies that temperature drives carbon dioxide. 

3. I have always been skeptical of so-called recent historic data on global mean temperature, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere - the fact that nobody had visited the poles,let alone made any serious measurements of arctic and antarctic temperatures before 1900; the fact that nobody has ever defined "mean global surface temperature" when asked; the fact that frankly nobody even cared about accurate land surface temperature measurements before 1920; the increasing paucity of such data between 1945 and 1970; the almost complete absence of temperature measurements of the sea surface (75% of the globe), mountains, or deserts (another 20%), prior to 1970; the increasing heat island effect on what land surface measurements we do have; lack of international standardisation of meteorological thermometers before 1926; the extraordinary correlation of the  NOAA "adjustment" of recent data to the known CO2 concentration.... enough for the moment....In short, most of the "data" looks like guesswork massaged with presumptions.

4. In my undergraduate days we studied infrared absorption as part of physical stereochemistry and the quantum mechanics of chemical bonds. We learned (and calculated, and measured) that the O=C=O structure is a rigid cylinder with very few infrared excitation modes. At pretty much the same time (the 1960's) we began exploiting the IR transitions of CO2 to make very powerful lasers - simple and powerful precisely because CO2 has such a narrow IR spectrum. Water, by comparison, has an enormously broad IR absorption spectrum even as a monomer, and exists in the atmosphere as monomer, dimer, trimer and possibly hexamer gases, liquid, and several ice phases with different structures and spectra. Given that the hugely powerful greenhouse gas, H2O, comprises around 4% of the atmosphere, and the weakly absorbing CO2 less than 0.04%, and that the latent heat of evaporation and melting of water (both of which take place in the atmosphere) is responsible for almost all of the energy transport that we call weather(still with us, Craig? that's part of the international syllabus for pilots, and I scored 100% in the meteorology exam)  it does not seem at all reasonable to ascribe any significant change in global surface temperature to the IR spectum of CO2.

5. We also learned that the CO2 absorption spectrum is close to saturation at ground level: adding more CO2 will not affect the overall IR absorption or emission of the atmosphere: the "extinction" phenomenon is of course true for all absorbers of radiation and formed one of the bases of my subsequent studies (PhD (Warwick) in case Craig is still with us)  and career (Chartered Physicist, National Physical Laboratory, US Bureau of Standards, and now a few private companies - none involved in oil or coal) in radiation measurement of all sorts. Even in our schooldays we learned that warm air can contain more water than cold air, so if water vapor promotes heating or cooling, the effect has an inherent positive feedback until the air is either  desiccated (as over Antarctica) or forms clouds that cut off the solar input - a bounded chaotic oscillator, just like the Vostok record. 

So I'm just a teeny bit skeptical about any model that begins with the presumption that CO2 is the primary climate agent (particularly when the IPCC said, in its first report, that it isn't) and then tries to fit "adjusted" "data" to the known or presumed CO2 curve. My skepticism is enhanced each year when the dire predictions of those models turn out to be wrong.

The "technical aspects" outlined above can be summarised us: when studied carefully, the data does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of climate. And that's the historical problem with scapegoats: the goat hadn't sinned, so sacrificing it did not placate the gods.

Meanwhile the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and climate change is going to exacerbate humanity's selfimposed mess, so the sooner we stop bleating about a non-cause and start dealing  with the inescapable effect, the better. But the solution is politically unpalatable, so intergovernmental panels and treaties will continue to ignore the facts and blame the electorate for burning coal.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 08/04/2016 02:12:43
Anybody with an inkling of common sense should read what Alan wrote above.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 08/04/2016 07:16:30
For the sake of an actual balanced accounting of the facts:

1. I was first shown the Vostok ice core data about 10 years ago (at an alumni conference of the Cambridge Earth Sciences department, just in case Craig wants to play the academic qualifications game) and immediately noticed that the temperature graph was always ahead of the CO2 curve. Now in my universe, the cause always precedes the effect, so CO2 cannot have been the cause of temperature fluctuations. Subsequent published analyses have confirmed what was visually obvious.

Just to make sure everyone is aware of all the evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

In particular this video specifically sites a paper that explains the current ice core record:


The simple and brief answer is that historically orbital factors have initiated changes in global temperatures. When an increase in temperature was initiated the decreased solubility of CO2 in the warmer oceans caused a release of CO2 that enhanced the relatively weak orbital forcing. This is why in the ice record the CO2 lags the temperature changes. However, it is well known that the orbital factors are not strong enough to account for the observed temperature changes. In fact because it was known that orbital forcing wasn't enough it was actually predicted that the ice record should show a lag between CO2 and temperature for the reasons above before it was actually observed experimentally. We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.


Quote
2. Notwithstanding point 3 below, we do have some very reliable recent data from a single sampling point - Mauna Loa. The temperature curve shows a smooth continuous upward trend in recent years, but the CO2 curve, whilst its mean follows the temperature curve, shows an annual cyclic pattern that is a very regular sinusoid. Now if this reflected anthropogenic carbon dioxide, as you might expect, you would expect to find the maxima in winter when we burn more carbon fuels to keep warm. But it isn't. The maximum occurs in early summer, every year. This clearly implies that temperature drives carbon dioxide.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

So basically as above it is well known that temperature swings can impact the rate at which CO2 enters and leaves the atmosphere via the oceans. This completely explains the seasonal fluctuations about the mean of the CO2 curve. If anything it supports the fact that climate scientists clearly understand the carbon cycle and how it is related to various climatic parameters.

Quote
3. I have always been skeptical of so-called recent historic data on global mean temperature, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere - the fact that nobody had visited the poles,let alone made any serious measurements of arctic and antarctic temperatures before 1900; the fact that nobody has ever defined "mean global surface temperature" when asked; the fact that frankly nobody even cared about accurate land surface temperature measurements before 1920; the increasing paucity of such data between 1945 and 1970; the almost complete absence of temperature measurements of the sea surface (75% of the globe), mountains, or deserts (another 20%), prior to 1970; the increasing heat island effect on what land surface measurements we do have; lack of international standardisation of meteorological thermometers before 1926; the extraordinary correlation of the  NOAA "adjustment" of recent data to the known CO2 concentration.... enough for the moment....In short, most of the "data" looks like guesswork massaged with presumptions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

In short the analysis of global mean temperature has been done by several independent groups using the same data sets as the three main temperature reconstructions, completely independent temperature records, and known temperature proxies that have a well characterized link to global temperature. The results are mathematically identical. Given that independent groups analyzing the same data and completely independent measures of the same quantity came to the same conclusions it is highly unlikely that the warming trend can be ascribed to any non-climatic factors.

Quote
4. In my undergraduate days we studied infrared absorption as part of physical stereochemistry and the quantum mechanics of chemical bonds. We learned (and calculated, and measured) that the O=C=O structure is a rigid cylinder with very few infrared excitation modes. At pretty much the same time (the 1960's) we began exploiting the IR transitions of CO2 to make very powerful lasers - simple and powerful precisely because CO2 has such a narrow IR spectrum. Water, by comparison, has an enormously broad IR absorption spectrum even as a monomer, and exists in the atmosphere as monomer, dimer, trimer and possibly hexamer gases, liquid, and several ice phases with different structures and spectra. Given that the hugely powerful greenhouse gas, H2O, comprises around 4% of the atmosphere, and the weakly absorbing CO2 less than 0.04%, and that the latent heat of evaporation and melting of water (both of which take place in the atmosphere) is responsible for almost all of the energy transport that we call weather(still with us, Craig? that's part of the international syllabus for pilots, and I scored 100% in the meteorology exam)  it does not seem at all reasonable to ascribe any significant change in global surface temperature to the IR spectum of CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Water is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 but crucially it is often at or near its saturation point. The reason we have clouds and rain being specifically that water vapor has reached the saturation point (actually the air is usually supersaturated before clouds form) and precipitated out of the air. More specifically the fact that water is stable as a liquid (or solid) at most temperatures and pressure found to naturally occur on the surface of the Earth the atmospheric concentration is limited via the vapour pressure to somewhere in the 4% range. What this means is that if the atmosphere starts warming for some other reason that increase in temperature is going to increase the saturation point of water which is going to increase the warming effect that water has on the atmosphere. This is called a positive feedback and is well known by climatologists. The flip side of this is that since CO2 is largely not stable as either a liquid or a gas at basically any naturally occurring surface temperatures and pressures on the Earth it is theoretically possible to have an arbitrarily large CO2 concentration. So unlike water vapour concentration which is largely controlled by temperature and pressure CO2 concentration is only limited by the net rate at which CO2 enters the atmosphere.

Quote
5. We also learned that the CO2 absorption spectrum is close to saturation at ground level: adding more CO2 will not affect the overall IR absorption or emission of the atmosphere: the "extinction" phenomenon is of course true for all absorbers of radiation and formed one of the bases of my subsequent studies (PhD (Warwick) in case Craig is still with us)  and career (Chartered Physicist, National Physical Laboratory, US Bureau of Standards, and now a few private companies) in radiation measurement of all sorts. Even in our schooldays we learned that warm air can contain more water than cold air, so if water vapor promotes heating or cooling, the effect has an inherent positive feedback until the air is either  desiccated (as over Antarctica) or forms clouds that cut off the solar input - a bounded chaotic oscillator, just like the Vostok record. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

So it turns out surface CO2 concentration only actually matters in that it is a sign that CO2 concentration is increasing higher in the atmosphere. Also, while the strong absorption band of CO2 is nearly saturated there are many weaker sidebands which are not and while individually the may be weak together their impact is important. It should also be noted that even in the strong absorption band increasing concentration does still have an impact because the band cutoff is more gaussian than rigid. This means that as you increase the concentration the width of the absorption band over which meaningful absorption takes places increases even if the amount of absorption at the center of the band has saturated.

Quote
So I'm just a teeny bit skeptical about any model that begins with the presumption that CO2 is the primary climate agent (particularly when the IPCC said, in its first report, that it isn't) and then tries to fit "adjusted" "data" to the known or presumed CO2 curve. My skepticism is enhanced each year when the dire predictions of those models turn out to be wrong.

The "technical aspects" outlined above can be summarised us: when studied carefully, the data does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of climate. And that's the historical problem with scapegoats: the goat hadn't sinned, so sacrificing it did not placate the gods.

Meanwhile the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and climate change is going to exacerbate humanity's selfimposed mess, so the sooner we stop bleating about a non-cause and start dealing  with the inescapable effect, the better. But the solution is politically unpalatable, so intergovernmental panels and treaties will continue to ignore the facts and blame the electorate for burning coal.

I am sure answers to any lingering questions anyone might have can be found at the following link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

Oh and as an interesting aside there is also this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

Which shows my earlier very crude estimate of human waste heat on global temperatures was at least a factor of 10 too high.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2016 10:33:00
completely independent temperature records, and known temperature proxies that have a well characterized link to global temperature. The results are mathematically identical.

I'm impressed by your research.

Please give us a reference to the three independent pre-1900 trans-Antarctic survey records, the corresponding pre-1900 trans-Arctic records, the matching data from the Sahara, Amazon Basin, Manitoba and Gobi, and any three independent data sets from the entire Pacific ocean surface that predate the industrial revolution.

Please cite a temperature proxy that is not also a CO2 proxy.

Please define "global temperature".

I do not find it in the least surprising that independent groups, starting  with the same data and the same assumptions, end up with the same model, however dubious the data and assumptions. However when the model fails by more than its error bars to predict the next finding, or explain the observed historic phase shifts, it does rather cast doubt on the validity of the entire process.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 08/04/2016 13:41:51
An interesting mental exercise is to ask the question, what would happen if we took away all the water from the earth. Say we have a waterless earth, but leave the atmosphere with the current CO2. This will allows us to isolate the impact of the water on global climate and weather.

If we took away the water, you would no longer have to worry about hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms, floods and any type of storm  event; tornado, that comes from water based clouds. We won't have to worry about El Nino and La Nina affects, which originate in the oceans.

The loss of the water, will alter the thermal capacity of the earth's surface; goes down. This loss will cause higher thermal swings between day and night, as well as summer to winter. Without water in the atmosphere, there are no clouds to reflect the sun or help the earth retain surface heat.

If the surface water was not there to absorb and release heat, less heat would be transferred via oceans based currents. The need for heat transfer will be done mostly by the atmospheres. But the atmosphere can't move as much heat, due to their lower thermal capacity, unless air speed gets super high.

The lack of water, will impact all of life. There will be no photosynthesis, since the two reactants are water and CO2. This means the production of oxygen will stop. The result will be the partial pressure of the oxygen decreasing over time, as oxygen reacts with the surface to form oxides, but is not replaced. With less and less O2 in the atmosphere, we cant form new CO2. We will also lose the ozone layer, allowing more and more UV to enter the earth. CO2 can be broken down wth short wave UV back to CO, O, O2, C. Loss of O2 may shift the CO2 equilibrium back to O2.

I am not sure how one can ignore water, since it is the straw that stirs the global weather drink. The lack of water based disccuson and the fixation on CO2, shows there is a gap in knowledge.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 08/04/2016 14:34:14
This completely explains the seasonal fluctuations about the mean of the CO2 curve.

Well it would if the CO2 curve peaked in July-August, when sea temperature is maximal, but it actually peaks in May-June. But don't let the facts spoil a good argument!

I apologize for the mistake. Sea temperature changes don't completely explain the seasonal CO2 fluctuations. I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes. Thus shifting the peak CO2 concentrations back a few months remembering the competition between the ocean sink and the plant sink along with general response lag keeps the CO2 concentration from exactly matching to the date any seasonal cycle that drives changes in CO2 concentration.

Quote
Please give us a reference to the three independent pre-1900 trans-Antarctic survey records, the corresponding pre-1900 trans-Arctic records, the matching data from the Sahara, Amazon Basin, Manitoba and Gobi, and any three independent data sets from the entire Pacific ocean surface that predate the industrial revolution.

Please cite a temperature proxy that is not also a CO2 proxy.


The links I gave are generally fairly well referenced (especially any that have an intermediate or advanced tab).

For reference there are three major reconstructions of monthly global mean surface temperature and they use data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).
https://data.noaa.gov/dataset/global-historical-climatology-network-daily-ghcn-daily-version-3

There are other reconstructions using other data. For example:

https://data.noaa.gov/dataset/global-surface-summary-of-the-day-gsod <-- Maintained by the USAF looking at the station map of the GSOD vs the GHCN (found at the links provided) clearly indicate that the two data sets are independent of each other. As per this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Reconstructions done with the GSOD are mathematically identical (i.e. agree within a relatively small uncertainty) to the reconstructions done with the GHCN. These reconstructions were done by Ron Broberg and Nick Stokes (a software engineer and all I could find about Stokes was that he has a blog). So not in anyway part of organizations that did the major reconstructions nor actually paid for the climate research and therefore have no sane motives fudging the data.

Here is another:
Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades.


and another:
Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
Reanalysis data sets also show the same warming trend.  A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations.  Reanalysis comparisons by Vose et al. (2012) and Compo et al. (2013) find nearly identical global surface warming trends as in the instrumental record (Figure 8).
Links to the cited papers can be found on the cited page.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054271/epdf <-- Here is the paper that used proxies. Based on the descriptions of the proxies I'd say a good number of them are either independent of CO2 or dependent on CO2 in a different ways which would average out over the large set of proxies used (173).

Quote
Please define "global temperature".

I suppose to be exact I should have said global mean temperature or monthly global mean temperature to be even more precise. It should be fairly obvious how one goes about calculating the mean of all temperatures on the Earth over the period of a month. It takes a lot of addition and some division but computers are good at that.

Quote
I do not find it in the least surprising that independent groups, starting  with the same data and the same assumptions, end up with the same model, however dubious the data and assumptions.

As above there are several independent data sets showing the same trend. Additionally different groups approached the GHCN data using different data analysis techniques, assumptions and models. There are even comparisons between adjusted and unadjusted data that show the same trend in both. All of this can be found in the following link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Quote
However when the model fails by more than its error bars to predict the next finding, or explain the observed historic phase shifts, it does rather cast doubt on the validity of the entire process.

I believe the latter point is now firmly addressed with the correction of my earlier misstatement. As for the former I'm not sure what precisely you are referencing but this may help:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Also I have to point out that the research largely isn't mine as I am using one website.

Quote from: puppypower
An interesting mental exercise is to ask the question, what would happen if we took away all the water from the earth. Say we have a waterless earth, but leave the atmosphere with the current CO2. This will allows us to isolate the impact of the water on global climate and weather.

If we took away the water, you would no longer have to worry about hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms, floods and any type of storm  event; tornado, that comes from water based clouds. We won't have to worry about El Nino and La Nina affects, which originate in the oceans.

The loss of the water, will alter the thermal capacity of the earth's surface; goes down. This loss will cause higher thermal swings between day and night, as well as summer to winter. Without water in the atmosphere, there are no clouds to reflect the sun or help the earth retain surface heat.

If the surface water was not there to absorb and release heat, less heat would be transferred via oceans based currents. The need for heat transfer will be done mostly by the atmospheres. But the atmosphere can't move as much heat, due to their lower thermal capacity, unless air speed gets super high.

The lack of water, will impact all of life. There will be no photosynthesis, since the two reactants are water and CO2. This means the production of oxygen will stop. The result will be the partial pressure of the oxygen decreasing over time, as oxygen reacts with the surface to form oxides, but is not replaced. With less and less O2 in the atmosphere, we cant form new CO2. We will also lose the ozone layer, allowing more and more UV to enter the earth. CO2 can be broken down wth short wave UV back to CO, O, O2, C. Loss of O2 may shift the CO2 equilibrium back to O2.

I am not sure how one can ignore water, since it is the straw that stirs the global weather drink. The lack of water based disccuson and the fixation on CO2, shows there is a gap in knowledge.

You seem to be laboring under a misconception about what climatologist actually include in their models. As per my citation in the previous post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Here are some quotes from the intermediate version of the explanation:

Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

It should be very clear that water is not being ignored by climatologists and in fact is a large part of their models.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 14:49:11
D & K demonstrated and explained a strong correlation between ignorance and arrogance, both of which appear to typify Craig's contributions here. Nothing to do with herd instinct or whatever else makes people prefer a consensus in the absence of conflicting data.

What interests me about this whole subject is why anyone supports a consensus in the face of facts.  It's the basis of religion, politics, antiscience, and practically every anthropogenic evil I can think of. I am not in the least concerned about Craig's affectation of DK syndrome, which has shed no light on the question at all, but he does seem to have a florid case of it.
Nonsense, because when I was younger and lived in Texas, I DID follow the herd instinct, and was a climate change skeptic. Now I have enough of a science background to know better. Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.

The purpose of the IPCC is to evaluate the state of climate science on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature.

Got anything peer reviewed or published? No, you've just got a bunch of argumenta ab auctoritate in a public forum full of laymen.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 14:52:06
Craig doesn't want a discussion because he already 'knows' he is right. How can you have a reasoned debate with a guy who so easily resorts to insults? Just make sure that you don't point out when you think he is wrong.
Wrong. I do know that the 97% of climate scientists who agree with one another know more about this than you, dill hole.

How can I have a reasoned debate with a guy who doesn't know what he is talking about?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 15:02:06
We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.
Yes, thank you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 15:03:52
It should be very clear that water is not being ignored by climatologists and in fact is a large part of their models.
Yes, thank you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 15:13:52
If I was arguing with Craig  about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .
However he is unable to accept that he's wrong about other things.
He is, for example, still shrieking that he understands entropy.
Well, for a start it's not really relevant- not least because the sun/ Earth system isn't closed.
For an encore he has totally failed to grasp how stupid his choice of example was. (Nobody who understands it would choose to illustrate entropy with a reaction where the entropy change is exactly zero)
Global warming IS entropy, flat earther. Heat and carbon dioxide used to be in concentrated forms like coal deposits and oil reserves. We have now dissipated that heat and carbon dioxide into the environment. That's entropy. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to school, and try to learn this information correctly next time.

I never said the earth is a 100% closed system. I said it is an ESSENTIALLY closed system, and compared it to you and your friends burning logs in a tightly closed room with a single window that stays open 1/16 of an inch. There's a limit to how much of the extra heat we produce actually escapes into space, especially since we're adding CO2 at the same time, increasing the atmosphere's insulative properties.

Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 08/04/2016 15:27:38
Again in the interest of balanced debate I relink this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

To quote a relevant section:
Quote
When humans use energy, it gives off heat. Whenever we burn fossil fuels, heat is emitted. This heat doesn't just disappear - it dissipates into our environment. How much does waste heat contribute to global warming? This has been calculated in Flanner 2009 (if you want to read the full paper, access details are posted here). Flanner contributes that the contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Waste heat is about 1% of greenhouse warming.

So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 15:40:57
So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.
I am trying to keep this simple.

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels produces both heat and carbon dioxide.

SOMETHING about that is causing anthropogenic climate change.

Can we at least agree on that?? Unlike some other discussions I had with you at physforum.com, I appreciate your comments this time. However, I don't care so much about nitpicking the details. I'm concerned about the overall trend.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 08/04/2016 16:05:32
So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.
I am trying to keep this simple.

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels produces both heat and carbon dioxide.

SOMETHING about that is causing anthropogenic climate change.

Can we at least agree on that?? Unlike some other discussions I had with you at physforum.com, I appreciate your comments this time. However, I don't care so much about nitpicking the details. I'm concerned about the overall trend.

How is ignoring variables that have no actually measurable impact less simple than including them? If you include them you complicate the math and the explanations bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference. That just doesn't seem simpler to me at all. Also, we have fairly conclusive evidence the CO2 is the source of anthropogenic climate change from models that completely ignore human waste heat. Why should we complicate those preexisting models with extra parameters that have no measurable impact on the results? The trend clearly comes from the CO2 and any correlation to total human energy use is because a majority of our energy use also results in the release of CO2.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 17:16:15
How is ignoring variables that have no actually measurable impact less simple than including them? If you include them you complicate the math and the explanations bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference. That just doesn't seem simpler to me at all. Also, we have fairly conclusive evidence the CO2 is the source of anthropogenic climate change from models that completely ignore human waste heat. Why should we complicate those preexisting models with extra parameters that have no measurable impact on the results? The trend clearly comes from the CO2 and any correlation to total human energy use is because a majority of our energy use also results in the release of CO2.
I don't know how to explain this to you any differently than I already have, so let me repeat my stance.

I am a layman, not an actual scientist. On the other hand, I've been interested in studying science in some capacity at least since the 4th grade, when free issues of Current Science handed out in class got me interested in things like black holes and DNA. That was the 1978-1979 school year. After that, I took every math and science course possible in Rock Springs, Wyoming and Merkel, Texas in Junior High and High School, graduating with honors. Maybe that's not saying much, but since then, I've LITERALLY read hundreds of pounds of books and magazines on science, and I even took 8 hours of Biology for Majors and 8 hours of introductory Physics as electives in college to supplement my knowledge. Sure, I got a different degree, but I did quite well in those courses.

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

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

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

I don't see how your arguments will convince people we need to stop applying combustion to so much fossil fuel. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying SOMEBODY is, because SOMETHING is responsible, and that something most likely comes from combustion on a massive scale, so you guys need to stop picking apart my general argument, the statement I put in quotation marks several sentences back, because it is generally correct, and you are smart enough to recognize that.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 08/04/2016 18:19:34
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
I think the people arguing in the forum are the type of people who "can't see the forest for the trees." Not to sound egotistical, but I think I might actually understand things better than some real scientists because they are highly specialized, which narrows their view. For example, Bored Chemist claims he spent 10 years studying hydrology, while I claim to understand the basics of chemistry, biology and physics in general.

The "basics" here that relates the chemistry, physics and biology are this: Sunlight is headed toward earth. It could hit the ground and warm the earth's surface, or it could hit a leaf. That provides shade. That leaves the surface of the earth cooler.

Where did that heat go? That "heat" was the "photon" of physics, a "particle" of energy. If it hit the ground, it would have made a particle of something in the ground vibrate a little faster, and when a lot of photons are absorbed by the ground, or asphalt, or a building, it gets warm in much the same way as you would bombard water molecules in food with a specific microwave photon that makes water molecules vibrate, heating your food with the energy that provides.

In comes biology/chemistry. That photon is stored by photosynthesis. The plant's leaf doesn't "get hot" and burn up from the photons striking it. Chlorophyll molecules have a magnesium atom in the middle, which absorbs photons. The energy is then used to build molecules that store energy. That's what make eating sugar a source of energy. When your body breaks down the molecule, the energy of the photon is released in you. In fact, your body can use that same photon energy it got from the sugar to build a completely different molecule that stores energy in a different form, like fat.

Now, when ancient forests or dead dinosaurs get covered with sediment and turn to oil and coal deposits, that stored solar energy is still in there. When we apply combustion to those fossil fuels, instead of using that energy to power our bodies, eating dinosaur fat or ancient plant leaves, we release that ancient energy to perform work, to power factories, our homes and the economy. Instead of keeping our body temperature at 98.6 degrees, those calories instead make the planet and the atmosphere a bit warmer.

Remember the shady spots under trees? Ancient forests provided a lot of shade and kept the planet cool hundreds of millions of years ago. When we apply combustion to coal deposits, we are quite literally taking the heat that could have made that shady spot warm and letting it do so today.

Getting back to "being able to see the forest for the trees," if we were planting trees on a massive scale, allowing them to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and shade the ground from the Sun's relentless heat, rather than chopping them down to accommodate cities full of CO2-releasing cars and grazing land full of methane-emitting cows, Radiative Forcing would be far less of an issue.

The disappearance of forest lands coinciding with mass production of the automobile and changes in the global diet overall is both CAUSAL and CORRELATED in this context, to use a couple of words Boring Chemist is fond of.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/04/2016 18:41:44

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.
[/quote]
Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.

I think Tim is wrong.


(Is that clear enough?)
I am pretty much convinced that the temperature is rising; that this rise is largely due to the effect of  CO2 in the atmosphere; and that we are responsible for that CO2.

Tim's view (unless I have misunderstood it) differs, at least in part, from that. (and, just for the moment Tim, if I'm not utterly wrong about that, just leave it- we can get back to details later).[I will reply because this is the best bit of this thread so far! It might get to be an actual debate;]

Where I agree with Tim is that the direct contribution from heat released by burning fossil fuel is tiny.
I pointed out ( a long while back) that it only corresponds to about 1/15000 of the heat we get from the sun.

In post 334 someone (Thanks Agyejy) actually calculated the effective change in temperature that it would give rise to- and it's small (about 0.05 degrees) so it can not possibly be the cause of global warming which is much bigger than that.

So, when Craig continues to protest that the direct effect of heating is what's important (and that Tim was wrong to say otherwise) I will cheerfully stick my oar in in favour of Tim.
Because the one thing that really doesn't help any discussion is someone talking nonsense- whichever side they are on.
Since then Craig has shown a remarkable capacity to get thing utterly wrong.
using a reaction with no entropy change to illustrate entropy is the clearest example perhaps, but there are plenty of others to chose from
[/quote]

I don't know by how much CO2 is the cause of warming. I think it's some but not that much, but that is not all that important. What is important is what effects there are likely to be.

Given that the predictions from the hockey stick graph came out in 1998 and form the basis of the IPCC's predictions (or there abouts) and that since then there has been a lot less warming, well none measurable, than was expected despite the higher than expected CO2 levels surely we can say that the top half of the IPCC's predictions is not going to happen.

Currently tens of millions of people are dying each year due to unnecessarily high food prices. Those will be from the poorest couple of billion people on the earth.

The next couple of billion people are being forced to pay the extra 70% for food that we all pay due to the use of food as fuel. For me it's not significant. I'm very rich in a global scale. All of us on this forum are. But to take away any chance of many people sending their children to school because they cannot afford to due to having spent all their income on food or to deny them the ability to save up for simple cataract surgery forthe same reason is evil unless there is a very compelling case for it.

I would like to see that case.

This is in the hope that a rational discussion can emerge from this noisy mess.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/04/2016 18:44:26
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

The science of what wavelengths of IR are absorbed by CO2 or if they have already been done by water is beyond me. And I don't care because I don't see it as important to the real debate.

What do you feel is the most serrious threat from global warming?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2016 18:48:33
Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage.
No; we would simply need to learn to understand it.
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKI
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."

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

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2016 18:51:54
Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.

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

That's why I think it's some sort of cognitive defect- like the D-K effect.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/04/2016 18:53:52


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

I think Tim is wrong.

(Is that clear enough?)

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 08/04/2016 20:34:29
Now, in order to keep things simple for laymen that don't even have as much scientific background as me, I like to frame this argument in simple terms that anyone can easily understand, such as the statement, "Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels creates a great deal of heat and releases a great deal of carbon dioxide. The NET effect of that is a slight warming of the Earth's atmosphere." As you can clearly see, I did NOT "complicate the math and the explanations, bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference" as you stated above. I don't do that, until people like you force me to, like when you brought up 3D earthquake propagation in reference to the 2D wave mechanics of photons in Thebox's black hole thread.

This is very wrong thing to do for several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The biggest issue is not if I or anyone else here is smart enough to recognize what is and isn't correct about your statement. There are two major issues and the first is that you are giving the climate science deniers an easy target that weakens the entire climate change argument. The second is that some impressionable proponent of climate change could pick up your argument and use it somewhere else without realizing that it is technically incorrect and easily refutable. Said proponent will have no way to defend his statements and at best damage the overall climate change argument. At worst finding themselves defeated our hypothetical proponent might find themselves convinced into being a denier because after all that seemingly logical argument they read supporting climate change was so obviously wrong. This worst case scenario is very very bad for climate science. On the whole of it allowing arguments that are only partially correct and generally weak to persist only weakens the arguments for climate change. These weak/incorrect arguments need to be jettisoned as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 08/04/2016 22:20:16
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

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

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

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 08/04/2016 22:49:08
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

I do wish to apologize again if I accidently gave you the impression I thought you were being dishonest or lying. That was absolutely not my attention although I do feel the need to point out that your reaction seems perhaps a bit on the harsh side. Not that we all haven't been guilty of that from time to time. It is always good to be reminded that everyone here is a human. That is unless AI has advanced much further than the public has been told.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2016 23:02:16
I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2016 23:29:48
. I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.

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



Quote
I suppose to be exact I should have said global mean temperature or monthly global mean temperature to be even more precise. It should be fairly obvious how one goes about calculating the mean of all temperatures on the Earth over the period of a month. It takes a lot of addition and some division but computers are good at that.
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 09/04/2016 01:27:36
Quote
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
As long as those points are sufficiently spaced out they can still be a representative sample of the Earth's mean temperature. I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/04/2016 09:45:46
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm[/i]]http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm (http://[i) shows a graph (fig 3) of allegedly measured global mean land surface temperatures since 1900, several years before anyone had actually measured anything inland in Antarctica - or indeed even been further south than the Antarctic coast. Which makes one wonder. "The mean of all the data you have" is not "the mean of what is actually happening", if you know that 20% of the data, itself known to be very different from the mean, is completely absent from your data set. Why 20%? Well it depends on your definition of "land": the north polar ice cap is solid surface, almost equally unexplored in 1900, and the source of much of the continental surface wind in the northern hemisphere, so  it's important.... And according to Shackleton and his colleagues, even the antarctic coastal winters around 1900 - 1917 were exceptionally cold compared with records from previous expeditions.

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

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

It's a fascinating subject, and it's good to discuss at last with someone who thinks rather than shouts about it, but it's taking up too much of my time right now. I'll be back in a couple of days, and look forward to continuing!
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Tim the Plumber on 09/04/2016 11:04:34
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Skeptic is fine.

Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 15:35:50
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKI
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have read that book at least four times, and I took 16 hours of physics and biology in college. That's more than enough to have me running circles around an alleged chemist on this specific subject. Now, learn your science correctly, or shut the hell up. If you want to fart around with bogus science and information, at least pick a subject that isn't detrimental to the human race, you selfish lamebrain.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 15:54:05
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
Alas, this forum is plagued by a moderator that doesn't want us to see the forest for the trees.

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

You: "No, I saw a couple of conifers in the valley, and I see some birds too. Birds aren't deciduous trees. Pesky facts getting in the way of your theory."
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 15:56:22
Thanks, Skeptic is fine. Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.
Whatever, Liquid Drain-O.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 16:26:50
All of this was addressed in the links I provided in the previous post. If you are not going to read the evidence your opposition provides then I have no choice but to question if you are actually willing to be convinced. Also, pretty much all the raw data is publically available in databases (some of which I linked). If you disagree with the methods of analysis you are free to do it for yourself starting from the raw data.

Quote
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
Yes, thank you.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 16:40:18
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01-ncdc-since-1979.png
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2016 16:45:31

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 16:55:33
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It wouldn't matter if you DID read the book. You are clearly unteachable, as you refuse to learn.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2016 17:06:46

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

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

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

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 09/04/2016 17:12:29

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

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

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2016 18:02:34

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

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

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

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

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/04/2016 18:11:07
I'm afraid Bored Chemist is right Craig.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/04/2016 18:21:18
Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 09/04/2016 19:10:24
Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly climatic models are doing a pretty good job of getting things right.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 10/04/2016 12:11:00
If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fscitable%2Fcontent%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2F13286620%2Fstevens_figure7_climate_ksm.jpg&hash=a748bd33f8ee7b30446b01f16d751c90)

 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: puppypower on 10/04/2016 13:40:09
Let me briefly discuss entropy. In chemistry, entropy is a state variable. What that means is a given state of chemical matter will have a very specific amount of entropy. For example, the entropy of water at 25C is 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. Entropy is more than an abstraction. It  is a measurable quantity that will be the same in all labs for any given state. The entropy does not increase or decrease with time for a given state. The second law says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means that new states need to form, which can define the higher entropy. Life generates a lot of entropy allowing distinct states to appear.

Say we begin with water at 25C, the entropy is pre-defined. All labs will measure the same entropy. If we hold the temperature constant and apply the second law, since that state is defined in terms of entropy, other things will needs to happen for the entropy to increase. For example, entropy can increase if ions begins to dissolve in the water. This will define a new state composed of water plus ions at 25C. This can define higher entropy.

In the case of water and CO2, the solubility of CO2 increases with decreasing temperature; colder. When temperature decreases, pure water will lower entropy. On the other hand, an increase in CO2 concentration will increase the entropy of the two component system of water-CO2. Cool water dissolving more CO2, prevents the water from losing entropy, as fast, as it cools.

As the oceans warm, new state of warmer water will form , with an increase in entropy. The CO2 is expelled, thereby lowering the entropy contribution of the CO2. The net affect is the ocean entropy does not increase quite as fast with temperature, since there is a loss of CO2.

This does not mean that entropy does not need to increase; seconds law. Just the solubility characteristics of CO2 in water will cause a loss of entropy as CO2 is expelled. The new higher entropy, will be expressed with another state forming in the water. For example, the entropy of water vapor is higher than liquid, so the new state will cause more water to evaporate.

If we look at the El Nino cold water oscillation, cold water is causing the entropy of the El Nino warm water, to lower. It it also causing the entropy of the cold water, that is upwelling, to increase entropy.


Most people attribute entropy to randomness and chaos. This is true, for example, at the micro-level. However, entropy is also a state variable; bulk affects, which define very specific amounts of entropy. This is not random. Water, as a macro-state has an entropy of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1 (25 °C). Water in the micro-state; nanoscale, will show random distributions; degrees of freedom, the average of which define the fixed entropy for that state.

This distinction is important to life. Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, and each increase in entropy will defines a new bulk state. The may appear random at the micro-level, but it will results in distinct steps; states. The question is how can something be both random and ordered at the same time? The earth's weather and climate is impacted by water and liquid state physics. Science tends to use solid and gas state analogies, which don't show the same properties as liquid state physics. Liquid state physics can set up paradoxical situations such as order and random. 

For example, gases cannot be placed under tension. Gases are defined by partial pressure. A solid can be laced under pressure; push, or  tension; pull. However, you cannot apply both at the same time and form a steady state. We can push and pull a car, but it will move or we will add work to create a dynamic state. With a liquid, we can have a glass of water open to the atmosphere. The water will be under pressure and also be under surface tension; at steady state. The entropy remains fixed.

I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

 



 
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 10/04/2016 14:07:02
If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fscitable%2Fcontent%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2Fne0000%2F13286620%2Fstevens_figure7_climate_ksm.jpg&hash=a748bd33f8ee7b30446b01f16d751c90)

It isn't the ocean in general:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming.htm

It is definitely not El Niño:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

And it isn't even the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

Quote
I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/04/2016 16:04:02
"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/04/2016 16:17:18
I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.
Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.

Actually, though, isn't it possible to describe both weather and climate using a set of equations to construct a chaotic fluid dynamics model? Weather I would say yes, climate I'm not sure but am tempted to say yes. I'm pretty sure I remember that from James Gleick's book Chaos, but I'd like to hear what you think.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2016 16:28:29
"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.
I'm not the one sweeping it under the rug as you put it.
You did that.
Do you remember?
You posted the Feynman diagram.
And it doesn't (not should) include all the other stuff.

So the reaction you posted- the one in the diagram- is actually reversible.
And it has no entropy change.

The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 10/04/2016 16:37:05
The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.
Well, I think you should talk to the people at CERN. You should tell them that you have a new entropy-free process for accelerating particles. Instead of wasting several cities worth of energy to accelerate particles to near the speed of light, you can merely drop an apple on them. That sounds way more efficient.

In fact, I'm going to set up an apparatus like that in my home. Why am I wasting time eating apples? An apple a day keeps the electricity bill away. Or maybe I should keep eating them too, because that's clearly how you power the endless stream of BS coming out of your face at 10^14 coulombs of horsepower.

What's the power of a city minus two gamma rays? Is it more the 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000? Feel free to answer using any unit of measurement you like.

LOL
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2016 18:30:56
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
If you want to demonstrate the truth of any of them, please go ahead
I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1"No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
2"FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals."
3"Two square meters of sunshine melts a rock that's been around for ten billion years. That could easily provide enough steam-generated power for an entire house, perhaps enough to move a train."
4"Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. "
5"Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal."
6"Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are."
7"Please stop pretending you are a chemist. "
8" You are not a big fan of reality, huh?"
9"When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. "
10"You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong."
11"You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation."
12"Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite."
13"No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. "
14"When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. "
15" They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass."
16"Bored Chemist's perspective is MEANT to confuse the issue. He's clearly cherry picking facts and information that support his argument."
17"Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense."
which is a strawman in the context.
18"Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch."
19"Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.h, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say."
(That's another strawman)

20"You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
(That's another strawman)
20"How much arsenic would it take to shut you up? I would be willing to bet less than 1 part in 15,000."
Because to be relevant in context it would need a change in the current concentration of arsenic  in me to matter- and it wouldn't.
21"You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument."
22"That's where you're getting ALL your arguments, not just the toy, silly ones."
23" You're looking facts up on the fly, copying and pasting information willy-nilly to support your claims, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."
24"I'm not misrepresenting your views. "
Yes you were
25"You are misrepresenting science's views. "
No I'm not
26"Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. "
The mass change on combustion is tiny and irrelevant.
27"You are obfuscating the issue because you're misrepresenting the relationship between carbon dioxide and heat, BOTH of which are produced by combustion."
No, I was pointing out that the CO2 stays but much of the heat leaves.
28"When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things."
Yes they are- for the same reason.
29"Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler.""

30" chemists don't even count the mass/energy conversion when they do experiments. They round off and disregard that change. "
31"That alone make you less of a physics guy than me. "
32"On the contrary, you're the one who seems to think applying combustion to a trillion tons of fossil fuels adds up to nothing."
Another strawman
33"When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. "
34"IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS."
It's still not the same problem because the CO2 stays, but the heat leaves.
35"I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points, ESPECIALLY those with science degrees who work for large corporations and have a slanted point of view to begin with."
36"That's a comprehensively false statement."
37"All you've done is SAY I'm saying things that aren't true. "
38"You haven't proven your point about anything. "
39" You're obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs, nothing more. "
40"The bigger problem is Entropy."
41"Transform mass to energy, and you get disorder. The more mass to turn to energy, the greater the disorder. That's building up in the atmosphere. "
42"False. "
43"I can do maths just fine. "
44"I don't need math in this thread. "
45"Not lava flow,"
46"I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you."
47"So, maybe I just need to find a language YOU understand."
48" If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. "
49"How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts, "
50"Yeah, I don't have a degree, but I'm not clueless. "
51" I know my science."
52"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.""
(it would be right if you had remembered that some reactions are reversible)
53"You seem unable to do math."
54"No, I am not wrong."
55"You can't transform mass to energy or energy to mass according to the first law without getting entropy according to the second, EVER. "
56"you can't perform mass/energy conversion without producing entropy."
57"If you're saying anything other than that, YOU are wrong. "
58"That's about the most unscientific thing you could possibly say... except you followed that by saying, "some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy.""
59"FALSE"
60"That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law. "
61"Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:
Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."
That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther."
62"For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. "
63"It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out."
64"There is no straw man here."
65"That heat doesn't just disappear as if by magic. "
66"That's why you would say something silly like, "Methane combustion reduces entropy.""
67" Heat is actually the same thing as light, or electromagnetic energy, or photons. "
68"I respect scientists."
69"I'm a smart guy with a solid education. "
70"IIn my estimation, you're a public nuisance, not an expert. "
71"You don't use the scientific method. "
72"That applies not only to your climate change comments, but your lies about me as well."
73"At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me."
74"No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. "
75"It's also false that I lied."
76"I also never said, "The first law talks about entropy." That's an example of YOU telling a lie. I specifically said the first and second laws of thermodynamics are RELATED to one another. That's a fact. You can't change mass and energy from one form to the other without creating entropy."
No it's not
77"Entropy is like a "transaction fee." "
Nope again
78"False on two counts."
79"Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. "
80"NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability."
81"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change"
82"That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact."

83"Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false"
84"This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong."
85"There's no way you're a chemist. "
86"That's not math. That's nonsense."
87" You're an anonymous piece of crap, pal. I know your kind.

Keep pushing, psycho."
88"False. There's nothing spontaneous about it "
89"The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
90"I understand entropy just fine."
91"This is my second physics forum in 3 years,"
92"False. If I locked you in a small, airtight room, that's a closed system. Breathe, and the CO2 content goes up. "
 Yet another straw man.
93"Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing."
94"Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry."
95"you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks"
Yet another straw man.
96"Wrong on two counts.
97"A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent."
98"When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
99"At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. "
100"Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow,"
101"In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself."
102"Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. "
103"You present no challenge to anyone. Your posts are devoid of useful information."
104"Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic."
105"FALSE.

CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit heat, but not necessarily right back in the direction it came from. CO2 molecules aren't stationary, but rather tumble through space. Depending on the orientation of a CO2 molecule at the time of emission, that infrared photon might come back to earth, or it might escape into space. CO2 does NOT trap ALL the heat, just some. More CO2 traps more heat, but still not all of it."
106"That statement makes no sense."
107"The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous."
108"No, you're either lying, or your reading comprehension sucks."
109"Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum."
110" You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments."
"111Again, I understand Entropy just fine."
112"By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry."
113" We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation."
114"On the contrary, the fact that this thread is full of trolls moderated by a flamer me tells me something about its pathos."
115"Nonsense. If you had a sackful of professional qualifications, you wouldn't be in a public forum arguing with an artist. You would be hanging out with Stephen Hawking, publishing a scientific paper, or converting kinetic energy to mass. Public forums are for hobbyists and people who read pop science books, but they also harbor crank scientists and nobodies with science degrees eager to make themselves feel better by trashing out laymen and people who read pop science books. I am well experienced with this phenomenon."
116"I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics. I'm guessing I probably know more about chemistry than he does just from being a former professionally certified carpet cleaning technician. He's challenging me to do Calculus problems, "
117"Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data."
118"Global warming IS entropy, flat earther. "
119"Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage."
120"There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law."
121"If you understood entropy, you wouldn't confuse an "idealized limiting case" with the way things actually work in the real world, and for the record, that would make you a crappy mathematician as well."
122"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. "
123"The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.
From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles.""
124"On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements."
125"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
126"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
127"I understand the process is reversible,"
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/04/2016 20:15:05
You don't expect Craig to take you seriously, do you? In his mind he is never wrong so he will brush off all 127 objections. Otherwise he would notice the glaring contradictions in his statements and realise how silly he looks.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2016 20:55:33
It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/04/2016 14:26:20
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.

Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/04/2016 14:36:54
It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/04/2016 15:39:37
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.
Yes, I am not a bad writer:

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

Are YOU good at anything?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Craig W. Thomson on 11/04/2016 15:45:51
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2016 19:42:37
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.


Oops; typo
It should have been
"Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
"No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
1"FALSE.
2 The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.""

Sorry for the confusion.

It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.
"Screw you."
I very much doubt you are my type.
"First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone"
Nobody said you were- I'm just concerned that you might do it by accident.
" because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree."
Nope, you have repeatedly claimed to bean expert on entropy- because you have read one book four times.
"secondly, if people want to check that claim,..."
As I have asked before, who cares what your qualifications are, and why?
What matters isn't what you learned at college- what matters is what you post here and so far you haven't covered yourself in glory.
"That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, "
It's not as if that's been disputed.

"...who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree."
Again so what?
It hasn't stopped you messing up badly here.
"What are your credentials?"
The important ones here are that I generally post stuff that people accept is correct because I can back it up with evidence.
"What's your last name?"
Why would that matter- especially since I have already explained why I post under a pseudonym?
"Where did you go to school?"
Cheshire or later OX1 4AJ
And I'd like you to explain why you thought that was worth asking- not least because there's no way you can verify it.

"Poser, you lie."
What deliberately false statement do you think I have made?

"You haven't been right about squat in this form,"
I presume you mean forum.
And it's clear that I have been right about rather a lot of things.
Please point out a few times where you think otherwise  (other than trivial ones) so I can comment on them.
" I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. "
Well, since I am, that just shows that you don't recognise reality. That's more your problem than mine.

"You're just another internet nobody "
Everybody on the internet is a nobody because it's practically impossible to prove your identity.
"pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have,"                       
Why would I bother?   
As I have said, qualifications are unverifiable here so they are meaningless.
I am, on the other hand, well enough qualified to earn  a living as a scientist.
" trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet"
We covered your failure to understand the word troll earlier.
Also I asked you why you think I'm a sock puppet.
For that to be the case there would have to be a puppet master.
Who do you think that is?

If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.
Yes, I am not a bad writer:

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

Are YOU good at anything?

Well, I'm a published writer.
I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson

(Please don't waste time trying)
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.

No, just learn to understand physics.
Do you understand, for example, that when 4 subatomic particles interact there is no friction?
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2016 19:44:11
By the way,
You forgot to address any of the 127 mistakes you made.
Pleas try harder to do so.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/04/2016 20:28:57
Well back to the subject at hand. Data is everything but you also have to understand that the accuracy of the data can never be 100% and all of the factors that skew the data must be understood. Here is a page that discusses the ice core data and some of these issue surrounding data accuracy.

http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html (http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html)

I would be interested in Alan's view of this page or anyone else for that matter. Even Craig if he has something reasonable to say.
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/04/2016 20:56:44
You can find the ice core data here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html). With respect to my previous post the most recent data is likely to be the most accurate. If we look at the graph for the last 2000 years it is methane that stands out more prominently then CO2. Although the last two gases are recorded in parts per billion that does not take away from the fact that methane increase has outstripped that of CO2. At that level I am unable to say what effect this increase would have.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdiac.ornl.gov%2Fimages%2Fthree_gases_historical.jpg&hash=935088d0f3d72582b5b2945ac9592c44)
Title: Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?
Post by: agyejy on 11/04/2016 21:46:35