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

  • 610 Replies
  • 58605 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • 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..

Since your chosen data set has a trend of +1f per century for the period since 1998 I would call that as close to nothing as makes no difference.

So given that amount of warming about 0.5c (I think) by 2100 would be at the bottom or below the bottom of the IPCC's poredictions. Why do you think that this is at all alarming?

And again why can we not narrow down the range of predictions by now?

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • 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.

Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km≥ of ice melting. [2]

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • 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.

Well yes but you will not convince anybody who wishes to believe in the great climate change terror by that argument.

Climate can clearly be measured. Understanding that it is silly to measure it to thousanths of a degree involves having enough imagination to be in the skeptic camp in the first place.

In order to kill off this hideously evil bad science it will be necessary to actually get the other side to debate their big points and try to justify them. Onlyh when they are unable to do so is there a chance of changing their mind. Appealing for scientific rigor is not worth the effort.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • 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.

Yes it does. It equals 1.

Wow!!!! You realy neveer did any maths at all did you?

Try it on your calculator.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Not on my calculator. Nor I hope on anyone else's.

15,000/15,000 + 1/15,000 = 15,001/15,000 = 1.00007 or thereabouts

Whether the 0.00007 is significant is, of course, another matter.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
According to those Vostok ice core sample, when there aren't 7.125 billion people blazing through fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and temperature MOVE IN LOCKSTEP, and they STAY WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS.

1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.

2. A parameter is a measure, not a limit. Please do not misuse scientific language.

Quote
CO2 is leading, temperature is leading, who cares?
Scientists. It's how we distinguish between cause and effect.

But since you care so little for science, let's turn to literature. T S Eliot (The Wasteland) said "The last temptation is the greatest treason - to do the right thing for the wrong reason." I dare you to disagree!

 
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 17:53:12 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Be warned Alan. You are challenging a man with a vast skill set and a high IQ.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
That would be a rare and welcome pleasure. Pope Urban VIII, Caiaphas, Lysenko, Goebbels, and many other malign figures in history possesed these qualities. Fortunately, science requires neither: it's all about beng humble in the face of evidence. And I don't think any correspondent in this forum can close his argument with a death sentence.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2016 10:55:37 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
That would be a rare and welcome pleasure. Pope Urban VIII, Caiaphas, Lysenko, Goebbels, and many other malign figures in history possesed these qualities. Fortunately, science requires neither: it's all about beng humble in the face of evidence. And I don't think any correspondent in this forum can close his argument with a death sentence.

That is the best definition of a decent scientist I have ever heard. Obviously being clever is an advantage but the first thing required is the humility to say "I don't know".

I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
But since you care so little for science, let's turn to literature.
It takes a pretty crappy moderator to flame someone so blatantly.

I love science, and I respect scientists. It's the arrogant blowhards that I have a problem with. Even when I say things I learned from a professor who worked for NASA for 30 years, even when I post direct quotes out of a book written by a PhD, somebody tells me I am wrong. Guess what? I didn't get good grades in the science courses I DID take in college by failing to understand the subject matter, and I didn't take them as electives because I dislike science when I could have taken blowoff courses instead.

http://glossynews.com/author/cwthomson/ <--- I write my own literature. I minored in English composition, not reading other people's stuff.

Again, I'm a smart guy with a solid education. In my estimation, you're a public nuisance, not an expert. You might like science, but you obviously disdain science hobbyists in public forums, even when they are fighting the "good fight" to save humanity from their own screwups, a.k.a. anthropogenic climate change.

That's your problem. But that's not all. You have another problem. You don't use the scientific method. That applies not only to your climate change comments, but your lies about me as well.  Of course I care a great deal for science. You can suck it for suggesting otherwise, moderator or not.

So, kick me out now for expressing myself. That's how this usually goes, right? A moderator and a couple of jerkfaces spread discontent, I react to the flaming, I pay the price, everyone else gets to keep spreading misinformation because I wasn't polite enough. Whatever.

Is there ONE physics forum out there NOT full of jokers?
« Last Edit: 27/03/2016 15:15:26 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Be warned Alan. You are challenging a man with a vast skill set and a high IQ.
At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km≥ of ice melting.
No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km≥ of ice melting.
No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.

The number 1 represents a range of values between 0.5 (inclusive) and 1.5 (exclusive). Thus 1 is the same as 1 + an insignificant number. 

If I had written 1.0000 + 1/15000 = 1.0000 then that would be wrong. But 1 is not the same as 1.000. At least that's how it works in science and engineering.

The reason you keep getting kicked out of science forums is that you consistently lie. You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics talked about entropy. It does not. Being wrong is poor but happens. It is forgivable if embarassing. You then went on to claim that you had not been wrong. Why????? That's the bit where you provide the evidence that you have no real relationship with truth.


*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.
You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.

I tried to break it down for you in the simplest terms possible.

The atmosphere is like a blanket. It helps the earth keep warm by not letting all the sun's energy just bounce off the surface and back out into space. It retains heat.

When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you release solar energy stored by ancient organisms. That heat energy doesn't just escape into space. A lot of it stays here because the earth's atmosphere is like a blanket.

That same combustion process releases carbon dioxide, which helps the atmosphere act like a thicker blanket, insulating us even better, both trapping more of the sun's energy, AND keeping part of that combustion heat here.

That's all you really need to understand. The rest is just details. Of course, the earth is a complicated system, but don't get bogged down in the details, or cherry pick local examples to suggest they somehow apply to the rest of the globe. Don't lose sight of the forest and focus on a couple of trees that seem to be anomalies. I suggest you listen to the experts at the IPCC. Like all scientists, they use the Scientific Method to construct theories and make predictions, unlike politicians and corporate interests, who are motivated not by truth, facts or empirical evidence, but by profits. Nothing on the order of "a few thousand in grant money for my environmental science career" profits either, but rather, "selling billions of people oil while also getting tens of billions in tax breaks and subsidies" profits, for example.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
The reason you keep getting kicked out of science forums is that you consistently lie. You claimed that the first law of thermodynamics talked about entropy. It does not. Being wrong is poor but happens. It is forgivable if embarassing. You then went on to claim that you had not been wrong. Why????? That's the bit where you provide the evidence that you have no real relationship with truth. [/color]
That's 100% false. I've only been kicked out of a forum once. That was on my birthday, and I was drunk.

It's also false that I lied. About what? And what's this "consistently" nonsense? Didn't I supposedly just meet you in this forum when you joined recently, "Tim"?? You're lying about who you are. I know who you are now. It's as plain as the earth's equatorial bulge, so I'm surprised I didn't see it before. Hey, did you choose to post in blue because you are a Democrat? LOL, and rolling my eyes.

I also never said, "The first law talks about entropy." That's an example of YOU telling a lie. I specifically said the first and second laws of thermodynamics are RELATED to one another. That's a fact. You can't change mass and energy from one form to the other without creating entropy.

Entropy is like a "transaction fee." Let's restate the laws of themodynamics in banking terms.

First Law: Cash and change can neither be created or destroyed. They can only be changed from one form to another.

Second Law: Whenever you get change for a dollar, or cash in change to get a dollar, there's a ten cent fee for that.

Here's the rub. If you decide you want to go the other way, and get a dollar bill for a dollar's worth of change, tough break. You're going to have to chip in some extra money, because you only get 90 cents back because of the transaction fee.

That's a lot like trying to collect dissipated heat, carbon dioxide and ashes back together to make a log.

Your money just went up in smoke with your arguments.

If you still can't see that, it's because the smoke is getting in your eyes.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2016 17:50:10 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
I might be too thick to get entroy or how to work the square root of minus one, two of thereasons I droped out of a mech eng degree, but at least I know that I don't have all the answers.
You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.

I tried to break it down for you in the simplest terms possible.

The atmosphere is like a blanket. It helps the earth keep warm by not letting all the sun's energy just bounce off the surface and back out into space. It retains heat.

When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you release solar energy stored by ancient organisms. That heat energy doesn't just escape into space. A lot of it stays here because the earth's atmosphere is like a blanket.

That same combustion process releases carbon dioxide, which helps the atmosphere act like a thicker blanket, insulating us even better, both trapping more of the sun's energy, AND keeping part of that combustion heat here.

That's all you really need to understand. The rest is just details. Of course, the earth is a complicated system, but don't get bogged down in the details, or cherry pick local examples to suggest they somehow apply to the rest of the globe. Don't lose sight of the forest and focus on a couple of trees that seem to be anomalies. I suggest you listen to the experts at the IPCC. Like all scientists, they use the Scientific Method to construct theories and make predictions, unlike politicians and corporate interests, who are motivated not by truth, facts or empirical evidence, but by profits. Nothing on the order of "a few thousand in grant money for my environmental science career" profits either, but rather, "selling billions of people oil while also getting tens of billions in tax breaks and subsidies" profits, for example.

You have had this explianed to you as being drivel. It is.

In the day the place warms up. At night it cools. It is easy to understand how much of yesterday's heat stays around. The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.

You know this. Reverting to the deny everything approach just makes you look mad again.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.
You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.

Again, for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide content HAS NOT RISEN ABOVE 320 PART PER MILLION. So, in a nutshell, this in unprecendented, this is uncharted territory, so you have a lot of gall suggesting you know better than I do what's better for the human race, because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.

Again, 400 ppm is A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 800,000 YEARS.

What do you think would have happened if Ginger Rogers decided mid-dance that she wanted to lead Fred Astaire, and suddenly broke into a foxtrot?? That's a rhetorical question. I honestly don't need any more of your mumbo jumbo.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.
False on two counts.

Yes, the heat released by trillions of tons of coal and trillions of barrels of oil is significant.

Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. Heat islands, or "urban warming," happen because asphalt roads and brick buildings absorb heat better than grassy fields and forests.

If you have dark asphalt shingles on your roof, there's a heat island up there, too. Urban warming is just a bunch of those heat islands in close proximity. Replace them with white shingles to reflect some of that heat, or with wood shingles, which are a poor thermal conductor, to save electricity, money, and the earth.

Heck, I'll help you do it. I used to lay almost a square of shingles an hour when I was younger. Got a lot of work after a thunderstorm dropped baseball-sized hail on Abilene, TX, way back in the late 1980's.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2016 18:15:57 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Tectonic plate activity in the past added much more co2 to the atmosphere than is currently present. This did not significantly impact life on earth. In fact the largest creatures, the dinosaurs, existed at this time. Continental drift is also a large factor in this process. Mr Thomson your over simplifications show the lack of depth in your knowledge on this issue.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
1. If you look closely, you will see that temperature leads by about 5 - 800 years, always. Lockstep, yes, CO2 causality, no.
You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.

Again, for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide content HAS NOT RISEN ABOVE 320 PART PER MILLION. So, in a nutshell, this in unprecendented, this is uncharted territory, so you have a lot of gall suggesting you know better than I do what's better for the human race, because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.

Again, 400 ppm is A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST 800,000 YEARS.

Yes. We do not know what happens if CO2 is increased due to factors other thanhappen normally when the temperature rises. Or at least we know that this CO2 in the air is almost certainly due to us burning coal etc.

We can look at the longer historical record and see that there have been periods of earth's history where the CO2 level was very high, 20% or so. This did not seem to lead to any sort of catastrophic warming.

The main point, however, is that you do not know either.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.
False on two counts.

Yes, the heat released by trillions of tons of coal and trillions of barrels of oil is significant.

Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. Heat islands, or "urban warming," happen because asphalt roads and brick buildings absorb heat better than grassy fields and forests.

If you have dark asphalt shingles on your roof, there's a heat island up there, too. Urban warming is just a bunch of those heat islands in close proximity. Replace them with white shingles to reflect some of that heat, or with wood shingles, which are a poor thermal conductor, to save electricity, money, and the earth.

Heck, I'll help you do it. I used to lay almost a square of shingles an hour when I was younger. Got a lot of work after a thunderstorm dropped baseball-sized hail on Abilene, TX, way back in the late 1980's.

So you are saying that even in cities where these fossil fules are being burnt the effect of black roads and roofs is much more significant.

Well, yes it is. The temperature rise from actual combustion is low compared to this but I think it's some rather than diddly squat which it is compared to the overall energy budget of the earth 1/15000 remember?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.



At what point in the last 150 years did the laws of physics change? Until last year, temperature still led CO2 according to the Mauna Loa data, so you must be party to some information that is not in the public domain. Your source would be of great interest.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Just to make sure everyone is aware of all the evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

In particular this video specifically sites a paper that explains the current ice core record:

https://youtu.be/8nrvrkVBt24

The simple and brief answer is that historically orbital factors have initiated changes in global temperatures. When an increase in temperature was initiated the decreased solubility of CO2 in the warmer oceans caused a release of CO2 that enhanced the relatively weak orbital forcing. This is why in the ice record the CO2 lags the temperature changes. However, it is well known that the orbital factors are not strong enough to account for the observed temperature changes. In fact because it was known that orbital forcing wasn't enough it was actually predicted that the ice record should show a lag between CO2 and temperature for the reasons above before it was actually observed experimentally. We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
The simple and brief answer is that historically orbital factors have initiated changes in global temperatures. When an increase in temperature was initiated the decreased solubility of CO2 in the warmer oceans caused a release of CO2 that enhanced the relatively weak orbital forcing. This is why in the ice record the CO2 lags the temperature changes. However, it is well known that the orbital factors are not strong enough to account for the observed temperature changes. In fact because it was known that orbital forcing wasn't enough it was actually predicted that the ice record should show a lag between CO2 and temperature for the reasons above before it was actually observed experimentally. We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.
Nice video. I happen to have one too, the whole reason I'm posting this late, which I usually don't. Mornings are my time for math and physics. US news coverage is geared more toward Atlantic than Pacific storms, so I first heard about this in a greatest natural disasters of 2015 documentary on Hulu I watched today and thought about this thread:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2015/07/Tropical-Cyclones.gif

You know, despite our disagreements in the past about how to correctly put into words descriptions of things like math, photons and electromagnetism, I agree with your comments here 100%. Glad to see you're well informed on this issue.

However, while I agree that orbital factors might be important in understanding the climate record, I think volcanism might also be important. You probably remember me saying I took some basic physics, math and biology in college. I have not studied geology since Mr. Tyrell's 9th grade "Earth Science" class way back in 1984, but I remember the principle of Isostasy. The basic idea is that the earth's crust floats on the mantle sort of like a comforter on a waterbed. Press down at some location, and the surface has to rise somewhere else to compensate. When tens of thousands of cubic miles of ice melt and run off into the oceans, this weight redistribution on tectonic plates could trigger volcanoes; subsequent eruptions create "nuclear winter" conditions, reducing temperature, and ice starts to reform. Tectonic plates move to new locations over time, so the randomness of continental drift combined with volcanism vs. ice formation could account for the same sort of chaotic behavior in climate change as factoring in a variable orbit.

Personally, I think life itself might be the most important factor in the randomness of the climate. Different proportions of plants to animals changes the composition of the atmosphere, I believe even faster than changes in geology. There is evidence it has happened before, like when cells figured out how to capture the sun's energy via photosynthesis in the first place, causing the first great mass extinctions for organisms that had evolved in an oxygen free atmosphere. Ever since the first bacteria went forth and multiplied, subduing the planet, the composition of the atmosphere has been linked to the chemical processes happening in life forms inhabiting the biosphere. Now, they keep each other in check, and I believe that's fundamental to Darwin's "survival of the fittest." I think that when organisms are so successful that they disrupt the entire biosphere at this advanced stage of its evolution as a whole, that might be an evolutionary disadvantage. At any rate, since the composition of the atmosphere is a factor in determining the temperature of the planet, I would say life is indeed a primary factor in determining what sort of climate the Earth is experiencing.

In my opinion, we would be changing the composition of the Earth in measurable ways by our sheer numbers, just 7 billion or so humans feeding ourselves, burping and passing gas, even if we didn't do things like burn logs to warm ourselves or fuel our economy with fossil fuels. In fact, I just checked: humanity globally contributes approximately 3.5 billion liters of farts per day.

I got an art degree. I always wonder why artists like to portray the "struggle of man vs. nature" in their work. They live in houses, with air conditioning. I think that cultural idea is archaic. We seem to have won that struggle, mastering even things we don't fully understand, like quantum technology. We almost never get killed by lions and tigers and bears. As such, we like to think of ourselves as apart from nature, but we are still in fact a part of nature. We're not just part of a global economy, we're part of a global biosphere. We are decreasing its property value. Just ask any animal. When humans move in, there goes the neighborhood.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2016 07:36:12 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
At what point in the last 150 years did the laws of physics change? Until last year, temperature still led CO2 according to the Mauna Loa data, so you must be party to some information that is not in the public domain. Your source would be of great interest.
What in blazes are you talking about?

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

As anyone can clearly see, the maximum percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for at least 800,000 years was 320 parts per million. We are currently A FULL 20% HIGHER THAN THAT. Remember that number. It's important.

You mentioned Mauna Loa, so here:

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

As anyone can clearly see, that data says we've increased the carbon dioxide by a full 20% IN JUST 50 YEARS. Remember that number too. It's also important.

Now, you're suggesting that temperature leads. You've been suggesting that in this thread for several days. So, a quick rhetorical question: why is it that people are arguing about whether or not global temperatures have risen by a measly degree or two? It seems to me that if temperature led carbon dioxide in the manner you suggest, temperatures would have risen first, quite noticeably in fact, because it would be a 20% rise in temperatures starting "about 5 - 800 years" earlier. Yes, I put that in quotes, because that's what you said. Those graphs basically move in lockstep despite which is leading, you admitted as much. So, it looks like temperatures have some catching up to do. CO2 is up 20% in 50 years, while people say temperatures may have risen as much as a couple of degrees, and lots of people aren't convinced that's enough to even say it has risen for sure. In other words, we might be in for a surprise. Some climate scientists think we may already have added too much CO2 to the atmosphere, and it will therefore continue to warm far into the future whether we add more or not until those graphs are back in sync.

I personally think tectonic activity and volcanic "nuclear winters" triggered by tens of thousands of cubic miles of ice shifted off tectonic plates might fix the problem first.

Are you actually a moderator, or is that just your username? I still have a hard time believing a moderator of a SCIENCE forum would be so lackadaisical about interpreting empirical evidence.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2016 07:32:43 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So let's put it very simply, once again.

Historically (Vostok), temperature leads CO2, therefore there is no evidence that CO2 controls temperature, at least up to 320 ppm CO2.

Recently (Mauna Loa), CO2 reaches a maximum in early summer (when anthropogenic emission is at its lowest) even at current concentration levels, so there is no evidence that the underlying mechanism linking temperature with CO2 has changed.

Until the temperature drops again, all we have is a correlation, not an indication of causation. Whatever natural process makes CO2 follow temperature, is still happening, and there has been an additional CO2 release from human agency that happens to coincide with a natural warming period. Or it may be that some other human activity is influencing temperature, but unless the rules have changed, the emission of CO2 can't be the driver.

Those with an appetitite for physics would do well to study the mathematics of photon absorption. For those who prefer it predigested, adding absorber becomes exponentially less effective as the waveband saturates. If the first 100 ppm absorbs half the incoming radiation, the next 100 ppm can only absorb 25%, then 12.5%, 6.25%.... and so forth. Adding 20% to a waveband that is almost fully saturated will have very little effect. CO2 has a very narrow IR absorption spectrum, which is almost saturated at ground level.

And we still don't have a consistent definition and credible historic measure of global mean temperature.

To summarise: yes, the climate is changing. Always has and always will, because it is inherently unstable. And it is likely to lead to a humanitarian disaster - that is the inconvenient truth. But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • 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.

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
And that's reality for you.
The combustion is not a closed system (that's what you didn't understand)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
You seem utterly unable  to read
You seem unable to do math...
I entered the debate in this thread by doing your maths for you (about how little actual heat we use) and showed that you were wrong.


And what I have said (if you really want to paraphrase it in those sort of terms) is that you cant't tell 15000  +/- 500 and 15001 =/- 500  but you can tell 300+/- 10 from 400 +/- 10.

So, would you like to discuss what I did say, rather than strawmanning what I never said?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?
NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.


*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

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

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
Well, somebody's wrong. Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. Negative entropy is the opposite of entropy, and that's not supposed to be possible according to the 2nd Law. To create more order locally, you MUST increase entropy in the environment.

This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong. There's no way you're a chemist. You would understand this stuff better than an artist if you did. I didn't even take chemistry in college. I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist.


*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I entered the debate in this thread by doing your maths for you (about how little actual heat we use) and showed that you were wrong.

And what I have said  is that you cant't tell 15000  +/- 500 and 15001 =/- 500  but you can tell 300+/- 10 from 400 +/- 10.

So, would you like to discuss what I did say, rather than strawmanning what I never said?
That's not math. That's nonsense. You couldn't prove a counting horse wrong with that math. A horse could stomp out the answer to a math problem about carrots more accurately than that. Are you in fact a horse? That would explain a lot.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
There you go again with the insults Craig. As soon as someone challenges your view you have a tantrum.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The moderators and the professionals who participate in this forum don't have to be here. It is a very unique place where I personally learn something new every day. Maybe you should tone it down mate.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.



"Proof by assertion" has no place in science. I won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a priest, politician or philosopher, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by scientists.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2016 23:46:43 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
BC: there is a caveat in your reference, which may be the cause of young Craig's confusion:

Quote
However, there is a way to calculate the entropy change in any reaction, at least at standard conditions of 25 oC and 1 bar (atmospheric pressure).


In the case of CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O  there is a substantial (890 kJ/mol) release of energy (which is why we use it to cook our food). You either have to remove this energy, which raises the entropy of the rest of the universe, or contain it in adiabatic combustion, which raises the temperature and hence entropy of the product gases.

Were it not so, you would have the basis for a chemical perpetual motion machine!   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
There you go again with the insults Craig. As soon as someone challenges your view you have a tantrum.
What tantrum? Do you imagine that you are making me angry? Is that your motivation? Do you derive pleasure from your thinly veiled agression?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

What does that H. stand for, Jeffrey? Is there a reason you post anonymously? Scared of retribution from the people you try to push into a tantrum? You're an anonymous piece of crap, pal. I know your kind.

Keep pushing, psycho.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.


"Proof by assertion" has no place in science. I won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a priest, politician or philosopher, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by scientists.
Okay, that's not offensive at all, so just to keep things even, I similarly won't insult you by comparing your argument with that of a mentally incapacitated brain fart, but I would warn you not to adopt their methods if you want to be taken seriously by anybody but climate change skeptics and deniers.

You say my argument is wrong, so let's see what the opposite of my argument would look like:

"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."

Okay, you converted me. Now what?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Ladies, please moderate your language - unless you want me to.
Excuse me, miss, but I'm not a lady.

You're the worst moderator ever, one thinly veiled insult after another.

Is that why you became a moderator? To legitimize skeptic science and discredit people who know what they are talking about? To kick out people who have been environmentalists for three decades like me?

Get off your power trip and face reality. Burning stuff produces heat (fact), carbon dioxide released during that reaction helps trap that heat (fact).

End of story, but you go ahead and obfuscate some more. People already can't see the forest for the trees. It's the middle of Fall, I'm pointing out all the pretty colors, you're the guy saying, "No, this isn't a deciduous forest, that's clearly a pine tree over there."
« Last Edit: 29/03/2016 15:08:05 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."
Calm down, dear. Nobody said it doesn't add heat or carbon dioxide. All the adults did was calculate how much heat, and then you started throwing your toys out of the pram when they pointed out that it wasn't very much.
« Last Edit: 29/03/2016 17:21:06 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
But the evidence shows that carbon dioxide, whilst a convenient political scapegoat, is not the cause of climate change.
Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change, and extra carbon dioxide is but one manifestation of that process.

That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact.


Specifically, extra CO2 is the biggest aspect of it.
By quite a long way.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile

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

Read on from that and you will find that the entropy change for that reaction is negative.
Well, somebody's wrong. Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. Negative entropy is the opposite of entropy, and that's not supposed to be possible according to the 2nd Law. To create more order locally, you MUST increase entropy in the environment.

This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong. There's no way you're a chemist. You would understand this stuff better than an artist if you did. I didn't even take chemistry in college. I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist.


"Well, somebody's wrong."
Yes and that somebody is clearly you.

"I didn't even take chemistry in college."
It shows.
I know chemistry secondhand from studying biology and physics, but apparently that's enough to debate a pharmacologist."
How nice.
But I'm not a pharmacologist and it's clearly not enough to debate (successfully) with me because you keep getting  it wrong
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.
The earth isn't a closed system- so discussion of combustion here isn't actually up to the mark.

However you are still simply flat out wrong about entropy.
Here's the obvious proof
Either water or ice has a higher entropy than the other state- I don't even need to specify which.
Sometimes the melting of ice is spontaneous
Sometimes freezing is spontaneous.
So in one case or the other, the spontaneous change involves a decrease in entropy.
as Alan pointed out, you need to look further to get the whole story.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
And, once again, for the record, what you have failed to do is properly define the system under consideration.
The earth isn't a closed system- so discussion of combustion here isn't actually up to the mark.

However you are still simply flat out wrong about entropy.
Here's the obvious proof
Either water or ice has a higher entropy than the other state- I don't even need to specify which.
Sometimes the melting of ice is spontaneous
Sometimes freezing is spontaneous.
So in one case or the other, the spontaneous change involves a decrease in entropy.
as Alan pointed out, you need to look further to get the whole story.
False. There's nothing spontaneous about it if you have to either add heat (photons) to ice for it to melt, or remove photons from water to freeze it. If the environment is a stable temperature, no such changes will occur.

You're right, the earth is not a COMPLETELY closed system, but it can be "rounded off" to a closed system for practical purposes. Of course, the only way to escape earth is by rocket, meteorites occasionally get through, that's about it. Other than that, it is essentially a closed system. In fact, there really is no such thing as a 100% closed system, not even a box you perform combustion in, not even a black hole with its Schwarzchild radius, not even a cell with a cell wall, not even you with your skin, but those are still more or less "closed" systems to a degree, being separated in part from the rest of the environment, much like the earth is separated in part from space by an atmosphere.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming, nor is any carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in that process."
Calm down, dear. Nobody said it doesn't add heat or carbon dioxide. All the adults did was calculate how much heat, and then you started throwing your toys out of the pram when they pointed out that it wasn't very much.
Maybe you got hit in the head with a toy before you did your calculations. Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.

Again, I don't know why you guys feel the need to pick apart every argument I present. Here's my main point: Anthropogenic climate change is real, and is causing the planet to warm slightly. Nitpick all you like about my accuracy of the details, but you're not going to get me to change that point of view, ever. The fact remains that we are addicted to energy production, and that is NOT consequence free.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • 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.
I think YOU have the "first" and "second" problem. The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. That's just the order they wrote them down in. When you apply combustion to fossil fuels, the first and second laws take place simultaneously. Old particles are "annihilated" to "create" new ones in a single reaction. The combustion and the entropy aren't two separate things. The entropy is in the new collection of particles, which are more disordered and contain less energy than before.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.

"More than not very much" is indeed a mathematical statement, but your argument would have more scientific credibility if you used numbers instead of adjectives.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 259
    • View Profile
Maybe you got hit in the head with a toy before you did your calculations. Of course, I don't need to actually do any math or understand any physics to know that, when several billion people apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in a mere 150 years, that's going to produce more than "not very much" heat.

Not compared to the amount of heat from the sun over that 150 years.

Quote
Again, I don't know why you guys feel the need to pick apart every argument I present.

It's called science. Or in fact any accademic field. You have to use language carefully and when you are worng it will be pointed out. That's rigor for you. Allowing drivel to pass by unchallenged is to allow humanity to slide down to the days before the enlightenment when idiocy ruled.

Quote
Here's my main point: Anthropogenic climate change is real, and is causing the planet to warm slightly. Nitpick all you like about my accuracy of the details, but you're not going to get me to change that point of view, ever. The fact remains that we are addicted to energy production, and that is NOT consequence free.

We all completely agree with you there. There is nothing worng with that statement.

There is also nothing to worry about from the consequences of human produced CO2. At least as far as I can see.


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality.

But causality is all about sequence. If A occurs before B, then B cannot be the cause of A. Hence my deep skepticism of CO2 as a driver of climate.

People who think cause always precedes effect are called "normal". People who make exceptions to that rule are either treated as insane, or promoted to high places in the "environmental movement", from which they insult the sane by using words like "denier" instead of "thinker".

We sometimes come across spurious sequences - post hoc sed non propter hoc - but never ante hoc et propter hoc.

Nobody is picking apart your argument. You have made a number of assertions, some of which you have refused to support by calculation, and others that are contradicted by the data on which they are allegedly based.
« Last Edit: 30/03/2016 20:29:22 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance