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

  • 610 Replies
  • 58747 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.

Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.

When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 15:26:52 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.

Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.

When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.

Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues;

1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?

2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.

3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

Thinking in sound bites will result in the sort of bad science that was practiced in the 1920's in the Soviet Union where bad science caused the deaths of about 20 million people.
So, turn off the FOX news, put down your talking points, and start listening to the international team of scientists who are 97% in agreement on this issue.

Of course, if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, there's a lot more than just 20 million people at risk. Everybody is at risk. So, I suggest you do the hard work of trying to understand this problem like I have, instead of running off your mouth in a public forum without a full comprehension of what you are talking about.

When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. You need to adopt that attitude in this thread. You make too many statements, don't ask enough questions. Sorry, but I probably know more about climate change than you do about plumbing. Like I said, I've been studying this for about 28 years, and I've taken several college science courses. Get back to me when you're where I am.
Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that  the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
And if you are wrong, it doesn't matter what you have studied
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
In order to do good it is necessary to understand stuff and then do hard work. It is often hard work to understand stuff.

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


When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority.

Really?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65777.msg483855#msg483855
where you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
when you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"
Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.
Is that what's turning your letters blue?

You clearly don't want to listen to sense and have a strong tendency toward confirmation biases, but let me explain this for you anyway. The Antarctic is MELTING. Guess what? Water doesn't take salt with it when it evaporates. That snow and ice on Antartica is FRESH water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and freezes faster. So, you get seasonal, temporary ice shelf when melted fresh water freezes for a while just off the Antarctic coast. This new ice will eventually melt and mix with the ocean. It is NOT permanent ice pack. It is a fleeting skin of frozen fresh water, not proof Antarctica is growing in ice mass.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Ice sheet is not ice pack.

NASA says that the ice mass of Antarctica is gaining mass.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues.
I don't need or want your respect. I have something better than your silly pop quiz, anyway. It's a Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook used by the US Military Academy. There's a section on linear regression functions, interpolation and extrapolation. Long story short, I bought it used. It's an old book. They used data from 1980 to 2000 in that section to predict that CO2 levels would reach 400 parts per million by 2020.

This is 2016. We passed that a year ago.

Looks like they should have put that example in the "exponential functions" section.

I'll tell you what happens, that almost no one is talking about. If you melt thousands of cubic miles of ice, and the water runs off into the ocean, what happens is the mass distribution on tectonic plates is going to shift. That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. The problem is, the earth's surface isn't made of rubber, its plasticity is limited. It takes time to alter its shape and respond to changes like that, which are supposed to happen gradually. We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.

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

Those are the very basics of the issue. Temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere are obviously related. Anything you post to try to discredit that relationship is a B.S. argument.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
NASA says that the ice mass of Antarctica is gaining mass.
Silly argument. Even if this is true, just because the average temperature of the Earth is going up, that doesn't mean every single location on the planet is going to raise by exactly x number of degrees. The atmosphere circulates randomly. For example, if you continue to blow hot air, it could push some cold air into the corner of the room, giving you a colder reading there. You're still making it warmer overall. This is how Jim Inhofe made a snowball.

Again, Antarctica was the location of the ozone hole, and there is absolutely no CFC production or consumption in Antarctica. Obviously, local effects can differ from the entire atmosphere.

You approach science like Ronald Reagan. He wanted to take millions of people off welfare because a handful of people abuse the system, as if they represent the entire data pool and behavior across the system in general. Your argument is more damaging than helpful.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that  the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
Can you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?

IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS.

I'm not just an authority on that. I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points, ESPECIALLY those with science degrees who work for large corporations and have a slanted point of view to begin with.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 18:08:17 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
when you say "Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum,"
even though you say later in the thread "I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes"

Weakest analogy ever. I have 28 years experience observing climate change. NOBODY can observe a black hole.
Indeed, and it didn't stop you pontificating about it.
But even that isn't the real problem.
The point was that you say  that you don't do that sort of thing. The evidence says otherwise.

Do you realise that nonsense like that undermines your other arguments.

So, it really doesn't matter how long you have been watching the weather.
You keep saying things that are clearly not true.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile

Can you show me the bit where those 97% of scientists say that  the heat from burning fossil fuel is the problem, (rather than the CO2 from burning fossil fuel is the problem).
Because if you can't do that -you are not an authority- you are wrong (yet again).
Can you show me the bit where 97% of scientists say that CO2 production and heat production are unrelated when mass/energy conversion takes place?

IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS.

I'm not just an authority on that. I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points.
well, yes and no
Obviously the emerge together- you keep banging on about that as if anyone is saying anything else.
They are not.
So you ought to shut up about it and think harder.
Why is someone like me who is- whether you like it or not- actually quite bright repeating the assertion about the heat released not being a major factor?

Here's a hint; it gets cold at night, but the CO2 doesn't go away that quickly.
So, yes- as everyone agrees- the heat and the CO2 are released together .
And, as I pointed out a while back, the heat leaves, but the CO2 stays around.

Do you now understand why the heat that was released over 200 years or so- and which has all gone away- is less important the The CO2 released over the same period but which is still here?

Frankly I wonder what sort of climate study you might have been doing that didn't teach you about the importance of time scales.
Perhaps you should stop bragging about your college courses and go and ask for a refund.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
You keep saying things that are clearly not true.
That's a comprehensively false statement. All you've done is SAY I'm saying things that aren't true. You haven't proven your point about anything. You're obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs, nothing more. The only thing I'm unclear about is your reason for doing so.

Again, in the simplest terms possible, applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does 2 things. It adds heat to the atmosphere, and it increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide.

You can haggle about the percentages involved and their significance all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and poses a real threat.

End of story.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Frankly I wonder what sort of climate study you might have been doing that didn't teach you about the importance of time scales.
Again, you've gotten things completely backwards. I'm the one who posted the graph showing that temperature and CO2 content have moved in lockstep for 800,000 years, I'm the one who pointed out that it only took 50 years to raise CO2 content a full 20% higher than it has been in 800,000 years, and said changes are supposed to be gradual. I'm the one who said changes in climate should take thousand or even tens of thousands of years, so it's strange when grandparents say things like, "I remember when the lake used to freeze over every year, and we would go ice skating." My grandma was old, but not geological epoch or Vostok ice core old.

So, clearly, I have no problem appreciating the significance of time scales. That's YOUR problem, as you obviously didn't fully appreciate these statements of mine.

What is the deal with blowhards and posers telling lies about people in forums? I don't believe for an instant you have a degree in chemistry. Hooked on pharmacological products, maybe.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 18:23:00 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.

Can you see why the one which has gone away is less of a problem than  the one that is still here?

Or are you still trying to claim that the direct heating effect is important?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile

"Again, in the simplest terms possible, applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does 2 things. It adds heat to the atmosphere, and it increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide."

Actually it does three things: burning most stuff also adds water vapour to the air- lots of it.
And, of course, water vapour is a greenhouse gas too.
But the IPCC etc don't consider this factor so much, because water vapour in the air has a fairly short retention time.
And that's exactly the same reason why they don't consider the direct heating effect.

"You can haggle about the percentages involved and their significance all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is real, and poses a real threat."
You seem to think that I disagree with that.
I don't disagree.
Can you possibly get that fact into your head?


« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 18:29:25 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
Here is a littel quiz. If you can do it you get some respect in terms of being able to understand the very basics of the issues.
I don't need or want your respect. I have something better than your silly pop quiz, anyway. It's a Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook used by the US Military Academy. There's a section on linear regression functions, interpolation and extrapolation. Long story short, I bought it used. It's an old book. They used data from 1980 to 2000 in that section to predict that CO2 levels would reach 400 parts per million by 2020.

This is 2016. We passed that a year ago.

Looks like they should have put that example in the "exponential functions" section.

I'll tell you what happens, that almost no one is talking about. If you melt thousands of cubic miles of ice, and the water runs off into the ocean, what happens is the mass distribution on tectonic plates is going to shift. That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes. The problem is, the earth's surface isn't made of rubber, its plasticity is limited. It takes time to alter its shape and respond to changes like that, which are supposed to happen gradually. We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.

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

Those are the very basics of the issue. Temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere are obviously related. Anything you post to try to discredit that relationship is a B.S. argument.

1, Posession of an old maths book is noted. Well done.

2, Your inability to do any maths is also noted.

3, When the great ice sheets that covered North America and Eurasia melted there was no vast out flow of lava. No massive volcanic disruption. There seems to be no support for any massive melting in the first place so...... Yet another made up drivel point.

4, Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
OK, so now you understand that the time scales for heat retention in the air is different from that for CO2 retention.

Can you see why the one which has gone away is less of a problem than  the one that is still here?

Or are you still trying to claim that the direct heating effect is important?
YES. Combustion doesn't just produce carbon dioxide. It produces heat. Even if you didn't produce any carbon dioxide at all during combustion, just pure heat and nothing more, the atmosphere has insulative properties, so it wants to keep that heat from escaping into space. That's a factor. That's a fact. Yes, it is important.

Yes, you are correct, though I don't know if you understand why. The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Transform mass to energy, and you get disorder. The more mass to turn to energy, the greater the disorder. That's building up in the atmosphere. That's the carbon dioxide you're talking about. It used to be concentrated, safely stored away in fossil fuels. Now, it is diffuse. I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice. You know about Entropy right? We've released carbon dioxide from those chemical bonds, dissipating it throughout the atmosphere. But rest assured, some of that combustion heat is still there, being trapped by the carbon dioxide. That's how the atmosphere works.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Your inability to do any maths is also noted.
False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.

Humans burn a lot of stuff to power the economy. It's no surprise to find the earth is getting warmer from that, unless you are some sort of backward, flat earth caveman, or maybe a Republican plumber.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
When the great ice sheets that covered North America and Eurasia melted there was no vast out flow of lava. No massive volcanic disruption. There seems to be no support for any massive melting in the first place so...... Yet another made up drivel point.
Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?

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

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?[/color]
It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Less than expected, so that's sort of like if somebody predicted you would get killed in a car crash, but you just got maimed because a large puddle they didn't account for affected your course. The prediction was close enough to be helpful if you ask me. You should have paid attention. Now you're maimed, yet you sound like you want to get right back in the car and head off the wrong way down a one way street at top speed.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile

Not lava flow, for Christ's sake. There's no end to the stuff you're not an expert on, is there?


That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes....We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.
So we are talking about some "special" volcanoes you  have invented which erupt, but don't make lava.
OK
Glad we got that cleared up
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?
They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.

Quote
2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.
Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.
Quote
3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference.
Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice.
Except that you keep using nuclear physics - conversion of mass to energy. The significant energy in a chemical process has nothing to do with mass loss: chemical laws are all based on conservation of mass.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
Your inability to do any maths is also noted.
False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.

Humans burn a lot of stuff to power the economy. It's no surprise to find the earth is getting warmer from that, unless you are some sort of backward, flat earth caveman, or maybe a Republican plumber.

You need to do maths in order for you to understand the level of significance of such heat. If it was 2% of the earth's energy budget then it would be significant but it is not it is of the order of 1/15000 of the overall energy budget of the earth. So it does not matter.

The CO2 produced, it is argued, causes heating. Or more accurately causes heat retention by reflecting some of the IR from the ground back down.

It is further argued that this will cause increased water vapor in the air and that this will cause further heating. Can't see it myself but....

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
Indeed the CO2 level is higher than anyone predicted back in the 1970's. Yet the temperature is less than the IPCC predicted. Odd that. Can you explain it? Indeed can anybody here?[/color]
It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-globally

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Less than expected, so that's sort of like if somebody predicted you would get killed in a car crash, but you just got maimed because a large puddle they didn't account for affected your course. The prediction was close enough to be helpful if you ask me. You should have paid attention. Now you're maimed, yet you sound like you want to get right back in the car and head off the wrong way down a one way street at top speed.

1, If the ocean is absorbing so much CO2 (it is not) why is the amount in the air higher than expected?

2, Why has this not produced the expected warming?

3, If the prediction was of a car crash, which was ignored, scoffed at by the driver and the effect happened but rather than it being a terminal car crash was a bit of dust or smoke that the car drove through with no problem why would you expect the driver to panic when you told him that there was more to come?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile

The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics....  I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice. You know about Entropy right?
Yes, I know about it.
And what you have written

"The bigger problem is Entropy. When you use the First Law of Thermodynamics, as in combustion, you get Entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
is simply factually incorrect.
The combustion of methane, carbon monoxide or hydrogen (as examples) leads to a small decrease in entropy overall.
Perhaps you should find a language you actually understand and write in that.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
1, If 200 cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice melts what will that do to sea levels around the world?
They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.

Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.

I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.

The way the ocean circulation works it always going to produce the same temperature profile. Only the top few hundred meters can be altered by any amount of heating. But that's a separate threads worth.


Quote
Quote
2, If you add 1 zetta Joule of heat energy to the top of the world's oceans over the course of a year what will the temperature chenge be? Assume that the heat will penetrate to a depth of 700m.
Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.
Quote

Again I was after the simple number of how much temperature would rise using heat capacity but given that there are loads of graphs fired about showing the amount of heat energy being absorbed by the oceans, it's a needed fiddle factor in order to somehow explain the pause, all the heat that would be heating the earth is going into the oceans etc, I was giving the warmest side the benefit of the doubt. But yes I agree, heat going into the surface ofe the ocean, especially from warmer air, will just cause more evaporation.

Quote
3, What is the thermal forcing of a doulbling of CO2 in the air? Please cite your reference. Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.

Ah! I see you are on the skeptic side like myself. Yes I agree. Although it would be nice to hear from the other side for their chosen number.

*

Offline Claude Garneau

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
According to a simple research study I made recently, I have made the determination that it is  jet flight that is destroying the ozone layer. In 2012, the world used one billion pounds of jet fuel per day.
Jet fuel is comprised of kerosene, benzene, formaldehyde and sulfur.
One molecule of jet fuel requires approximately twenty-two molecules of Oxygen. In other words, 22 billion pounds of Oxygen per day.
The combustion of jet fuel per day, also produces billions of pounds of CO2, NO, CO, benzene, formaldehyde and sulfides. All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet. Ozone is produced by the reaction of free oxygen molecules reacting with solar radiation. The oxygen molecule absorbs this energy to produce O3-ozone. The reaction allows oxygen to absorb energy to create ozone and the ozone cools back to free oxygen and this cycle allows the safe dissipation of energy. It is the energy that is getting thru that is heating the atmosphere.  The oxygen that is required for this constant bombardment of this radiation, is produced at the earths' surface by plants. The oxygen produced must run the gauntlet of an atmosphere that is constantly in flux and the high speed winds of the upper atmosphere. I believe that the oxygen levels in the upper atmosphere are being depleted by jet flight and this trend is increasing. We should be very concerned. Increasing the surface temperature of the earth will weaken the crust and increase volcanism. Ice ages are caused by volcanic dust encircling the earth and preventing any energy from entering the atmosphere.

*

Offline Claude Garneau

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Thank you for your response. I understand entropy. The break down from ozone to oxygen, or to a more stable molecule. Because of the constant rain of energy from the sun causes an unstable environment for the free oxygen to remain in an entropic state. The constant reaction and subduction releases the energy out into space. The reduction of oxygen allows abnormal absorption these high energy particles into the atmosphere.

*

Offline Claude Garneau

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
Entropy is going from a state of instability to a state of stability. The combustion of an unstable hydrocarbon into a more stable state, ( carbon dioxide et al, with reaction of free oxygen, ( unstable and reactive) This reaction follows the premise of the first law of thermodynamics.
The reaction cycles of ozone to oxygen to ozone, cannot apply in this case because of the constant bombardment of high energy solar particles. These reactions are in constant flux and create a dissipation of energy.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet.
i.e., below the ozone layer.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
"Jet fuel is comprised of kerosene, benzene, formaldehyde and sulfur."
No it isn't.
"One molecule of jet fuel requires approximately twenty-two molecules of Oxygen. In other words, 22 billion pounds of Oxygen per day."
No, weight for weight is not the same as molecule for molecule.
a pound of jet  fuel needs about 3.5 pounds of oxygen to burn.
"Entropy is going from a state of instability to a state of stability. The combustion of an unstable hydrocarbon into a more stable state, ( carbon dioxide et al, with reaction of free oxygen, ( unstable and reactive) This reaction follows the premise of the first law of thermodynamics."
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.

And so on.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.

The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...

Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.

Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

In order to try to get this thread out of the time wasting but very needed destruction of psudo-science drivel I will try to set out some sort of claims which you can challenge, us being on the opposite side of the warmist/skeptic arguments.

The IPCC's predictions in the AR4 report were based on the 1998 hockey stick graph (it made it to the front cover) and had a range of predictions between (I think) +1c and +4.2c. These were from pre industrial temperatures. Why they chose the little ice age as the best climate for the world is s different point...

Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.

Given that I feel it is reasonable to say (this is the claim) that the top half of the IPCC's range of predictions can be discounted, forgotten. Do you agree or not?

No, I don't agree, and nor do the data.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
But this is still more useful, and more interesting  than talking about entropy with someone who clearly doesn't understand it..
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Perhaps you should find a language you actually understand and write in that.
I write in English just fine. I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you.

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/

I've also got a dog-eared copy of this book on my shelf that I've read at least 4 times over the years.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8z4829bp#page-1

So, maybe I just need to find a language YOU understand.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand, as you say because of the weird characteristics of water.

I was actually seeing if he could divide the volume of ice melt by the surface area of the ocean.
Ice is less dense than water, it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder. Water takes up more space when frozen into a crystal lattice.

I know how to do long division, plus I have a calculator. You don't have any business testing anyone until you understand this subject better yourself.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.


Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand,
I it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder.
You seem utterly unable  to read
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.
Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

So, you're wrong again. If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. Apply combustion to fossil fuels, you get entropy. Despite your protests, the two processes are inextricably linked.

The classic example is the burning log. You don't actually lose any mass/energy when you burn a log, the total is still the same, but you lose the potential to do work. You dissipate heat, ashes and smoke into the environment, and those are less usable forms of mass and energy, being in a diffuse state. It would take more energy than you got burning the log to collect all that mass and energy back together into a log. That's the essence of the entropy law. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, dissipated heat and carbon dioxide in the environment is part of the entropy. All the mass and energy are still there, but they are now in more diffuse, less usable forms.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 13:29:02 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Since 1998 it has not warmed up. This is despite more CO2 being produced than their most extreme predictions.
I would be delighted to promote or take issue with this statement, or its converse, if anyone would tell me what "it" is and how it was measured. These are the most fundamental questions of any scientific discussion, yet when it comes to climate change, nobody ever answers them.

AFAIK the only worthwhile data we have are the Vostok ice cores, which clearly show CO2 concentrations following, not leading, the local temperature, for hundreds of thousands of years, and some recent Mauna Loa data that shows the same effect north of the Equator for the last 50 years.

Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law.


You seem to have a consistent problem distinguishing between "first" and "second". This may explain why you think CO2 affects global temperature, when the historic evidence shows otherwise.

You might think us bored and boring old scientists are being unnecessarily pedantic, but athletes also consider the difference between first and second to be significant, and lawyers depend on sequence to establish causality and liability.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Being a mere scientist, I look at this real data and hypothesise that temperature determines CO2, but clearly minds that think themselves greater than mine are not impressed by facts or motivated by honesty.
How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts, I'm tired of the dishonesty about climate change. Most of it is promulgated by corporate interests, and there are a lot of corporate scientists in public forums. Lots of them like to cast doubt on the opinions of people like me. Yeah, I don't have a degree, but I'm not clueless. I know my science.

Being a mere smart guy who is interested in science, I see these data and picture Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Like I said, he was the one leading, but they stayed within the parameters of the dance floor. They didn't go flying up into the rafters.

According to those Vostok ice core sample, when there aren't 7.125 billion people blazing through fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and temperature MOVE IN LOCKSTEP, and they STAY WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.

Incidentally, those parameters include 320 parts per million as a RECORD HIGH CO2 content over the last 800,000 years. Now, we're "up in the rafters" far above the dance floor, at over 400 parts per million, and the news media keep reporting record high temperatures. That's no coincidence.

So, all this nitpicking gets on my nerves. CO2 is leading, temperature is leading, who cares? There's still a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't believe nitpicking about which came first, the chicken or the egg, is important. Eggs come from chickens. Chickens come from eggs. Those two processes can't be separated. Acting like they are two separate things is silly.

Using combustion to produce heat also produces carbon dioxide that, added to the carbon dioxide that already exists, increase the atmosphere's ability to retain the heat produced by that same combustion process. That makes it warmer, melting permafrost, releasing more CO2, which makes it still warmer, so we turn up the air conditioning, etc. Eggs, chickens, eggs, more chickens, more eggs, even more chickens, etc. That is a fact, no matter how many hairs you split, no matter how many science degrees I don't have, or you do have. This is clearly a feedback loop, and that is dangerous.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 13:52:00 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.
Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

In other words, burn stuff, and you get disorder. The first and second laws are inextricably linked. That's what the carbon dioxide is: Entropy. All that solar energy and CO2 was bound up in fossil fuels, burning them released it, dissipating not just heat, but distributing carbon dioxide throughout the atmosphere. That's entropy. Learn it correctly, or quit chiming in, flat earther.
Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

and what I said as that the 1st law has northing to do with entropy.
And guess what! it hasn't.
Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

So, you're wrong again. If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. Apply combustion to fossil fuels, you get entropy. Despite your protests, the two processes are inextricably linked.

The classic example is the burning log. You don't actually lose any mass/energy when you burn a log, the total is still the same, but you lose the potential to do work. You dissipate heat, ashes and smoke into the environment, and those are less usable forms of mass and energy, being in a diffuse state. It would take more energy than you got burning the log to collect all that mass and energy back together into a log. That's the essence of the entropy law. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, dissipated heat and carbon dioxide in the environment is part of the entropy. All the mass and energy are still there, but they are now in more diffuse, less usable forms.

Guess again; here's the 2nd law together with the bit that says that reversible processes don't have an entropy change.

The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged.

But that's not the point.
Do you realise that the first law is different from the second.
Only one of the laws (never mind the processes) is about entropy
And, since it was the laws we were talking about, you remain wrong.


Re. "How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts,"
No, you quite plainly are not.
every time someone points this out, you ignore it.
For example, all this stuff about entropy is beside the point- at least some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy- it's just that you don't understand this.
Anyway I'm off for Easter - I won't post so much.
I anticipate that you will still be wrong IN BLOCK CAPITALS when I get back.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Do you realise that the first law is different from the second.
Only one of the laws (never mind the processes) is about entropy
And, since it was the laws we were talking about, you remain wrong.
No, I am not wrong. You can't transform mass to energy or energy to mass according to the first law without getting entropy according to the second, EVER. Yes, they are listed as two laws, but they don't operate outside each other's realms. They have everything to do with one another. You can't get entropy without some sort of mass/energy conversion, and you can't perform mass/energy conversion without producing entropy.

If you're saying anything other than that, YOU are wrong. In fact, you said, "Never mind the processes." That's about the most unscientific thing you could possibly say... except you followed that by saying, "some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy." FALSE. That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law. Natural gas is concentrated in reserves, we take that out of the ground, put it in thousands of trucks, ship it around the world, turn it into dissipated heat and waste products that spread throughout the atmosphere. That's taking mass/energy that was in an ordered state and making it so diffuse that it is no longer useful to do work, otherwise known as "entropy."

You are so wrong it's not even funny anymore.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 14:13:17 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
In the real world the 1st law doesn't mention entropy and that's what I said- so I'm still right.
I was also right about CAPITALS becaause you said "FALSE. That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law."
Actually it's not a violation at all.
You are denying the facts about entropy- like I said- you don't understand it.
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.


So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8750
    • View Profile
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
I didn't actually say that did I.
Strawman again.
You really are acting like the denialists.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.

So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.

Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."

That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther. That is the act of taking apart a complex, high energy molecule to get the energy, leaving you with less complex molecules in more stable forms. For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 14:45:20 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math. 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000 DOES NOT equal 15,000/15,000.
I didn't actually say that did I.
Strawman again.
You really are acting like the denialists.
From Wikipedia: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

There is no straw man here. You said we're only adding about 1/15,000 of the solar heat budget, and you said that's "inconsequential," attributing warming to CO2 alone. I say you're oversimplifying. Warming from combustion IS a factor. YOU'RE acting like denialists. Again, even cavemen understood that burning stuff creates heat, and that burning lots of stuff creates even more heat. That heat doesn't just disappear as if by magic. It is trapped by the atmosphere, which has properties and contents that want to trap the heat produced by combustion, even if we use scrubbers to remove all the CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere. We're STILL putting a hundred million years worth of stored solar energy back into the system by applying combustion to fossil fuels, and that's NOT inconsequential AT ALL.

Personally, I think this is specifically BECAUSE of your education. I'm almost tempted to cut you some slack because you're a specialist. You see the chemistry side of things, and you're used to dealing with small, closed systems. That's why you would say something silly like, "Methane combustion reduces entropy." That's why you're focused on things like carbon dioxide in your "what is leading what" arguments, ignoring the mass that changed to heat and dissipated into the environment in combustion reactions. Heat is actually the same thing as light, or electromagnetic energy, or photons. Photons and mass/energy conversion/transfer are more in the realm of physics. You likely have a better understanding of chemistry than I do in general and in far greater detail, but I did take 8 hours of biology for majors, plus, I actually took 8 hours of college physics courses, so I know how the periodic table of elements works, I know how elements get their properties, I can draw a DNA molecule model from memory, double bonds, weak hydrogen bonds, phosphate groups, pentose sugars and all, I know how that DNA builds the plants and animals that become fossil fuels, I could roughly sketch a chlorphyll molecule built in a daisy shape with a Magnesium atom in the middle that absorbs photons, I know how chloroplasts store that energy as mass/binding energy that holds together complex molecules like sugar as per photosynthesis, I know how high energy molecules like those are broken apart to free the binding energy of those photons in combustion, cellular respiration and digestion, I know that one of the properties of carbon dioxide molecules is that they have a tendency to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, I understand that process is random for each carbon dioxide molecule, so statistically almost half of those emissions would be in a direction back toward Earth's surface, plus, I've been reading all sorts of science books for almost 40 years now in addition to my college biol/phys credits. There's more to climate change than just chemistry. I'm not sure if you can see that, and I think if you did, we might not be having this debate in the first place.
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 16:22:54 by Craig W. Thomson »