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

  • 610 Replies
  • 58491 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Craig doesn't want a discussion because he already 'knows' he is right. How can you have a reasoned debate with a guy who so easily resorts to insults? Just make sure that you don't point out when you think he is wrong.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
If I was arguing with Craig  about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .
However he is unable to accept that he's wrong about other things.
He is, for example, still shrieking that he understands entropy.
Well, for a start it's not really relevant- not least because the sun/ Earth system isn't closed.
For an encore he has totally failed to grasp how stupid his choice of example was. (Nobody who understands it would choose to illustrate entropy with a reaction where the entropy change is exactly zero)

Even people with K-D syndrome will get something right by accident and in this case, he's one the right (or at least conventional) side of global warming.
But he's hopeless about anything else.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.

Please tell us which climate scientist thinks that the direct heat released by combustion is significant in global warming.

If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
I would bet money Bored Chemist has even less qualifications than you do. I can poke holes in his flimsy arguments, and I only have a passing knowledge of chemistry from studying biology and physics.
OK, lets have a look at that.
For a start, learn English before you criticise other's abilities.
You should have written "fewer qualifications" rather than "less qualifications ".

Then there's another question to address- why are you obsessed with qualifications? You have already said that you know people with formal qualifications who don't know what they are talking about. I told you to get a mirror.
Qualifications don't make people right or wrong, competently displayed evidence gets a lot closer and I have yet to see you do that.

And the final point is that, if you can pick holes in my arguments, please do so.
Thus far you have utterly failed. Indeed, as far as I can tell, you have not even understood them.

And just to reiterate; why did you choose a reaction with no entropy change to illustrate your "point" about entropy?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Here's one of the more polite ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Pleased to encounter another fan of Kruger and Dunning. Should be required reading for Her Majesty's Inspectorates. Perhaps Craig is a warranted inspector?

It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus, or why a consensus of experts, or if you will, the most knowledgeable people about a subject at the time, might be wrong. (We can quibble about whether it's the oft quoted 97% or somewhat less, but I think its fair to say a consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity has been a primary influence over global temperatures in the last 250 years. )

The  Dunning Kruger bias is more often an explanation for why outliers (which might describe your own position more than Craig's - just sayin')  believe something they do. It came up a lot during the GOP debates to explain how Ben Carson, graduate of Yale and chief of neurosurgery at John Hopkins and practicing surgeon for 3 decades, could reject evolution or modern cosmology.

The Dunning Kruger effect also comes up in explaining why a certain number of scientists or medical doctors become anti-vaccination or anti-gmo activists. The bias doesn't simply say "dumb people are too dumb to realize they are dumb."  People lacking expertise in an area underestimate their lack of knowledge, and those who are very competent in another area may be even more prone to do this. What's more, the skill set of intelligent or well educated people makes them particularly adept at rationalizing or defending beliefs they may hold for irrational reasons.

At anyrate I would pick another cognitive bias to attack Craig with or the majority of climate scientists he agrees with (perhaps Bandwagon effect?) If you are going to use the argument that alarming studies get more attention, most climatologists are corrupted by money and political pressure, or peer review journals are a joke, it does sound a little tin-foil-hatty, the equivalent in most science forum discussions of over-turning the chess board. 

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.

Please tell us which climate scientist thinks that the direct heat released by combustion is significant in global warming.

If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.

Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.

I think Tim is wrong.


(Is that clear enough?)
I am pretty much convinced that the temperature is rising; that this rise is largely due to the effect of  CO2 in the atmosphere; and that we are responsible for that CO2.

Tim's view (unless I have misunderstood it) differs, at least in part, from that. (and, just for the moment Tim, if I'm not utterly wrong about that, just leave it- we can get back to details later).

Where I agree with Tim is that the direct contribution from heat released by burning fossil fuel is tiny.
I pointed out ( a long while back) that it only corresponds to about 1/15000 of the heat we get from the sun.

In post 334 someone (Thanks Agyejy) actually calculated the effective change in temperature that it would give rise to- and it's small (about 0.05 degrees) so it can not possibly be the cause of global warming which is much bigger than that.

So, when Craig continues to protest that the direct effect of heating is what's important (and that Tim was wrong to say otherwise) I will cheerfully stick my oar in in favour of Tim.
Because the one thing that really doesn't help any discussion is someone talking nonsense- whichever side they are on.
Since then Craig has shown a remarkable capacity to get thing utterly wrong.
using a reaction with no entropy change to illustrate entropy is the clearest example perhaps, but there are plenty of others to chose from

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
It is a bit odd that you would pick Dunning Kruger bias to attack Craig with. It's not generally used to explain why people agree with the consensus

D & K demonstrated and explained a strong correlation between ignorance and arrogance, both of which appear to typify Craig's contributions here. Nothing to do with herd instinct or whatever else makes people prefer a consensus in the absence of conflicting data.

What interests me about this whole subject is why anyone supports a consensus in the face of facts.  It's the basis of religion, politics, antiscience, and practically every anthropogenic evil I can think of. I am not in the least concerned about Craig's affectation of DK syndrome, which has shed no light on the question at all, but he does seem to have a florid case of it.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Just two points of evidence.
So what is wrong or right about these analyses?

Initially, two points of evidence, good scientific practice in questioning the validity of the data, and some simple undergraduate physics.

1. I was first shown the Vostok ice core data about 10 years ago (at an alumni conference of the Cambridge Earth Sciences department, just in case Craig wants to play the academic qualifications game) and immediately noticed that the temperature graph was always ahead of the CO2 curve. Now in my universe, the cause always precedes the effect, so CO2 cannot have been the cause of temperature fluctuations. Subsequent published analyses have confirmed what was visually obvious.

2. Notwithstanding point 3 below, we do have some very reliable recent data from a single sampling point - Mauna Loa. The temperature curve shows a smooth continuous upward trend in recent years, but the CO2 curve, whilst its mean follows the temperature curve, shows an annual cyclic pattern that is a very regular sinusoid. Now if this reflected anthropogenic carbon dioxide, as you might expect, you would expect to find the maxima in winter when we burn more carbon fuels to keep warm. But it isn't. The maximum occurs in early summer, every year. This clearly implies that temperature drives carbon dioxide. 

3. I have always been skeptical of so-called recent historic data on global mean temperature, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere - the fact that nobody had visited the poles,let alone made any serious measurements of arctic and antarctic temperatures before 1900; the fact that nobody has ever defined "mean global surface temperature" when asked; the fact that frankly nobody even cared about accurate land surface temperature measurements before 1920; the increasing paucity of such data between 1945 and 1970; the almost complete absence of temperature measurements of the sea surface (75% of the globe), mountains, or deserts (another 20%), prior to 1970; the increasing heat island effect on what land surface measurements we do have; lack of international standardisation of meteorological thermometers before 1926; the extraordinary correlation of the  NOAA "adjustment" of recent data to the known CO2 concentration.... enough for the moment....In short, most of the "data" looks like guesswork massaged with presumptions.

4. In my undergraduate days we studied infrared absorption as part of physical stereochemistry and the quantum mechanics of chemical bonds. We learned (and calculated, and measured) that the O=C=O structure is a rigid cylinder with very few infrared excitation modes. At pretty much the same time (the 1960's) we began exploiting the IR transitions of CO2 to make very powerful lasers - simple and powerful precisely because CO2 has such a narrow IR spectrum. Water, by comparison, has an enormously broad IR absorption spectrum even as a monomer, and exists in the atmosphere as monomer, dimer, trimer and possibly hexamer gases, liquid, and several ice phases with different structures and spectra. Given that the hugely powerful greenhouse gas, H2O, comprises around 4% of the atmosphere, and the weakly absorbing CO2 less than 0.04%, and that the latent heat of evaporation and melting of water (both of which take place in the atmosphere) is responsible for almost all of the energy transport that we call weather(still with us, Craig? that's part of the international syllabus for pilots, and I scored 100% in the meteorology exam)  it does not seem at all reasonable to ascribe any significant change in global surface temperature to the IR spectum of CO2.

5. We also learned that the CO2 absorption spectrum is close to saturation at ground level: adding more CO2 will not affect the overall IR absorption or emission of the atmosphere: the "extinction" phenomenon is of course true for all absorbers of radiation and formed one of the bases of my subsequent studies (PhD (Warwick) in case Craig is still with us)  and career (Chartered Physicist, National Physical Laboratory, US Bureau of Standards, and now a few private companies - none involved in oil or coal) in radiation measurement of all sorts. Even in our schooldays we learned that warm air can contain more water than cold air, so if water vapor promotes heating or cooling, the effect has an inherent positive feedback until the air is either  desiccated (as over Antarctica) or forms clouds that cut off the solar input - a bounded chaotic oscillator, just like the Vostok record. 

So I'm just a teeny bit skeptical about any model that begins with the presumption that CO2 is the primary climate agent (particularly when the IPCC said, in its first report, that it isn't) and then tries to fit "adjusted" "data" to the known or presumed CO2 curve. My skepticism is enhanced each year when the dire predictions of those models turn out to be wrong.

The "technical aspects" outlined above can be summarised us: when studied carefully, the data does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of climate. And that's the historical problem with scapegoats: the goat hadn't sinned, so sacrificing it did not placate the gods.

Meanwhile the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and climate change is going to exacerbate humanity's selfimposed mess, so the sooner we stop bleating about a non-cause and start dealing  with the inescapable effect, the better. But the solution is politically unpalatable, so intergovernmental panels and treaties will continue to ignore the facts and blame the electorate for burning coal.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2016 10:34:50 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Anybody with an inkling of common sense should read what Alan wrote above.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
For the sake of an actual balanced accounting of the facts:

1. I was first shown the Vostok ice core data about 10 years ago (at an alumni conference of the Cambridge Earth Sciences department, just in case Craig wants to play the academic qualifications game) and immediately noticed that the temperature graph was always ahead of the CO2 curve. Now in my universe, the cause always precedes the effect, so CO2 cannot have been the cause of temperature fluctuations. Subsequent published analyses have confirmed what was visually obvious.

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.


Quote
2. Notwithstanding point 3 below, we do have some very reliable recent data from a single sampling point - Mauna Loa. The temperature curve shows a smooth continuous upward trend in recent years, but the CO2 curve, whilst its mean follows the temperature curve, shows an annual cyclic pattern that is a very regular sinusoid. Now if this reflected anthropogenic carbon dioxide, as you might expect, you would expect to find the maxima in winter when we burn more carbon fuels to keep warm. But it isn't. The maximum occurs in early summer, every year. This clearly implies that temperature drives carbon dioxide.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

So basically as above it is well known that temperature swings can impact the rate at which CO2 enters and leaves the atmosphere via the oceans. This completely explains the seasonal fluctuations about the mean of the CO2 curve. If anything it supports the fact that climate scientists clearly understand the carbon cycle and how it is related to various climatic parameters.

Quote
3. I have always been skeptical of so-called recent historic data on global mean temperature, for reasons rehearsed elsewhere - the fact that nobody had visited the poles,let alone made any serious measurements of arctic and antarctic temperatures before 1900; the fact that nobody has ever defined "mean global surface temperature" when asked; the fact that frankly nobody even cared about accurate land surface temperature measurements before 1920; the increasing paucity of such data between 1945 and 1970; the almost complete absence of temperature measurements of the sea surface (75% of the globe), mountains, or deserts (another 20%), prior to 1970; the increasing heat island effect on what land surface measurements we do have; lack of international standardisation of meteorological thermometers before 1926; the extraordinary correlation of the  NOAA "adjustment" of recent data to the known CO2 concentration.... enough for the moment....In short, most of the "data" looks like guesswork massaged with presumptions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

In short the analysis of global mean temperature has been done by several independent groups using the same data sets as the three main temperature reconstructions, completely independent temperature records, and known temperature proxies that have a well characterized link to global temperature. The results are mathematically identical. Given that independent groups analyzing the same data and completely independent measures of the same quantity came to the same conclusions it is highly unlikely that the warming trend can be ascribed to any non-climatic factors.

Quote
4. In my undergraduate days we studied infrared absorption as part of physical stereochemistry and the quantum mechanics of chemical bonds. We learned (and calculated, and measured) that the O=C=O structure is a rigid cylinder with very few infrared excitation modes. At pretty much the same time (the 1960's) we began exploiting the IR transitions of CO2 to make very powerful lasers - simple and powerful precisely because CO2 has such a narrow IR spectrum. Water, by comparison, has an enormously broad IR absorption spectrum even as a monomer, and exists in the atmosphere as monomer, dimer, trimer and possibly hexamer gases, liquid, and several ice phases with different structures and spectra. Given that the hugely powerful greenhouse gas, H2O, comprises around 4% of the atmosphere, and the weakly absorbing CO2 less than 0.04%, and that the latent heat of evaporation and melting of water (both of which take place in the atmosphere) is responsible for almost all of the energy transport that we call weather(still with us, Craig? that's part of the international syllabus for pilots, and I scored 100% in the meteorology exam)  it does not seem at all reasonable to ascribe any significant change in global surface temperature to the IR spectum of CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Water is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 but crucially it is often at or near its saturation point. The reason we have clouds and rain being specifically that water vapor has reached the saturation point (actually the air is usually supersaturated before clouds form) and precipitated out of the air. More specifically the fact that water is stable as a liquid (or solid) at most temperatures and pressure found to naturally occur on the surface of the Earth the atmospheric concentration is limited via the vapour pressure to somewhere in the 4% range. What this means is that if the atmosphere starts warming for some other reason that increase in temperature is going to increase the saturation point of water which is going to increase the warming effect that water has on the atmosphere. This is called a positive feedback and is well known by climatologists. The flip side of this is that since CO2 is largely not stable as either a liquid or a gas at basically any naturally occurring surface temperatures and pressures on the Earth it is theoretically possible to have an arbitrarily large CO2 concentration. So unlike water vapour concentration which is largely controlled by temperature and pressure CO2 concentration is only limited by the net rate at which CO2 enters the atmosphere.

Quote
5. We also learned that the CO2 absorption spectrum is close to saturation at ground level: adding more CO2 will not affect the overall IR absorption or emission of the atmosphere: the "extinction" phenomenon is of course true for all absorbers of radiation and formed one of the bases of my subsequent studies (PhD (Warwick) in case Craig is still with us)  and career (Chartered Physicist, National Physical Laboratory, US Bureau of Standards, and now a few private companies) in radiation measurement of all sorts. Even in our schooldays we learned that warm air can contain more water than cold air, so if water vapor promotes heating or cooling, the effect has an inherent positive feedback until the air is either  desiccated (as over Antarctica) or forms clouds that cut off the solar input - a bounded chaotic oscillator, just like the Vostok record. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

So it turns out surface CO2 concentration only actually matters in that it is a sign that CO2 concentration is increasing higher in the atmosphere. Also, while the strong absorption band of CO2 is nearly saturated there are many weaker sidebands which are not and while individually the may be weak together their impact is important. It should also be noted that even in the strong absorption band increasing concentration does still have an impact because the band cutoff is more gaussian than rigid. This means that as you increase the concentration the width of the absorption band over which meaningful absorption takes places increases even if the amount of absorption at the center of the band has saturated.

Quote
So I'm just a teeny bit skeptical about any model that begins with the presumption that CO2 is the primary climate agent (particularly when the IPCC said, in its first report, that it isn't) and then tries to fit "adjusted" "data" to the known or presumed CO2 curve. My skepticism is enhanced each year when the dire predictions of those models turn out to be wrong.

The "technical aspects" outlined above can be summarised us: when studied carefully, the data does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the driver of climate. And that's the historical problem with scapegoats: the goat hadn't sinned, so sacrificing it did not placate the gods.

Meanwhile the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and climate change is going to exacerbate humanity's selfimposed mess, so the sooner we stop bleating about a non-cause and start dealing  with the inescapable effect, the better. But the solution is politically unpalatable, so intergovernmental panels and treaties will continue to ignore the facts and blame the electorate for burning coal.

I am sure answers to any lingering questions anyone might have can be found at the following link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

Oh and as an interesting aside there is also this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

Which shows my earlier very crude estimate of human waste heat on global temperatures was at least a factor of 10 too high.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
completely independent temperature records, and known temperature proxies that have a well characterized link to global temperature. The results are mathematically identical.

I'm impressed by your research.

Please give us a reference to the three independent pre-1900 trans-Antarctic survey records, the corresponding pre-1900 trans-Arctic records, the matching data from the Sahara, Amazon Basin, Manitoba and Gobi, and any three independent data sets from the entire Pacific ocean surface that predate the industrial revolution.

Please cite a temperature proxy that is not also a CO2 proxy.

Please define "global temperature".

I do not find it in the least surprising that independent groups, starting  with the same data and the same assumptions, end up with the same model, however dubious the data and assumptions. However when the model fails by more than its error bars to predict the next finding, or explain the observed historic phase shifts, it does rather cast doubt on the validity of the entire process.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
An interesting mental exercise is to ask the question, what would happen if we took away all the water from the earth. Say we have a waterless earth, but leave the atmosphere with the current CO2. This will allows us to isolate the impact of the water on global climate and weather.

If we took away the water, you would no longer have to worry about hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms, floods and any type of storm  event; tornado, that comes from water based clouds. We won't have to worry about El Nino and La Nina affects, which originate in the oceans.

The loss of the water, will alter the thermal capacity of the earth's surface; goes down. This loss will cause higher thermal swings between day and night, as well as summer to winter. Without water in the atmosphere, there are no clouds to reflect the sun or help the earth retain surface heat.

If the surface water was not there to absorb and release heat, less heat would be transferred via oceans based currents. The need for heat transfer will be done mostly by the atmospheres. But the atmosphere can't move as much heat, due to their lower thermal capacity, unless air speed gets super high.

The lack of water, will impact all of life. There will be no photosynthesis, since the two reactants are water and CO2. This means the production of oxygen will stop. The result will be the partial pressure of the oxygen decreasing over time, as oxygen reacts with the surface to form oxides, but is not replaced. With less and less O2 in the atmosphere, we cant form new CO2. We will also lose the ozone layer, allowing more and more UV to enter the earth. CO2 can be broken down wth short wave UV back to CO, O, O2, C. Loss of O2 may shift the CO2 equilibrium back to O2.

I am not sure how one can ignore water, since it is the straw that stirs the global weather drink. The lack of water based disccuson and the fixation on CO2, shows there is a gap in knowledge.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2016 13:49:28 by puppypower »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
This completely explains the seasonal fluctuations about the mean of the CO2 curve.

Well it would if the CO2 curve peaked in July-August, when sea temperature is maximal, but it actually peaks in May-June. But don't let the facts spoil a good argument!

I apologize for the mistake. Sea temperature changes don't completely explain the seasonal CO2 fluctuations. I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes. Thus shifting the peak CO2 concentrations back a few months remembering the competition between the ocean sink and the plant sink along with general response lag keeps the CO2 concentration from exactly matching to the date any seasonal cycle that drives changes in CO2 concentration.

Quote
Please give us a reference to the three independent pre-1900 trans-Antarctic survey records, the corresponding pre-1900 trans-Arctic records, the matching data from the Sahara, Amazon Basin, Manitoba and Gobi, and any three independent data sets from the entire Pacific ocean surface that predate the industrial revolution.

Please cite a temperature proxy that is not also a CO2 proxy.


The links I gave are generally fairly well referenced (especially any that have an intermediate or advanced tab).

For reference there are three major reconstructions of monthly global mean surface temperature and they use data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).
https://data.noaa.gov/dataset/global-historical-climatology-network-daily-ghcn-daily-version-3

There are other reconstructions using other data. For example:

https://data.noaa.gov/dataset/global-surface-summary-of-the-day-gsod <-- Maintained by the USAF looking at the station map of the GSOD vs the GHCN (found at the links provided) clearly indicate that the two data sets are independent of each other. As per this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Reconstructions done with the GSOD are mathematically identical (i.e. agree within a relatively small uncertainty) to the reconstructions done with the GHCN. These reconstructions were done by Ron Broberg and Nick Stokes (a software engineer and all I could find about Stokes was that he has a blog). So not in anyway part of organizations that did the major reconstructions nor actually paid for the climate research and therefore have no sane motives fudging the data.

Here is another:
Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades.


and another:
Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
Reanalysis data sets also show the same warming trend.  A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations.  Reanalysis comparisons by Vose et al. (2012) and Compo et al. (2013) find nearly identical global surface warming trends as in the instrumental record (Figure 8).
Links to the cited papers can be found on the cited page.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054271/epdf <-- Here is the paper that used proxies. Based on the descriptions of the proxies I'd say a good number of them are either independent of CO2 or dependent on CO2 in a different ways which would average out over the large set of proxies used (173).

Quote
Please define "global temperature".

I suppose to be exact I should have said global mean temperature or monthly global mean temperature to be even more precise. It should be fairly obvious how one goes about calculating the mean of all temperatures on the Earth over the period of a month. It takes a lot of addition and some division but computers are good at that.

Quote
I do not find it in the least surprising that independent groups, starting  with the same data and the same assumptions, end up with the same model, however dubious the data and assumptions.

As above there are several independent data sets showing the same trend. Additionally different groups approached the GHCN data using different data analysis techniques, assumptions and models. There are even comparisons between adjusted and unadjusted data that show the same trend in both. All of this can be found in the following link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Quote
However when the model fails by more than its error bars to predict the next finding, or explain the observed historic phase shifts, it does rather cast doubt on the validity of the entire process.

I believe the latter point is now firmly addressed with the correction of my earlier misstatement. As for the former I'm not sure what precisely you are referencing but this may help:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Also I have to point out that the research largely isn't mine as I am using one website.

Quote from: puppypower
An interesting mental exercise is to ask the question, what would happen if we took away all the water from the earth. Say we have a waterless earth, but leave the atmosphere with the current CO2. This will allows us to isolate the impact of the water on global climate and weather.

If we took away the water, you would no longer have to worry about hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms, floods and any type of storm  event; tornado, that comes from water based clouds. We won't have to worry about El Nino and La Nina affects, which originate in the oceans.

The loss of the water, will alter the thermal capacity of the earth's surface; goes down. This loss will cause higher thermal swings between day and night, as well as summer to winter. Without water in the atmosphere, there are no clouds to reflect the sun or help the earth retain surface heat.

If the surface water was not there to absorb and release heat, less heat would be transferred via oceans based currents. The need for heat transfer will be done mostly by the atmospheres. But the atmosphere can't move as much heat, due to their lower thermal capacity, unless air speed gets super high.

The lack of water, will impact all of life. There will be no photosynthesis, since the two reactants are water and CO2. This means the production of oxygen will stop. The result will be the partial pressure of the oxygen decreasing over time, as oxygen reacts with the surface to form oxides, but is not replaced. With less and less O2 in the atmosphere, we cant form new CO2. We will also lose the ozone layer, allowing more and more UV to enter the earth. CO2 can be broken down wth short wave UV back to CO, O, O2, C. Loss of O2 may shift the CO2 equilibrium back to O2.

I am not sure how one can ignore water, since it is the straw that stirs the global weather drink. The lack of water based disccuson and the fixation on CO2, shows there is a gap in knowledge.

You seem to be laboring under a misconception about what climatologist actually include in their models. As per my citation in the previous post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Here are some quotes from the intermediate version of the explanation:

Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

It should be very clear that water is not being ignored by climatologists and in fact is a large part of their models.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
D & K demonstrated and explained a strong correlation between ignorance and arrogance, both of which appear to typify Craig's contributions here. Nothing to do with herd instinct or whatever else makes people prefer a consensus in the absence of conflicting data.

What interests me about this whole subject is why anyone supports a consensus in the face of facts.  It's the basis of religion, politics, antiscience, and practically every anthropogenic evil I can think of. I am not in the least concerned about Craig's affectation of DK syndrome, which has shed no light on the question at all, but he does seem to have a florid case of it.
Nonsense, because when I was younger and lived in Texas, I DID follow the herd instinct, and was a climate change skeptic. Now I have enough of a science background to know better. Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.

The purpose of the IPCC is to evaluate the state of climate science on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature.

Got anything peer reviewed or published? No, you've just got a bunch of argumenta ab auctoritate in a public forum full of laymen.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Craig doesn't want a discussion because he already 'knows' he is right. How can you have a reasoned debate with a guy who so easily resorts to insults? Just make sure that you don't point out when you think he is wrong.
Wrong. I do know that the 97% of climate scientists who agree with one another know more about this than you, dill hole.

How can I have a reasoned debate with a guy who doesn't know what he is talking about?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
We also happen to know that no such orbital forcing is occurring today thus the current rise in CO2 is not only because of us but is also doing exactly what it was always known to do. It just so happens that this time the instigating cause is different.
Yes, thank you.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
It should be very clear that water is not being ignored by climatologists and in fact is a large part of their models.
Yes, thank you.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
If I was arguing with Craig  about global warming, you would have a point. He and I actually essentially agree on that .
However he is unable to accept that he's wrong about other things.
He is, for example, still shrieking that he understands entropy.
Well, for a start it's not really relevant- not least because the sun/ Earth system isn't closed.
For an encore he has totally failed to grasp how stupid his choice of example was. (Nobody who understands it would choose to illustrate entropy with a reaction where the entropy change is exactly zero)
Global warming IS entropy, flat earther. Heat and carbon dioxide used to be in concentrated forms like coal deposits and oil reserves. We have now dissipated that heat and carbon dioxide into the environment. That's entropy. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to school, and try to learn this information correctly next time.

I never said the earth is a 100% closed system. I said it is an ESSENTIALLY closed system, and compared it to you and your friends burning logs in a tightly closed room with a single window that stays open 1/16 of an inch. There's a limit to how much of the extra heat we produce actually escapes into space, especially since we're adding CO2 at the same time, increasing the atmosphere's insulative properties.

Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Again in the interest of balanced debate I relink this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

To quote a relevant section:
Quote
When humans use energy, it gives off heat. Whenever we burn fossil fuels, heat is emitted. This heat doesn't just disappear - it dissipates into our environment. How much does waste heat contribute to global warming? This has been calculated in Flanner 2009 (if you want to read the full paper, access details are posted here). Flanner contributes that the contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Waste heat is about 1% of greenhouse warming.

So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.
I am trying to keep this simple.

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels produces both heat and carbon dioxide.

SOMETHING about that is causing anthropogenic climate change.

Can we at least agree on that?? Unlike some other discussions I had with you at physforum.com, I appreciate your comments this time. However, I don't care so much about nitpicking the details. I'm concerned about the overall trend.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2016 15:44:18 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
So going by those numbers if the measured warming is 0.8 °C only 0.008 °C came from waste heat which is well below the level that it can be measured. The generation of waste heat is simply not currently relevant to climate change.
I am trying to keep this simple.

Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels produces both heat and carbon dioxide.

SOMETHING about that is causing anthropogenic climate change.

Can we at least agree on that?? Unlike some other discussions I had with you at physforum.com, I appreciate your comments this time. However, I don't care so much about nitpicking the details. I'm concerned about the overall trend.

How is ignoring variables that have no actually measurable impact less simple than including them? If you include them you complicate the math and the explanations bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference. That just doesn't seem simpler to me at all. Also, we have fairly conclusive evidence the CO2 is the source of anthropogenic climate change from models that completely ignore human waste heat. Why should we complicate those preexisting models with extra parameters that have no measurable impact on the results? The trend clearly comes from the CO2 and any correlation to total human energy use is because a majority of our energy use also results in the release of CO2.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
How is ignoring variables that have no actually measurable impact less simple than including them? If you include them you complicate the math and the explanations bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference. That just doesn't seem simpler to me at all. Also, we have fairly conclusive evidence the CO2 is the source of anthropogenic climate change from models that completely ignore human waste heat. Why should we complicate those preexisting models with extra parameters that have no measurable impact on the results? The trend clearly comes from the CO2 and any correlation to total human energy use is because a majority of our energy use also results in the release of CO2.
I don't know how to explain this to you any differently than I already have, so let me repeat my stance.

I am a layman, not an actual scientist. On the other hand, I've been interested in studying science in some capacity at least since the 4th grade, when free issues of Current Science handed out in class got me interested in things like black holes and DNA. That was the 1978-1979 school year. After that, I took every math and science course possible in Rock Springs, Wyoming and Merkel, Texas in Junior High and High School, graduating with honors. Maybe that's not saying much, but since then, I've LITERALLY read hundreds of pounds of books and magazines on science, and I even took 8 hours of Biology for Majors and 8 hours of introductory Physics as electives in college to supplement my knowledge. Sure, I got a different degree, but I did quite well in those courses.

Now, in order to keep things simple for laymen that don't even have as much scientific background as me, I like to frame this argument in simple terms that anyone can easily understand, such as the statement, "Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels creates a great deal of heat and releases a great deal of carbon dioxide. The NET effect of that is a slight warming of the Earth's atmosphere." As you can clearly see, I did NOT "complicate the math and the explanations, bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference" as you stated above. I don't do that, until people like you force me to, like when you brought up 3D earthquake propagation in reference to the 2D wave mechanics of photons in Thebox's black hole thread.

At any rate, as I've said before, I didn't learn my science incorrectly. Yet, I have one group of people attacking me, saying the heat we produce from burning fossil fuels is negligible compared to the Sun's energy, and I have another group of people attacking me, saying the carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere in doing so has a negligible insulative effect compared to things like an eccentric orbit or the Sun drifting through a warmer part of the galaxy.

Somehow, the NET arguments of your camp and the other camp seems to imply that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels really doesn't add up to much of a difference at all. Somebody is wrong, and it isn't me. All I'm saying is that the heat and the carbon dioxide are ultimately important in the equation to some degree, though I couldn't say for exact certainty what percentage is largest by how much, nor do scientists themselves even completely agree on that. Of course, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy and carbon dioxide is an experiment that has never been performed before, so we don't know exactly what to expect.

I don't see how your arguments will convince people we need to stop applying combustion to so much fossil fuel. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying SOMEBODY is, because SOMETHING is responsible, and that something most likely comes from combustion on a massive scale, so you guys need to stop picking apart my general argument, the statement I put in quotation marks several sentences back, because it is generally correct, and you are smart enough to recognize that.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2016 17:40:55 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
I think the people arguing in the forum are the type of people who "can't see the forest for the trees." Not to sound egotistical, but I think I might actually understand things better than some real scientists because they are highly specialized, which narrows their view. For example, Bored Chemist claims he spent 10 years studying hydrology, while I claim to understand the basics of chemistry, biology and physics in general.

The "basics" here that relates the chemistry, physics and biology are this: Sunlight is headed toward earth. It could hit the ground and warm the earth's surface, or it could hit a leaf. That provides shade. That leaves the surface of the earth cooler.

Where did that heat go? That "heat" was the "photon" of physics, a "particle" of energy. If it hit the ground, it would have made a particle of something in the ground vibrate a little faster, and when a lot of photons are absorbed by the ground, or asphalt, or a building, it gets warm in much the same way as you would bombard water molecules in food with a specific microwave photon that makes water molecules vibrate, heating your food with the energy that provides.

In comes biology/chemistry. That photon is stored by photosynthesis. The plant's leaf doesn't "get hot" and burn up from the photons striking it. Chlorophyll molecules have a magnesium atom in the middle, which absorbs photons. The energy is then used to build molecules that store energy. That's what make eating sugar a source of energy. When your body breaks down the molecule, the energy of the photon is released in you. In fact, your body can use that same photon energy it got from the sugar to build a completely different molecule that stores energy in a different form, like fat.

Now, when ancient forests or dead dinosaurs get covered with sediment and turn to oil and coal deposits, that stored solar energy is still in there. When we apply combustion to those fossil fuels, instead of using that energy to power our bodies, eating dinosaur fat or ancient plant leaves, we release that ancient energy to perform work, to power factories, our homes and the economy. Instead of keeping our body temperature at 98.6 degrees, those calories instead make the planet and the atmosphere a bit warmer.

Remember the shady spots under trees? Ancient forests provided a lot of shade and kept the planet cool hundreds of millions of years ago. When we apply combustion to coal deposits, we are quite literally taking the heat that could have made that shady spot warm and letting it do so today.

Getting back to "being able to see the forest for the trees," if we were planting trees on a massive scale, allowing them to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and shade the ground from the Sun's relentless heat, rather than chopping them down to accommodate cities full of CO2-releasing cars and grazing land full of methane-emitting cows, Radiative Forcing would be far less of an issue.

The disappearance of forest lands coinciding with mass production of the automobile and changes in the global diet overall is both CAUSAL and CORRELATED in this context, to use a couple of words Boring Chemist is fond of.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2016 18:28:30 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

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

I wish this discussion hadn't dissolved into insults. I was getting interested.
If fools are allowed to peddle complete drivel without challenge then we will be back to the age of ignorance. It is necessary to show that there are right answers and all others are wrong.
[/quote]
Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.

I think Tim is wrong.


(Is that clear enough?)
I am pretty much convinced that the temperature is rising; that this rise is largely due to the effect of  CO2 in the atmosphere; and that we are responsible for that CO2.

Tim's view (unless I have misunderstood it) differs, at least in part, from that. (and, just for the moment Tim, if I'm not utterly wrong about that, just leave it- we can get back to details later).[I will reply because this is the best bit of this thread so far! It might get to be an actual debate;]

Where I agree with Tim is that the direct contribution from heat released by burning fossil fuel is tiny.
I pointed out ( a long while back) that it only corresponds to about 1/15000 of the heat we get from the sun.

In post 334 someone (Thanks Agyejy) actually calculated the effective change in temperature that it would give rise to- and it's small (about 0.05 degrees) so it can not possibly be the cause of global warming which is much bigger than that.

So, when Craig continues to protest that the direct effect of heating is what's important (and that Tim was wrong to say otherwise) I will cheerfully stick my oar in in favour of Tim.
Because the one thing that really doesn't help any discussion is someone talking nonsense- whichever side they are on.
Since then Craig has shown a remarkable capacity to get thing utterly wrong.
using a reaction with no entropy change to illustrate entropy is the clearest example perhaps, but there are plenty of others to chose from
[/quote]

I don't know by how much CO2 is the cause of warming. I think it's some but not that much, but that is not all that important. What is important is what effects there are likely to be.

Given that the predictions from the hockey stick graph came out in 1998 and form the basis of the IPCC's predictions (or there abouts) and that since then there has been a lot less warming, well none measurable, than was expected despite the higher than expected CO2 levels surely we can say that the top half of the IPCC's predictions is not going to happen.

Currently tens of millions of people are dying each year due to unnecessarily high food prices. Those will be from the poorest couple of billion people on the earth.

The next couple of billion people are being forced to pay the extra 70% for food that we all pay due to the use of food as fuel. For me it's not significant. I'm very rich in a global scale. All of us on this forum are. But to take away any chance of many people sending their children to school because they cannot afford to due to having spent all their income on food or to deny them the ability to save up for simple cataract surgery forthe same reason is evil unless there is a very compelling case for it.

I would like to see that case.

This is in the hope that a rational discussion can emerge from this noisy mess.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
So what is wrong or right about these analyses? I am genuinely trying to get a better grasp of the evidence you feel the consensus is ignoring or misinterpreting. Politics aside, there must be some technical aspect that is the crux of the disagreement. I realize this sounds like a blatant appeal to authority, but the worlds climatologists can't just be entirely pulling this out of their ass.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

The science of what wavelengths of IR are absorbed by CO2 or if they have already been done by water is beyond me. And I don't care because I don't see it as important to the real debate.

What do you feel is the most serrious threat from global warming?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Your last statement is the least scientific of all. There is no reaction where entropy is exactly zero, or we would have to throw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the garbage.
No; we would simply need to learn to understand it.
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKI
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."

and, since the reaction you cited is perfectly reversible it has an entropy change of exactly zero.
And, if you actually understood the nature of entropy, you would have understood that earlier and not tried to use that reaction as an illustration of entropy.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile
Apparently, you can't recognize the herd instinct being displayed by you, Tim the Plumber, Bored Chemist and Puppy Power. Your little group of mavericks stand in opposition to consensus based on data.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension generally, or is it just here?
You seem desperate to lump me in with Tim et al even though I have made it as clear as I can that I disagree with almost all of what they say.

That's why I think it's some sort of cognitive defect- like the D-K effect.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile


Lets be clear about this.
As far as I can tell, Tim and I fundamentally disagree about anthropogenic global warming.

I think Tim is wrong.

(Is that clear enough?)

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Now, in order to keep things simple for laymen that don't even have as much scientific background as me, I like to frame this argument in simple terms that anyone can easily understand, such as the statement, "Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels creates a great deal of heat and releases a great deal of carbon dioxide. The NET effect of that is a slight warming of the Earth's atmosphere." As you can clearly see, I did NOT "complicate the math and the explanations, bringing a whole bunch of science you wouldn't otherwise have to reference" as you stated above. I don't do that, until people like you force me to, like when you brought up 3D earthquake propagation in reference to the 2D wave mechanics of photons in Thebox's black hole thread.

This is very wrong thing to do for several reasons:

1) As this thread demonstrates it is remarkably easy to prove that waste heat are negligible. Therefore using this argument is nothing but an open invitation to be debunked by your opponent. Thus your credibility is diminished and your entire argument is weakened.

2) If you know the argument isn't actually correct and still use it you are being less than completely honest. In general people will see it as inherently unethical which again is bad for your argument as a whole.

3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Quote
At any rate, as I've said before, I didn't learn my science incorrectly. Yet, I have one group of people attacking me, saying the heat we produce from burning fossil fuels is negligible compared to the Sun's energy, and I have another group of people attacking me, saying the carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere in doing so has a negligible insulative effect compared to things like an eccentric orbit or the Sun drifting through a warmer part of the galaxy.

Sometimes you just have to accept that people are jerks and not get upset when the say/do jerky things to you or in your general direction. It just isn't worth the mental or physical energy.

Quote
Somehow, the NET arguments of your camp and the other camp seems to imply that applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels really doesn't add up to much of a difference at all. Somebody is wrong, and it isn't me. All I'm saying is that the heat and the carbon dioxide are ultimately important in the equation to some degree, though I couldn't say for exact certainty what percentage is largest by how much, nor do scientists themselves even completely agree on that. Of course, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy and carbon dioxide is an experiment that has never been performed before, so we don't know exactly what to expect.

In this case there is no such thing as a net argument in the sense you seem to be using the term. Either anthropogenic climate change is happening due to CO2 or it isn't happening. It can be clearly demonstrated that the impact of waste heat is inconsequential while the impact of extra CO2 heat absorption is a major driving force of climate change through various feedback loops the most prominent of which is H20 concentrations. Every scientists agrees about exactly how much waste heat humanity generates because it is very easy to measure and therefore there is nothing to dispute about how much warming can be accounted for by waste heat once the numbers have been run.

Quote
I don't see how your arguments will convince people we need to stop applying combustion to so much fossil fuel. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying SOMEBODY is, because SOMETHING is responsible, and that something most likely comes from combustion on a massive scale, so you guys need to stop picking apart my general argument, the statement I put in quotation marks several sentences back, because it is generally correct, and you are smart enough to recognize that.

The logic is simple. Combustion of fossil fuels increases CO2 concentration and that drives several climatic feedback loops that increase the temperature of the planet. Doesn't get much simpler than that really. If someone brings up waste heat you just say it is too small to account for the observed trends and point to some reference like Skeptical Science.

The biggest issue is not if I or anyone else here is smart enough to recognize what is and isn't correct about your statement. There are two major issues and the first is that you are giving the climate science deniers an easy target that weakens the entire climate change argument. The second is that some impressionable proponent of climate change could pick up your argument and use it somewhere else without realizing that it is technically incorrect and easily refutable. Said proponent will have no way to defend his statements and at best damage the overall climate change argument. At worst finding themselves defeated our hypothetical proponent might find themselves convinced into being a denier because after all that seemingly logical argument they read supporting climate change was so obviously wrong. This worst case scenario is very very bad for climate science. On the whole of it allowing arguments that are only partially correct and generally weak to persist only weakens the arguments for climate change. These weak/incorrect arguments need to be jettisoned as soon as possible.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.

I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.

I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.


For starters I've personally never considered the word denier as a pejorative term. Certainly I see no direct connection between the act of denying something and dishonesty. As far as I am aware a denier simply says that some statement is not true and there is nothing beyond that. I also certainly didn't imply anyone here was a denier. If we accept denier as a pejorative term certainly there is room on your side of the debate for those who share your views on climate change but are less than civil just as there is on my side. I certainly didn't mean for anyone to take umbrage at my remarks which should be rather clear from my rather reasoned tone.

Now seeing as you clearly have negative associations concerning the word denier I am willing to make an effort to use the word skeptic. Unless, that is, you have reasons to dislike that word as well. In which case I would have to ask you to provide me an acceptable term as those two words pretty much deplete my thesaural reserves in relation to this particular subject and I am not very keen of proceeding via trial and error.

I do wish to apologize again if I accidently gave you the impression I thought you were being dishonest or lying. That was absolutely not my attention although I do feel the need to point out that your reaction seems perhaps a bit on the harsh side. Not that we all haven't been guilty of that from time to time. It is always good to be reminded that everyone here is a human. That is unless AI has advanced much further than the public has been told.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
. I neglected the fact that the growth of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (and thereby the world due to a disproportionate area of land being in the northern hemisphere) increases through July and August causing a massive uptick in carbon absorption which is less correlated with temperature changes.
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.

Quote
What about satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere? There are two widely cited analyses of temperature trends from the MSU sensor on NOAA's polar orbiting earth observation satellites, one from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and one from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). These data only go back to 1979, but they do provide a good comparison to the surface temperature data over the past three decades.
I agree entirely - at least up to the point where NOAA keep "adjusting" the satellite data until it fits the hypothesis! There is plenty of good raw data since 1979. My point is that there is almost none of any value before 1920, and even the period 1920 - 1970 is mostly derived from airfields near habitation. The problem is that we have no truly global temperature data before 1979, just lots of proxies and models, all using the same implicit or explicit assumption that CO2 drives temperature. Only a fool would deny that climate changes, but the prevailing consensus of why it changes has no foundation in observation.



Quote
I suppose to be exact I should have said global mean temperature or monthly global mean temperature to be even more precise. It should be fairly obvious how one goes about calculating the mean of all temperatures on the Earth over the period of a month. It takes a lot of addition and some division but computers are good at that.
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Quote
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.

Quote
But according to academic phenological studies and most farmers, growth is maximal in May-June. July and August are times for ripening, not growing.

Actually generally speaking photosynthetic rates peak around late June to early July. As shown here:

http://www.gvsu.edu/rmsc/interchange/2013-september-connections-795.htm <-- you have to scroll a little

So at best you'd call the peak as in June-July. My bad I was slightly off. Add a couple of weeks to account for the time it will take the atmosphere to start responding (anyone that has used a PID system to control sample temperature knows the pain of delayed responses) and another couple of weeks for the changes to actually make it to Hawaii (all reasonable verifiable corrections) and you begin to see the causation. With something as big as the atmosphere it is clearly unrealistic to expect changes to propagate throughout its entirety instantaneously. There is also the competing impact of seasonal temperature fluctuations causing fluctuating amounts of CO2 to dissolve in the ocean which would clearly impact when the minimum occurs.

Quote
I agree entirely - at least up to the point where NOAA keep "adjusting" the satellite data until it fits the hypothesis! There is plenty of good raw data since 1979. My point is that there is almost none of any value before 1920, and even the period 1920 - 1970 is mostly derived from airfields near habitation. The problem is that we have no truly global temperature data before 1979, just lots of proxies and models, all using the same implicit or explicit assumption that CO2 drives temperature. Only a fool would deny that climate changes, but the prevailing consensus of why it changes has no foundation in observation.

All of this was addressed in the links I provided in the previous post. If you are not going to read the evidence your opposition provides then I have no choice but to question if you are actually willing to be convinced. Also, pretty much all the raw data is publically available in databases (some of which I linked). If you disagree with the methods of analysis you are free to do it for yourself starting from the raw data.

Quote
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
As long as those points are sufficiently spaced out they can still be a representative sample of the Earth's mean temperature. I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm[/i]]http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm shows a graph (fig 3) of allegedly measured global mean land surface temperatures since 1900, several years before anyone had actually measured anything inland in Antarctica - or indeed even been further south than the Antarctic coast. Which makes one wonder. "The mean of all the data you have" is not "the mean of what is actually happening", if you know that 20% of the data, itself known to be very different from the mean, is completely absent from your data set. Why 20%? Well it depends on your definition of "land": the north polar ice cap is solid surface, almost equally unexplored in 1900, and the source of much of the continental surface wind in the northern hemisphere, so  it's important.... And according to Shackleton and his colleagues, even the antarctic coastal winters around 1900 - 1917 were exceptionally cold compared with records from previous expeditions.

I'm impressed by the very close fit of all the curves, particularly given the apparent "noise". I wonder why there are such short, sharp peaks in a curve that is the average of several thousand data points, each one the average of at least twelve 2-hourly readings, of a system with enormous thermal inertia? What happened between 1957 and 1960?

The correlation between the different models suggests that either the "noise" is telling us something about the underlying mechanism, or the models are not, in fact, statistically independent. I dimly recall using chi-square analysis to review data where the fit was "too good to be true", and usually led to a discovering a fault in the measuring apparatus, but I think we can assume that umpteen thousand individual thermometers should give us a credible random sample at any moment, so what do you think is going on?       

It's a fascinating subject, and it's good to discuss at last with someone who thinks rather than shouts about it, but it's taking up too much of my time right now. I'll be back in a couple of days, and look forward to continuing!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 257
    • View Profile
3) As a proponent of climate change weakening your argument in the ways described above weakens the arguments of all proponents of climate change. Deniers will use you as an anecdote to demonstrate the bad science of climate change. That argument is laughably refutable but the point is that it is something a proponent of climate change should never have to address in the first place.

Given that you say you don't like the lying bit would you please point out who has denied any science here.

I ask this as I am sure that I have been part of the group you would describe thus. I feel extremely afronted by the accusation of dishonesty and demand that you either substanciate it or retract it.

Unless of course you choose to do some less than honest stuff yourself.


For starters I've personally never considered the word denier as a pejorative term. Certainly I see no direct connection between the act of denying something and dishonesty. As far as I am aware a denier simply says that some statement is not true and there is nothing beyond that. I also certainly didn't imply anyone here was a denier. If we accept denier as a pejorative term certainly there is room on your side of the debate for those who share your views on climate change but are less than civil just as there is on my side. I certainly didn't mean for anyone to take umbrage at my remarks which should be rather clear from my rather reasoned tone.

Now seeing as you clearly have negative associations concerning the word denier I am willing to make an effort to use the word skeptic. Unless, that is, you have reasons to dislike that word as well. In which case I would have to ask you to provide me an acceptable term as those two words pretty much deplete my thesaural reserves in relation to this particular subject and I am not very keen of proceeding via trial and error.

I do wish to apologize again if I accidently gave you the impression I thought you were being dishonest or lying. That was absolutely not my attention although I do feel the need to point out that your reaction seems perhaps a bit on the harsh side. Not that we all haven't been guilty of that from time to time. It is always good to be reminded that everyone here is a human. That is unless AI has advanced much further than the public has been told.

Thanks, Skeptic is fine.

Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
so, once again; here it is (the long version) from WIKI
"The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged."

and, since the reaction you cited is perfectly reversible it has an entropy change of exactly zero.
And, if you actually understood the nature of entropy, you would have understood that earlier and not tried to use that reaction as an illustration of entropy.
There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.

If you understood entropy, you wouldn't confuse an "idealized limiting case" with the way things actually work in the real world, and for the record, that would make you a crappy mathematician as well.

Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. You can't throw a stack of papers in the air and scatter them, then put them back in order without expending some energy. You can't just snap your fingers and watch all the carbon dioxide molecules in a room go swooshing back down into a bottle of cola and put the lid back on. Water doesn't flow like this:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1200x675/p02vkdfc.jpg

Cool image, but that's not how entropy works, and you clearly don't understand a damned thing about it if you are suggesting otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/ENTROPY-INTO-GREENHOUSE-WORLD-Book/dp/0553347179

I have read that book at least four times, and I took 16 hours of physics and biology in college. That's more than enough to have me running circles around an alleged chemist on this specific subject. Now, learn your science correctly, or shut the hell up. If you want to fart around with bogus science and information, at least pick a subject that isn't detrimental to the human race, you selfish lamebrain.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 15:44:40 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Alas, the peak rate of growth occurs in May-June for most of the Northern hemisphere. July and august are characterised by ripening, not growth.
Alas, this forum is plagued by a moderator that doesn't want us to see the forest for the trees.

Empirical evidence suggests: "This is a deciduous forest."

You: "No, I saw a couple of conifers in the valley, and I see some birds too. Birds aren't deciduous trees. Pesky facts getting in the way of your theory."

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Thanks, Skeptic is fine. Denier is definately a term for somebody who is denying the obvious such as a flat earther or a denier of the holocaust.
Whatever, Liquid Drain-O.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
All of this was addressed in the links I provided in the previous post. If you are not going to read the evidence your opposition provides then I have no choice but to question if you are actually willing to be convinced. Also, pretty much all the raw data is publically available in databases (some of which I linked). If you disagree with the methods of analysis you are free to do it for yourself starting from the raw data.

Quote
Agreed, but first you need the data points, and until 1979 we had almost none outside the civilised and industrialised 2% of the earth's surface.
I linked to two data sets that showed the geographic locations of their sensors. The locations within each data set were a relatively good sampling of the surface of the Earth and the locations chosen in one data set were clearly distinct from the locations chosen in the other data set. This makes it highly unlikely that the observed trend is coincidental. (As noted previously analysis of these data sets have been done with and without temperature corrections with no significant change in the trend.) Add in the satellite data and the likelihood of coincidence decreases further. Add in the 173 temperature proxies that were used by another analysis (I linked to both the raw data and the geographic locations which were both in the published paper) and likelihood of coincidence seems pretty implausible. Factor in that these studies were done by different people and organizations two of which only claim affiliation with climate science through personal blogs and I'm not sure how anyone could justify it as coincidence or bad data handling/bias by so many independent groups (some of which have no financial investment into climate science) simultaneously.
Yes, thank you.


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law.

Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy.
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.

You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?

You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb.
And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Yes there is- it's a process in which energy isn't lost or dissipated as heat.
So, for example the reaction between a positron and an electron gives rise to a pair of gamma rays.
And the reverse process - called pair production also happens.
Where do you think energy is lost?
It simply isn't.
So the reaction is reversible.
And you don't understand  the concept of entropy so you are sticking to some simplification which, I guess,  you read in a book.

"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse."
Only if energy was lost, or degraded to heat and in the positron electron annihilation it wasn't.

You can't just collect smoke, ashes and heat back together to make a log you can burn a second time without expending some energy. "
Nobody said you could, so why do you waste everyone's time saying things like that?

You chose to illustrate entropy with one of the small number of reactions where there is no entropy change.
That was spectacularly dumb. And you are compounding it by refusing to accept that you are wrong (about this as well as lots of other things).
The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.

From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."

In other words, that's like the energy you need to put ashes, smoke and heat back together to make a log. Unless we are talking about shortly after the Big Bang when the universe was incredibly hot and dense, pair production is not spontaneous, and requires a great deal of energy to accomplish. To suggest otherwise is foolish, as even a layman can understand that it takes enough power to run a city just to collide a couple of particles in an accelerator to make pair production possible, not to mention the energy needed to build a 25 mile long particle accelerator in the first place. You don't get to pretend that energy wasn't lost somewhere and all went into pair production. The VAST majority of that energy was wasted.

Again, this isn't some simplified version of entropy I read in a book. As you can see from the title of the book, "Entropy", the whole entire book is about entropy, which Rifkin discusses in excruciating detail with literally hundreds of footnotes and references.

It wouldn't matter if you DID read the book. You are clearly unteachable, as you refuse to learn.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 17:06:48 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

The only thing spectacularly dumb is you acting like you know what you are talking about when you are ignorant.

From Wikipedia: "In order for pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction MUST BE ABOVE A THRESHOLD in order to create the pair – AT LEAST the total rest mass energy of the two particles."

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

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

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 17:17:20 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8735
    • View Profile

You do indeed need that much energy.
And that much energy is exactly equal to the energy of the two photons that are destroyed in the reverse reaction.
That's why it balances exactly and that's why the entropy change is exactly zero.

And, if you knew what you were talking about,- rather than parroting stuff from WIKI, you would have known that.
On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point. You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements.

No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles in a particle accelerator that took years to build. To suggest otherwise is scientifically ignorant buffoonery, and completely disregards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
"On the contrary, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be locked in battle with an artist in a public forum, grabbing at straws to make your point."
Well, I'm not grabbing at straws, so that's OK.
"You would be hanging out with real scientists and making factual statements."
Plenty of the people on this site are real scientists.
The statements I have made have been factual- it's just that you don't understand them.

"No, the entropy change is not zero when it takes a bazillion gigawatts to create a single pair of particles"
It doesn't take a "bazzillion gigawatts" for  two reasons.
the first is that what it takes is energy and what you have there is in units of power.
It's as if you are trying to weigh something in feet and inches.
But the important thins is that the energy you need to make the electron and positron is exactly the energy of the two gamma rays  you get from the annihilation.
So, if you have just done the annihilation, do don't need a collider- because the energy is already there.
You seem not to have noticed that the collider and so on did not appear in your diagram.

That diagram shows a reversible reaction whether you understand it or not.
It has an entropy change of exactly zero whether you like it or not, and all you are doing by arguing is making yourself look foolish.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I'm afraid Bored Chemist is right Craig.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Okay, fine. Disregard the Vostok ice cores and just look at this data, all collected since 1979:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig3.png

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Tropics%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/seaice-anomaly-antarctic.png?w=720&h=585

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Fig8.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-1.png

http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image046.jpg

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01-ncdc-since-1979.png

Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Nobody would deny that there is a correlation (though I am surprised at how weak it is, according to your sources). Correlation is not proof of causation. So far, every predictive model based on the assumption of CO2 causation has turned out to be wrong, and this is the point at which Scientific Method suggests that the hypothesis is wrong. Either that or the modellers are really incompetent, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that you provide some very strong evidence for that particular extraordinary claim.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm <-- The observed warming is within the projections.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm <-- A bit on the models.

Here is a quote of significance from the intermediate explanation tab of the previous link:

Quote
There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.

That kind of seems like the opposite of what you said. Another significant quote:

Quote
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).

Clearly climatic models are doing a pretty good job of getting things right.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
If you look at current climate change, much of this can be attributed to the El Nino. 

Quote
El Niño /ɛl ˈniːnjoʊ/ (Spanish pronunciation: [el ˈniɲo]) is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific (between approximately the International Date Line and 120°W), including off the Pacific coast of South America. El Niño Southern Oscillation refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called "La Niña" with SST in the eastern Pacific below average and air pressures high in the eastern and low in western Pacific. The ENSO cycle, both El Niño and La Niña, causes global changes of both temperatures and rainfall.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.

This El Nino affect was first discovered in 1795, centuries before manmade global warming. I think there confusion being created where these two affects; El Nino affects being blended with the new climate change branding for global warming. El Nino has been around since before the industrial revolution, yet its current climate affects are being treated, by layman activists, like it is due to CO2.

Quote
ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[26]

El Niño may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[27] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[28] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[29] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[30]

Quote
Many ENSO linkages exist in the high southern latitudes around Antarctica.[81] Specifically, El Niño conditions result in high pressure anomalies over the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas, causing reduced sea ice and increased poleward heat fluxes in these sectors, as well as the Ross Sea. The Weddell Sea, conversely, tends to become colder with more sea ice during El Niño. The exact opposite heating and atmospheric pressure anomalies occur during La Niña.[82] This pattern of variability is known as the Antarctic dipole mode, although the Antarctic response to ENSO forcing is not ubiquitous.[82]

El Niño's effects on Europe appear to be strongest in winter. Recent evidence indicates that El Niño causes a colder, drier winter in Northern Europe and a milder, wetter winter in Southern Europe.[83] The El Niño winter of 2009/10 was extremely cold in Northern Europe but El Niño is not the only factor at play in European winter weather and the weak El Niño winter of 2006/2007 was unusually mild in Europe, and the Alps recorded very little snow coverage that season.[84]

What causes the cyclic oscillation between El Nino and La Nina is an upwelling of cold ocean water below the warm water; thermocline. This is shown below. How does CO2 cause cold water to upwell?

The new branding of climate change equals CO2, appears to cause many people to assume anything dramatic in weather and climate means climate change = CO2. But El Nino does the same thing even before there was the CO2 scare.



 
« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 12:24:18 by puppypower »