Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

  • 610 Replies
  • 58465 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Education helps, but you can't make ppl learn when they choose not to.
You said a mouthful. I agree 100%.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I still await anyone's definition of global mean temperature, and an explanation of how it has been measured for the past 100 years. If you don't define your parameter, and explain how it is measured, you aren't doing science. No observational research.
I already presented you with observational evidence that clearly displays those parameters, way back in the thread. Here is is again, from a different source this time:

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

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

« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 15:43:53 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.

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

So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 18:59:35 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Bad choice, my friend, because (a) it clearly shows the temperature graph leading the CO2 graph throughout and (b) the Vostok ice cores only represent one point location, not the average of the entire surface of the planet.
So, for those unsurprised by the clear evidence you have presented to the contrary, perhaps you could answer the question: please define global mean temperature and tell us how it has been measured for the last 100 years.
I don't agree, but doesn't really matter which is leading. Clearly, as anyone with eyes can see, temperature and carbon dioxide content ARE IN LOCKSTEP. One goes up, the other goes up. One goes down, the other goes down. Fred Astaire may have been "leading" Ginger Rogers, but they danced TOGETHER. And they stayed within the parameters of the dance floor. They didn't go flying up into the rafters at 400 parts per million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't make you open your eyes. I've been trying for several days now. Clearly, you're not interested in the scientific method. I would bet money you work for a big corporation and are motivated primarily by capitalist interests. That and ignorance are the only two reasons to disseminate flat earth misinformation like this, and you don't seem like the typical ignorant denier. You argue more like a well-informed lawyer working for the bad guy.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:17:03 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Several years ago I proposed a simple experiment in which we would reduce worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 25% over a 5 year period without anyone suffering a change in standard of living, to see what effect it might have. The idea was taken up by the World Bank and the UK government's chief economic adviser, but nothing useful has been done. No experimental research.

What the F!

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

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


Hold his breath :)

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

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

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

we are wasteful even with waste.


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

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

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

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

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

Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.

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

Thirdly you have no clue about the time scales and costs of the things you are talking about. How exactly would you finanace all this without taking wealth from somewhere else and thus reducing living standards?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
How exactly would you reduce CO2 emissions without shutting off power? Reducing the world's wealth growth?
Stop farming animals for food.

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

Speaking of which, between you and alancalverd, this thread has become constipated. Cram a veggie burger into your face so I don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore. FYI, it's less likely to clog your toilet on the way out.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:21:52 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
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.

« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:11:38 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Let me chuck a spanner in the conversation,

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

>E=>T

Simple rules of thermodynamics.







*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile


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

Should that not be Photon potential energy transformations?


*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Firstly you clearly have never done any chmistry.
Firstly, you don't even know how to spell chemistry. If you're on the skeptic side of this argument, I don't think you know jack squat about the subject.

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

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

Of course if you are using Co2 or other substances then I don't know because I don't know what cobalt has to do with GW. That is why I know you never did any chemistry.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

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

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

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

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

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

I have to give the Cameron government credit for one thing, at least - reducing the subsidies for unreliable energy sources. But it's a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Which would be a loss of wealth/lifestyle.
Poppycock. I raised the question on air with group of beef farmers some  years ago. I said "If I abolished subsidies for meat farming and increased subsidies for protein vegetable farming, what would you do?" To a man (and a woman) they said "We'd grow vegetables. Much easier, less risk, and just as profitable."

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

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

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

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

4, Technological progress will make the use of fossil fuels rare soon, next few decades.

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile

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... [:-\]
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile

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.

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
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
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
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

Not sure what data set you(or they) are using there. But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
the link between CO2 and climate is not at all strong, or at least the cause and effect are not know which way round they are. So why do we need to panic about CO2?


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

The effect should be detectable within 5 years. If the effect is deemed to be desirable, we can continue the experiment until it becomes the norm. If there is no detectable effect, or things get even worse, we can reverse the experiment (I allowed for a reserve of breeding stock) and be fully carnivorous within a further 5 years or so.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
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.
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
The object of my experiment (reducing the number of farmed animals) is to test the hypothesis.
...

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

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

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

« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 10:59:43 by JoeBrown »
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Based on the Ice Core graph, it seems the topic of this thread is clearly answered.  Skeptics are wrong to claim no link.

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

What are the most likely causes for increased hydrocarbons? 

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

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

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

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

Just because you want it to be so does not make it so!

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
LISTEN, you are ALL talking of things that is not the cause of global warming, they are factors of global warming.

The cause is exchange rate and the laws of thermodynamics.


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

factors -

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


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



 


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it. You cannot possibly say that the bullet leaving the gun was the cause of your finger on the trigger (well, you might, but nobody would believe you) or that the light coming on was the cause of your pushing the switch. Or that pregnancy causes sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?


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




*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile

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

Oh yes, those who tried to stop the industrial revolution were not wrong. I agree with you totally that we should have never ''ate the apple''.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Here's the part I want to focus on. You said, "It is of the utmost importance to understand the mechanism of a system if you want to control it." So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?

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

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

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

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

The hypothesis that explains the increase in CO2 after a warming of the world is that CO2 dissolves in water better when the water is cold. As the water heats up the CO2 comes out. The oceans have lots of CO2 dissolved in them and take a long time to fully adjust to temperature changes on the surface of the world. This is why there is an 800 year lagg between temperature and CO2 peaks and troughs. At least that's the hypothesis.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 12:34:51 by Tim the Plumber »

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
But the 1920 to 2020 rise of 1c is not, even if it continues, cause for alarm untill 2300, or later. I doubt we will be using fossil fuels for that long. We have only really significantly been using them for 200 years at most. Our technology is advancing very rapidly and many power systems look like they are just about to break through.
Technology is the problem. If it wasn't for technology, there wouldn't 7 billion people blazing through resources at breakneck speed on an exponential growth curve. We would still be living at a balance with what the environment was able to support.

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

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

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

Mods; Should such anti-hunam, anti-technology, anti-science types as these drivel speaking hippies be allowed anywhere near a science forum?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Then why has the temperature gone down in the past?
Have you ever had a fever? Did your temperature go back down?

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

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

"Life force" operates under the same sort of "invariance principle" or "gauge symmetry" that any other force does. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As a life force, we are increasing entropy in our environment, and the environment is starting to push back. This is to be expected according to the laws of physics.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 13:29:41 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.

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

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

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

I don't know why I bother to explain these things. After more than 25 years, I've concluded that skeptics are always going to believe what they want to believe no matter how much they get slapped in the face with the truth. An ex-girlfriend of mine used to call it "stuck on stupid."
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 13:06:58 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Evil drivel. If you mean that we should return to some sort of hunter gatherer society with a total population of a few million using fire to hunt with etc then be my guest to try it and find out that being incompetant in the modern world has the prediction that you will still be incompetant trying to hunt for yourself.

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

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

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

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

I mentioned "gauge symmetry" and the "invariance principle" to alancalverd a couple of posts back. That applies to your comments, too. Keep trying to silence the "hippies" like some kind of fascist, and you can expect some pushback from people who want to silence the climate change deniers. Yes, the laws of physics and entropy manifest themselves in politics and economies, too. I'm positive, you're negative, and this thread is roughly as politically charged as our democracy right now.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 13:45:18 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature.
FALSE. 
I don't know why I bother to explain these things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for injecting some actual science.

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

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

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

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
Thank you for injecting some actual science.

... subjective science analysis removed ...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Many, many societies would utterly collapse tomorrow, if the oil well goes dry today.  That's a morality, I have a hard time coming to terms with.  I think we're doing things wrong, burning fossil fuels for any purpose other than creating a sustainable "NOW."  I'd like to see a world where my kids won't blame my greed, or for not shouting, "Hey... Guys wtf..."
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 17:46:17 by JoeBrown »
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
1, it was not I who waxed on with the Gia gibberish.

2, 2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

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

The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
So tell me, where does the extra temperature come from that is causing the release of all that CO2 ?? What's the mechanism?
The distribution of water between the atmosphere and the surface, between its various states and formats, and in the circulation of ocean currents, appears to be the principal driver of climate change.

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

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

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

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

These periods are both within the present ice age so any time outside an ice age makes us look positively frigid now.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8

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.


« Last Edit: 20/03/2016 17:40:21 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you are led by Confirmation Bias. You start with a theory (climate change is not real), then cherry pick information that you believe supports your non-factual claim. That's the exact opposite of the Scientific Method, and your hypotheses therefore have no place in a scientific forum.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2016 15:20:09 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
there has been no significant temperature change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When everybody is not equal, and millions of people don't get paid a decent living wage because every job is considered "entry level," and millions of people are disenfranchised because of voter ID laws, there's plenty to get upset about. When people have to steal or fight just to get a bowl of granola, the last thing they are worried about is hugging trees. That's the charged bar of iron you pounded on with a hammer. Remember, positive and negative charges don't emerge separate from one another. They emerge symmetrically, and that is an invariant property. When the haves start taking more than their fair share of granola, that creates scarcity in the marketplace for the have nots, and because they get hungry too, they have demands for some of that supply, so the liberals and conservatives arise in tandem. The wider the gap between the haves and the have nots, the more politically charged the atmosphere becomes. If you want to get back to the Center, you have to lessen the differential between the charges. A good way to do that is to stop redistributing income earned by millions of hard working people up to the top of a pyramid where alleged job creators remove it from the economy and put it in offshore tax shelters because, news flash: money is just like granola.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2016 17:35:46 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
So the sun provides about 15000 times more energy than we use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.
Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
Please remove your head from the sand. We've released the solar energy stored in a hundred million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, not to mention the carbon dioxide that goes with it. That is without precedent, unless you want to go all the way back to when organisms first figured out how to photosynthesize and store solar energy in the first place. Turns out, their success allowed them to change the atmosphere faster than organisms could adapt, which caused mass extinctions. And guess what? The changes they made took a lot longer than 150 years...

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.

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

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

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

3) Watch the video again. You must have missed something. Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2016 18:25:54 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
1) The combined mass of humanity is irrelevant. Please don't waste time with stuff like that again.

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

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

So, you are trolling.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Yet, we've managed to influence the climate of the entire planet.
Unscientific statement. All we know is that whatever proxy some people have taken for global mean temperature has increased fairly recently. The presumption of cause is without foundation or precedent.
Please remove your head from the sand. We've released the solar energy stored in a hundred million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, ... yada yada yada
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
And while we are at it, lets do some actual numbers on this claim " You must have missed something. Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal."

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


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

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

And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
And I think that's going to make more difference to the debate than randomly TYPING in all CAPS.
Also, please look up the meaning of the word "literally" because this
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is just plain ignorant.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2016 20:12:53 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4810
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Some more numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

I beg to differ with BC in one small way. We ingest carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, inhale oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide and water. The energy conversion efficiency of human digestion is around 90%, which is as close as you need to "combustion". Admittedly the chemistry is a lot more subtle, but the physics is indistinguishable.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance