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

  • 680 Replies
  • 63708 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
So, you are trolling.
Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are.

I am Craig W. Thomson.

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

Nothing anonymous about that. Now, is your name really "Bored Chemist" ?? I don't think so. Practice what you preach, troll.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

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

If you're bored, try learning chemistry and climate science correctly INSTEAD OF FIGHTING PEOPLE ONLINE. How's that for all cap use?
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 14:27:11 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • 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.
Thanks for that. Don't know where you got your numbers, but they fall in line with what I know. Jeremy Rifkin stated a figure in his Entropy book around 1988 that it takes about 2,000 calories to sustain a human, but in the US, it was more like 200,000 calories per capita at the time, which seems to agree with your numbers that take into account European countries.

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

I can stop myself from buying a lot of stuff I don't need, but I can't stop anyone else. That would require a change in the entire culture. In the US, "winners" make lots of money and buy lots of stuff, "losers" hug trees and eat granola. For most of my adult life, I've chosen to not own an automobile whenever possible. I'm paraphrasing here, but do you have any idea how many Americans have said to me over the years, "Yeah, sure you're an environmentalist. You probably don't own a car because you can't afford one, eat vegetables because you can't afford steak either, recycle because you need the spare change, and don't have kids because nobody wanted to have kids with a broke loser, hyuck hyuck." Surprisingly, that goes for Texas AND California. Sadly, that's just part of our materialistic culture. Low entropy lifestyles are mocked in the US, and discouraged in a capitalist society in general.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 17:19:19 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4914
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So we have some agreement on the figures.

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

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

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

Since at least half of the heat reaching the earth's surface actually comes from radioactive decay inside the planet, the largest possible effect of direct heating from fossil fuels is probably closer to 3 parts per million, or about 0.001 degree.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Since at least half of the heat reaching the earth's surface actually comes from radioactive decay inside the planet, the largest possible effect of direct heating from fossil fuels is probably closer to 3 parts per million, or about 0.001 degree.
"Probably" isn't good enough for me. This is what the IPCC has to say about it:

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

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

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

So, long story short, combustion doesn't just supply you with energy. The mass left over after the chemical transformation has different properties than the mass before the combustion process. The warming caused by extra CO2 is a byproduct and a manifestation of that same combustion process, not some completely different, separate phenomenon. Extra warmth from extra CO2 is ultimately a byproduct of combustion on a mass scale, just another facet of the original mass/energy transformation that took place, plain and simple.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 17:54:25 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4914
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Even allowing for the fact that nobody has even defined, let alone measured, mean global temperature for the last 100 years, the IPCC assertion cannot be directly ascribed to heating from combustion of fossil fuels, by three orders of magnitude.

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

Only a fool would deny that climate changes - it is inherently and observably unstable. But it takes a committed liar to insist, or a gullible nonscientist to believe, that CO2 is the driver of climate change.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 19:02:01 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
So, you are trolling.
Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are.

I am Craig W. Thomson.

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

Nothing anonymous about that. Now, is your name really "Bored Chemist" ?? I don't think so. Practice what you preach, troll.
Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

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

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


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

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

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

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile

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

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

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


Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.
Please stop pretending you are a chemist. You are not a big fan of reality, huh? Remember my analogy about having a fever? It only takes a few little degrees above 98.6 Fahrenheit, and you will die. That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?

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

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

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

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

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
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.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
When I first became concerned about global warming, like many others associated heat from fossil fuels as a potential culprit.  So I did some research on the Internet.  Been a few years ago (somewhere around 2007) when I did this, but I was kind of shocked.  I might have been a little biased one way or the other, can't remember...

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


Coal BTUs/yr
188,190,000,000,000,000
188
Oil BTUs/yr
187,573,685,712,000,000,000
187,574
Fossil BTUs
Fossil BTUs per hour
21,434,004,076,712,300
21
Fossil BTUs per day
514,416,097,841,096,000
514
Fossil BTUs per year
187,761,875,712,000,000,000
187,762
Square feet on planet
5,490,383,247,360,000
Fossil BTUs per square foot per hour
3.9
Solar radiation
BTUs per solar day
56,621,224,353,374,200,000
56,621
BTUs per solar year
20,666,746,888,981,600,000,000
20,666,747
Solar radiation
429.7
+
BTUs Solar & fossil fuel per day
57,135,640,451,215,300,000
57,136
2007 fossil percentage
0.90%
2005 remaining coal
997,748
Million tons
2007 rate of consumption
6,150
Million tons
Years remaining at 2007 rate
162
2007 remaining oil
1,327,000
Million barrels
2005 consumption rate
30,660
Million barrels
Years remaining at 2005 rate
43
2005, 2007 baseline numbers for oil and coal consumption pulled from http://www.peaktoprairie.com/?D=188
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.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2016 04:44:58 by JoeBrown »
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
FALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation. And again, I'm doing that as myself, not anonymously like you.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".
I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

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

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


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

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

That's why the combustion heat (which is tiny) is irrelevant.
Yes, I DO understand that. You still don't. You can't burn a zillion tons of fuel without getting a bajillion tons of carbon dioxide. Then, you have a FEEDBACK LOOP, because the carbon dioxide helps you trap the heat you got from burning the fuel in the first place. That makes it hotter, so plants could die, at which point they release even MORE carbon dioxide.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
If you want to put a word into a sentence, make sure it's the right word.
This
"When you eat, your body literally uses combustion. " is plain wrong but this
"When you eat, your body uses combustion. " is acceptable hype.
Adding the wrong word is pretentious and ignorant, no matter what the underlying science looks like.
Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite.

(shrugs)

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
If you want to blame fossil fuel for the allegedly observed temperature rise you have to invoke the notion of carbon dioxide being a vastly more significant greenhouse gas (by a factor of at least 3000 times) than water. Which, by measurement, it isn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of story.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2016 14:41:23 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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


*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that.

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

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

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

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

That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 272
    • 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.

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

Are you claiming that the way air moves has changed in order to maintain your confirmation bias?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).
I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.

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


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

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

"FALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics."
Nope, I'm not doing anything on their behalf. I'm pointing out errors in your posts. It would be better if you made fewer.
And I remind you that you are the one who said, after I pointed out that someone was actually correct (and you had said he wasn't) that you didn't care if he was right or not.
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.
 
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4914
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."
Please use correct mathematical terminology. A chaotic oscillator is inherently unstable - it wouldn't oscillate i9f it was stable. There is short-term rationale within the behavior of climate, but the different periodicities of the components make it unpredictable. And of course it is observable (even if most of the so-called observations are massaged proxies) - we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise.

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

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

Quote
You guys are basically telling me, we can apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, and there will be no consequences, no equal and opposite reaction.
Nobody has said that. But a few of us have asked you to put numbers to the "consequences" and offered some suggestions. And the whole business of climate scaremongering depends on the reaction not being equal and opposite! 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.

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

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
blah blah blah
Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense. Your arguments are ignorant and silly enough to post at FOX news.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 11:31:34 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.

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

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

This is the whole race of humanity we are talking about. I'm really sick of skeptics controlling the conversation. Of course, I didn't have any biological children, so my conscience is clean. I'm not leaving anyone a mess to deal with.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 11:49:15 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4914
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Not even the "scientists" who contribute to the IPCC consensus suggest that the heat from burning fossil fuels is significant. You are of course entitled to  your opinion but you are not entitled to claim the support of those who disagree with it.

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

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

If observing that A always precedes B is called cherrypicking, what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 17:33:34 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
blah blah blah
Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere,
Straw man.
I said all along that it changes the composition of the atmosphere.
Why are you pretending I didn't?
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.

"I haven't said anything "wrong."" Yes you did. You said that Tim the plumber was wrong when he was perfectly correct.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.
Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.

It's not me or the plumber who say it (though the fact that he and I agree on that while we disagree on just about every other aspect of this area is significant)
It's the numbers that say it.
You are trying to pretend that 1 is the same as 15000
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
You are trying to pretend that 1 is the same as 15000
You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences.

How much arsenic would it take to shut you up? I would be willing to bet less than 1 part in 15,000.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2016 14:16:28 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?
"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.
There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Why would anyone care?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline JoeBrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 154
  • Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?
    • View Profile
If observing that A always precedes B .... what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?
"Flat Earth climate change skeptic."


I declare Craig the winner.  He's most successfully ground to argument down to nothing.
Does everything simple always gotta be so complex?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
 whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.
I'm not misrepresenting your views. You are misrepresenting science's views. Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. When you apply combustion to a log, that changes its mass. You get heat and carbon dioxide from that log AT THE SAME TIME. It's ALL part of the same process.

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

When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things. They BOTH came from the act of combustion, they are both a result of the mass/energy conversion that took place.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I declare Craig the winner.  He's most successfully ground to argument down to nothing.
Thanks. I tend to agree with scientists, that the simplest, most widely applicable theory is probably the correct one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I honestly can't put it any more simply than that. It seems pretty silly to quibble about the details.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2016 16:19:05 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
The answer toy your silly question is that it would take roughly 1 in 80,000 of my weight in arsenic to kill me- unless I had the sense to consume it slowly enough.
Yes, I see how you operate. You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument.

That's where you're getting ALL your arguments, not just the toy, silly ones. Google. You don't comprehensively understand climate change. You're looking facts up on the fly, copying and pasting information willy-nilly to support your claims, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
So, for example you misstate my views by saying "You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
 whereas in fact I think the effects are significant- but not because of the direct effect of heating, but because we dumped zillions of tons of CO2 into the air.
And, since my views are clear enough for all to see, it must be a lack of care, or a lack of honesty on your part that makes you misrepresent them.
I'm not misrepresenting your views. You are misrepresenting science's views. Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. When you apply combustion to a log, that changes its mass. You get heat and carbon dioxide from that log AT THE SAME TIME. It's ALL part of the same process.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 14:21:18 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.

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

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

Craig,
I was just pointing out that some of us know stuff without having to look it up on the web. (and also pointing out that I have been saying that CO2 is a problem for a long time).
For you to say "Yes, I see how you operate. You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument." was just flat out wrong
And, even if it had been substantially correct; so what?
Are people not allowed to use Google to find evidence?
Perhaps you should try it. That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
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?
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 14:30:21 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
But if you keep going on about blankets, perhaps you should admit that you got that analogy from somewhere.
Yeah, Mrs. Pivik's 2nd grade class. Is there anything else you can nitpick at me about? Perhaps you would like to chastise me for not inventing English before speaking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you actually read what you have written?

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

It doesn't matter that you didn't say "horsepower" does it?
Nobody said you used the word.
What you said was that you can run a train on the power from 2 square metres' worth of sunlight That's about 2.7 Kw or about 3.6 Horsepower (oops, I got the conversion factor wrong earlier- big deal).
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8866
    • View Profile
That way you won't keep saying you can run a train on two horsepower or heat a whole houes with a 2 bare electric fire or even, that mankind's direct energy use is what's heating the planet.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels ("direct energy use") warms the planet, even when you are wacked out of your mind on pills.
Why even bother to say that?
It's not as if anyone said otherwise.
What we said was that the indirect heating is so much bigger that you don't even need to account for the tiny amount of direct heat.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 272
    • View Profile
I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.

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

So are you claiming that there are more tornadoes?

Because there have been less.

I agree that the current climate is somewhat warmer than it was in 1979. That winter is somewhat shorter. You cliamed that this had lead to more tornadoes, which would be expected, but it has not.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 272
    • View Profile
Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.
I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. You are the one sowing discord, along with "global moderator" alancalverd. Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch.

Your claim that burning fossil fuels directly increases the temperature of the atmosphere to a degree beyond the 15,000th of the earth's energy budget is false.

This is clear from the numbers. Your inability to do numbers is astounding.

The hypothesis that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures is the idea of climate change/global warming etc.

Please stop posting drivel.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 272
    • View Profile
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.
There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.

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

And you're fighting me on that ...

In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.

Posting lies, such as claiming to be a degree level chemist when you are not, will not help anybody.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 15:08:58 by Tim the Plumber »

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 272
    • View Profile
Carbon dioxide isn't the problem. The real problem is that rises in temperature increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Ultimately in an extreme situation the heat evaporates all the water. The climate would have to go very wrong for that to happen. This is the worse problem since water vapour is a very good greenhouse gas.

Well, that's the additional heating the IPCC says will cause the heating beyond the direct effects of additional CO2 and much more than double the increased temperature.

But since for most of the earth's history it has been out of any ice age, such as the present one, with temperatures up to 20c higher than now without this runaway heating I do not think that there is any chance of us getting into a Venus II scenario.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Your claim that burning fossil fuels directly increases the temperature of the atmosphere to a degree beyond the 15,000th of the earth's energy budget is false.

This is clear from the numbers. Your inability to do numbers is astounding.
On the contrary, you're the one who seems to think applying combustion to a trillion tons of fossil fuels adds up to nothing. Go figure.

I've got news for you. It would be almost absolute zero on the planet's surface if there was no atmosphere. That's the context, that's the baseline for the 1/15,000 figure, not the limited 200 degree range of an insulated atmosphere. When 15,000/15,000 of solar energy is enough to make the earth habitable for life, then yes, taking that up to 15,001 or 15,002 by releasing previously stored solar energy CAN make a noticeable difference of a couple of degrees.

I'm fine with numbers. You sweep them under the rug.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
I've got news for you. It would be almost absolute zero on the planet's surface if there was no atmosphere.

I suggest you fact check that using google. The actual value is somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 Kelvin based on the thermal radiation from the Sun and Earth's current albedo.