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.
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.
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?
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?
David Jones asked the Naked Scientists: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.
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.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.
3% true.
There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
You need to remove the underlying upward trend to see the seasonal cycle more clearly.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.
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?
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.
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.
are farmers so completely deluded that they harvest in August/September when the plants are actually growing most rapidly?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.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.
3% true.
There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
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.
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.Is that what's turning your letters blue?
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.
Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.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.
3% true.
There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.
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.
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.
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.
"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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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.
Your are wrong.
There is plenty of room for everybody.
There are plenty of resources for everybody.
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?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.
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.
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.
Your are wrong.
There is plenty of room for everybody.
There are plenty of resources for everybody.
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.
What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your are wrong.
There is plenty of room for everybody.
There are plenty of resources for everybody.
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.
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!
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 [:-\]
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.
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.
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?
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").
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
You seem pretty desperate to poke holes in climate science. What exactly is your motivation?The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering.
The apparent lack of science in climate scaremongering.
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.
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.
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
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.
exponential growth of humanity?
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.
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?"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?
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.
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.
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.
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/0865716730Business 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.
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.
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?Stop farming animals for food.
Stop farming animals for food.LOL,
Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to.You said a mouthful. I agree 100%.
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:
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.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.
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.
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.
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?Stop farming animals for food.
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?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.
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,
And they would be barking up the wrong tree.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.
I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
...
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
Blind faith in technology and "progress" is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
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.
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.
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?Have you ever had a fever? Did your temperature go back down?
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.
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.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.
Should such anti-hunam, anti-technology, anti-science types as these drivel speaking hippies be allowed anywhere near a science forum?
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
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.
... subjective science analysis removed ...
For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist.
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.
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.
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.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:
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.
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;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.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]
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.
there has been no significant temperature change.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.
For the record I am something of a liberal with socialist tendancies. And an atheist. [/color]
My! what a lot of nonsense you managed to put in there.So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.What's the total combined mass of humanity? About 500 million tons?
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.
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.
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...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.
1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.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) 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, you are trolling.1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.So, I don't CARE if he's correct
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.
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.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 yadaYet, 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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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".
Some more numbers.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.
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.
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:
Just plain wrongSo, 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.
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.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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
I remember it- it wasn't relevant then, and it isn't relevant now.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.
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.
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. |
Just plain wrongFALSE. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
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.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.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.
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".
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.
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.Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite.
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.
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.No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."
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.
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.
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.
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;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.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]
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.
What argument do you think I'm trying to support?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.
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.
Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parametersTemperature and CO2 content are parameters. A parameter is not a limit.
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.
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!
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.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.
Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
blah blah blahAgain, 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.
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.
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.
Straw man.blah blah blahAgain, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere,
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)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.
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.
You are trying to pretend that 1 is the same as 15000You 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.
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."
No.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 ...
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."
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."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.
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 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.
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.
I have always said all along that you get both heat and 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."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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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?
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.
Why even bother to say that?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.
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.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.
Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?[/color]
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.
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 ...
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.
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.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.
This is clear from the numbers. Your inability to do numbers is astounding.
I've got news for you. It would be almost absolute zero on the planet's surface if there was no atmosphere.
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.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.
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.
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.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.
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.
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).In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.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.
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.
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.
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.
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,"Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
Indeed, and it didn't stop you pontificating about it.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.
well, yes and noCan you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.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.
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?
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.
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?
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:
Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?
So we are talking about some "special" volcanoes you have invented which erupt, but don't make lava.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I know about it.
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?
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.
Quote2, 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.Quote3, 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.
All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet.i.e., below the ozone layer.
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
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?
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.
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.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 was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
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.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)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.
You seem utterly unable to readEr.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand,I it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder.
Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.htmlOk, so here's the first law (from wiki)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.
"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.
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.
If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law.
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.
Guess again; here's the 2nd law together with the bit that says that reversible processes don't have an entropy change.Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.htmlOk, so here's the first law (from wiki)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.
"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.
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.
You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Do you realise that the first law is different from the second.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.
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.
I didn't actually say that did I.You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.
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.
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."I didn't actually say that did I.You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
Strawman again.
You really are acting like the denialists.
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
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?
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..
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.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 was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
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.
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.
You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
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.
CO2 is leading, temperature is leading, who cares?Scientists. It's how we distinguish between cause and effect.
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.
But since you care so little for science, let's turn to literature.It takes a pretty crappy moderator to flame someone so blatantly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.
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:
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?
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.
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.
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.
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.You seem utterly unable to readYou seem unable to do math...
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.Excuse me, miss, but I'm not a lady.
"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.
Specifically, extra CO2 is the biggest aspect of it.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.
"Well, somebody's wrong."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.
"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.
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.
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.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.
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.
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."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.
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.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 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.
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.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality.
But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .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?
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.
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.
Why don't you just stop being wrong about everything.Why don't you just start being right about something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.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.
"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."But you actually need to understand entropy to realise that .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?
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'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.
No, the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.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.
http://sanfranciscotutoringservice.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjwuPi3BRClk8TyyMLloxgSJAAC0XsjhRYSBteOqNFozxKh2s1y-QGiewtlHOTKbVbIxr2LWBoC0e_w_wcBWhen the first bacteria evolved, the earth's atmosphere had a chemical composition.So you mean before that no chemicals existed?
No, the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.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?
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.
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 without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.
I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]
Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.Wrong on two counts.
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
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 without you spouting off unsubstantiated opinions.
I think the world is more optimal for humanity and life in general with a bit of a warmer world. [/color]
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.
1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
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.
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.1, Industry was not there. Industry happened during the industrial revolution.1. False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
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.
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.
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?
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.
No, the actual point I made which is that you can't be expected to do science if you are innumerate.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?
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.
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?
You're the guy with a meat cleaver who can't add 1 plus 1/15,000,
the particular quote from the file (about a minute into that clip)Yes! I'm sure I want to go there.Wrong on two counts.
rather than on some random tangent about Feynman diagrams (which, BTW, have precious little to do with entropy)
A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent.
When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy.
No. I am citing ancient climate changes. There was no industry back then. Why was it so warm?[/color]
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.
The debate is fouled up by the presence of loud nutters.Yes, and the loudest nutter has a penchant for posting in blue.
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.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 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 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.
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.
I'm still waiting for you to address thisSee? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.
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.
Don't stereotype or make sweeping generalisations. They come back to bite you.Here's a stereotype I read about in the news:
Technology is a different idea to industry. You really have a problem thinking clearly don't you.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 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.
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.
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"?
Yes, I'd like you to answer the question I asked.I'm still waiting for you to address thisSee? That's why I asked you if you were sure you wanted to go there.
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.
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?
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.Thanks for doing the maths for us.
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.
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
(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.
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.
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 word industry, today, refers to the organised use of labour to make stuff and to provide services.Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic.
Before the industrial revolution it was used to refer to working hard.
Industry and technology are separate ideas.
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?
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.
Make up your mind.(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.
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.
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.
Way to go on missing the point there.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?
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.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?
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.
For starters only about 60% of the energy humans use ends up as waste heat.Citation, please.
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.
Tim told you the difference between big and small.You seem to have forgotten what you said in the first place that kicked off the debate.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
It doesn't matter what the MPG is - or anything like it.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.
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.
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.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.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
So if you really care about heating the planet, use the phone instead of travelling.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?
Try telling that to people who attend "environmental" conferences.
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.
Tim told you the difference between big and small.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 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.
so its insulating property is in fact just another expression of the heat released by combustionNo it isn't.
Well, as I said, I already did the calculation but, since you insist.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.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.
Why are you so reluctant?
Is it because you can't?
Do the calculation yourself if it's so simple, or go get YOURSELF a damned clue.
Craig: ask yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.bind·ing en·er·gy
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?
Do you understand the significance of that?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.
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
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.
So, you understand essentially nothing.Do you understand the significance of that?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.
It makes it absolutely clear that you don't understand what you are on about.
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.Craig: ask yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.bind·ing en·er·gy
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?
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.
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.FALSE.
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.
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.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?
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.
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 believersFALSE, and I can see why you didn't post the article I found looking for that graph, because it says so:
So what is wrong or biased with this article the other day from Nature?Nothing. We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation.
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
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.
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:
"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.
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.Nonsense.
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.
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.
Thank you for citing that page.Nobody is doing nuclear physics with fossil fuels.FALSE.
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.
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.
Craig: ask yourself about the mass loss in the reaction C + O2 → CO2, and please tell us the answers.bind·ing en·er·gy
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?
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
Having read your posts since I understand that you were talking to the crank.Oh, look, the right wing fascist wants to crack down on my freedom of speech so he can talk about pseudoscience.
That is why there can be no serrious discussion here untill he is restricted.
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.
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.
If you read what I wrote, rather than what you think I might have written...I read what you wrote. Care to define "atomic chemistry" ??
you confused atomic chemistry with nuclear physics
You are not unteachable, Craig.No, but perhaps you are.
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?
If I was arguing with Craig about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .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.
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.
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.
Lets be clear about this.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.
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
So what is wrong or right about these analyses?
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) 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.
completely independent temperature records, and known temperature proxies that have a well characterized link to global temperature. The results are mathematically identical.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I was arguing with Craig about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .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.
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)
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.I am trying to keep this simple.
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.I don't know how to explain this to you any differently than I already have, so let me repeat my stance.
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.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.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
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.
I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
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
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
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.
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.
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.
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.
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.
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKIThere is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.
"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.
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.
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.
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.Yes, thank you.QuoteAgreed, 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.
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:
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
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.The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.
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).
You do indeed need that much energy.
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."
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.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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]
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]
If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino.QuoteEl 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.QuoteENSO 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]QuoteMany 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)
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.
"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.
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.
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.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.
I'm not the one sweeping it under the rug as you put it."No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.
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.
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.
The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.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.
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.
Craig,That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."
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. "
It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.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.
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.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.Yes, I am not a bad writer:
Craig,I find this one especially amusing.
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."
Oops; typoCraig,That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."
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 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.
"Screw you."It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.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.
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.
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.
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?
Craig,I find this one especially amusing.
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."
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.