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

  • 610 Replies
  • 58427 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Let me briefly discuss entropy. In chemistry, entropy is a state variable. What that means is a given state of chemical matter will have a very specific amount of entropy. For example, the entropy of water at 25C is 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. Entropy is more than an abstraction. It  is a measurable quantity that will be the same in all labs for any given state. The entropy does not increase or decrease with time for a given state. The second law says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means that new states need to form, which can define the higher entropy. Life generates a lot of entropy allowing distinct states to appear.

Say we begin with water at 25C, the entropy is pre-defined. All labs will measure the same entropy. If we hold the temperature constant and apply the second law, since that state is defined in terms of entropy, other things will needs to happen for the entropy to increase. For example, entropy can increase if ions begins to dissolve in the water. This will define a new state composed of water plus ions at 25C. This can define higher entropy.

In the case of water and CO2, the solubility of CO2 increases with decreasing temperature; colder. When temperature decreases, pure water will lower entropy. On the other hand, an increase in CO2 concentration will increase the entropy of the two component system of water-CO2. Cool water dissolving more CO2, prevents the water from losing entropy, as fast, as it cools.

As the oceans warm, new state of warmer water will form , with an increase in entropy. The CO2 is expelled, thereby lowering the entropy contribution of the CO2. The net affect is the ocean entropy does not increase quite as fast with temperature, since there is a loss of CO2.

This does not mean that entropy does not need to increase; seconds law. Just the solubility characteristics of CO2 in water will cause a loss of entropy as CO2 is expelled. The new higher entropy, will be expressed with another state forming in the water. For example, the entropy of water vapor is higher than liquid, so the new state will cause more water to evaporate.

If we look at the El Nino cold water oscillation, cold water is causing the entropy of the El Nino warm water, to lower. It it also causing the entropy of the cold water, that is upwelling, to increase entropy.


Most people attribute entropy to randomness and chaos. This is true, for example, at the micro-level. However, entropy is also a state variable; bulk affects, which define very specific amounts of entropy. This is not random. Water, as a macro-state has an entropy of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1 (25 °C). Water in the micro-state; nanoscale, will show random distributions; degrees of freedom, the average of which define the fixed entropy for that state.

This distinction is important to life. Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, and each increase in entropy will defines a new bulk state. The may appear random at the micro-level, but it will results in distinct steps; states. The question is how can something be both random and ordered at the same time? The earth's weather and climate is impacted by water and liquid state physics. Science tends to use solid and gas state analogies, which don't show the same properties as liquid state physics. Liquid state physics can set up paradoxical situations such as order and random. 

For example, gases cannot be placed under tension. Gases are defined by partial pressure. A solid can be laced under pressure; push, or  tension; pull. However, you cannot apply both at the same time and form a steady state. We can push and pull a car, but it will move or we will add work to create a dynamic state. With a liquid, we can have a glass of water open to the atmosphere. The water will be under pressure and also be under surface tension; at steady state. The entropy remains fixed.

I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

 



 

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • 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.



It isn't the ocean in general:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming.htm

It is definitely not El Niño:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

And it isn't even the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

Quote
I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
"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.
YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 16:11:21 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.
Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.

Actually, though, isn't it possible to describe both weather and climate using a set of equations to construct a chaotic fluid dynamics model? Weather I would say yes, climate I'm not sure but am tempted to say yes. I'm pretty sure I remember that from James Gleick's book Chaos, but I'd like to hear what you think.

« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 16:25:55 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
"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.
YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG.

There's a lot of wasted energy that goes into a particle collision, A LOT. Denying that makes YOU look foolish. It doesn't matter what units you use for that energy, which is just another silly argument. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed.

I understand the process is reversible, as I've pointed out a bazillion times, but you still don't seem to understand that in order to make it go the other way requires massive energy input, much more than you get back when the particles decay. That's the very essence of the Entropy law, and if there were more scientists here, they would be pointing that out instead of me.

Nothing I have stated in this post is incorrect. Now, you and jeffreyHemorrhoid go ahead and tell me I'm incorrect.
I'm not the one sweeping it under the rug as you put it.
You did that.
Do you remember?
You posted the Feynman diagram.
And it doesn't (not should) include all the other stuff.

So the reaction you posted- the one in the diagram- is actually reversible.
And it has no entropy change.

The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
The energy released when an apple falls off a table is about a Joule.
The energy needed to accelerate an electron to half the speed of light is about 10^-14 Joules
So you could bring several million million particles to nearly the speed of light with the energy released by dropping an apple.
Do you still stand by this laughable claim?
" Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it takes a lot of energy to get even a single particle with mass up to near light speed."

Do you understand that the reaction you cited produces nothing but energy- in the form of two gamma rays- and that is enough energy (exactly) to recreate an electron and a positron.

It also does actually matter if you use the wrong units because you don't understand that you are measuring the wrong thing. But that's beside the point.
Well, I think you should talk to the people at CERN. You should tell them that you have a new entropy-free process for accelerating particles. Instead of wasting several cities worth of energy to accelerate particles to near the speed of light, you can merely drop an apple on them. That sounds way more efficient.

In fact, I'm going to set up an apparatus like that in my home. Why am I wasting time eating apples? An apple a day keeps the electricity bill away. Or maybe I should keep eating them too, because that's clearly how you power the endless stream of BS coming out of your face at 10^14 coulombs of horsepower.

What's the power of a city minus two gamma rays? Is it more the 15,000/15,000 plus 1/15,000? Feel free to answer using any unit of measurement you like.

LOL
« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 16:44:40 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.
If you want to demonstrate the truth of any of them, please go ahead
I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1"No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
2"FALSE. The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals."
3"Two square meters of sunshine melts a rock that's been around for ten billion years. That could easily provide enough steam-generated power for an entire house, perhaps enough to move a train."
4"Using nothing more than two square meters of parabolic mirrors, the gentleman in the video was able to turn a large, solid metal bolt into molten lava in just a few seconds. At that rate, you could easily produce a gallon of molten lava per hour. "
5"Sorry, but if you can power a train cross country with a couple of guys shoveling coal into a chute by hand, you could certainly power a standard home for a day with the steam produced by several gallons of molten metal."
6"Nope. Apparently, you don't understand internet lingo any better than you understand physics. "Trolling" is when you adopt an anonymous username so you can flame people without them knowing who you really are."
7"Please stop pretending you are a chemist. "
8" You are not a big fan of reality, huh?"
9"When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. "
10"You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong."
11"You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation."
12"Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite."
13"No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. "
14"When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. "
15" They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass."
16"Bored Chemist's perspective is MEANT to confuse the issue. He's clearly cherry picking facts and information that support his argument."
17"Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense."
which is a strawman in the context.
18"Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch."
19"Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.h, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say."
(That's another strawman)

20"You are trying to pretend applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, releasing 100 million years worth of stored solar energy, has insignificant consequences."
(That's another strawman)
20"How much arsenic would it take to shut you up? I would be willing to bet less than 1 part in 15,000."
Because to be relevant in context it would need a change in the current concentration of arsenic  in me to matter- and it wouldn't.
21"You didn't know that. You Googled it so you could present a counter argument."
22"That's where you're getting ALL your arguments, not just the toy, silly ones."
23" You're looking facts up on the fly, copying and pasting information willy-nilly to support your claims, and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about."
24"I'm not misrepresenting your views. "
Yes you were
25"You are misrepresenting science's views. "
No I'm not
26"Sorry, mass/energy conversion is what it is. "
The mass change on combustion is tiny and irrelevant.
27"You are obfuscating the issue because you're misrepresenting the relationship between carbon dioxide and heat, BOTH of which are produced by combustion."
No, I was pointing out that the CO2 stays but much of the heat leaves.
28"When you add extra heat to the atmosphere, and at the same time add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere helping it to retain that heat, the extra heat and extra insulation are NOT two separate, independent things."
Yes they are- for the same reason.
29"Sorry, there's nothing about you that stands out compared to any other skeptic I've argued with, except maybe your use of the word "cobbler.""

30" chemists don't even count the mass/energy conversion when they do experiments. They round off and disregard that change. "
31"That alone make you less of a physics guy than me. "
32"On the contrary, you're the one who seems to think applying combustion to a trillion tons of fossil fuels adds up to nothing."
Another strawman
33"When I am in other threads talking about things like quantum entanglement, I ask a lot of questions and post comments and hypotheses tentatively because I understand my limitations. I don't act like an authority. "
34"IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM. CARBON DIOXIDE AND HEAT BOTH EMERGE TOGETHER, NOT SEPARATELY, FROM THE SAME COMBUSTION REACTIONS."
It's still not the same problem because the CO2 stays, but the heat leaves.
35"I'm also an authority on skeptics, deniers, and politically brainwashed Americans with tired talking points, ESPECIALLY those with science degrees who work for large corporations and have a slanted point of view to begin with."
36"That's a comprehensively false statement."
37"All you've done is SAY I'm saying things that aren't true. "
38"You haven't proven your point about anything. "
39" You're obfuscating the issue and splitting hairs, nothing more. "
40"The bigger problem is Entropy."
41"Transform mass to energy, and you get disorder. The more mass to turn to energy, the greater the disorder. That's building up in the atmosphere. "
42"False. "
43"I can do maths just fine. "
44"I don't need math in this thread. "
45"Not lava flow,"
46"I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you."
47"So, maybe I just need to find a language YOU understand."
48" If you change mass or energy from one form to another according to the first law, you get entropy according to the second law. "
49"How dare you compare me to a climate change skeptic. I'm all about facts, "
50"Yeah, I don't have a degree, but I'm not clueless. "
51" I know my science."
52"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in ALL [emphasis mine] energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.""
(it would be right if you had remembered that some reactions are reversible)
53"You seem unable to do math."
54"No, I am not wrong."
55"You can't transform mass to energy or energy to mass according to the first law without getting entropy according to the second, EVER. "
56"you can't perform mass/energy conversion without producing entropy."
57"If you're saying anything other than that, YOU are wrong. "
58"That's about the most unscientific thing you could possibly say... except you followed that by saying, "some combustion reactions(of natural gas, for example) reduce net entropy.""
59"FALSE"
60"That's a blatant violation of the 2nd law. "
61"Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:
Second Law of Thermodynamics ... In any change, the entropy of the universe must increase."
That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther."
62"For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. "
63"It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out."
64"There is no straw man here."
65"That heat doesn't just disappear as if by magic. "
66"That's why you would say something silly like, "Methane combustion reduces entropy.""
67" Heat is actually the same thing as light, or electromagnetic energy, or photons. "
68"I respect scientists."
69"I'm a smart guy with a solid education. "
70"IIn my estimation, you're a public nuisance, not an expert. "
71"You don't use the scientific method. "
72"That applies not only to your climate change comments, but your lies about me as well."
73"At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me."
74"No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. "
75"It's also false that I lied."
76"I also never said, "The first law talks about entropy." That's an example of YOU telling a lie. I specifically said the first and second laws of thermodynamics are RELATED to one another. That's a fact. You can't change mass and energy from one form to the other without creating entropy."
No it's not
77"Entropy is like a "transaction fee." "
Nope again
78"False on two counts."
79"Heat islands have nothing to do with fossil fuels. "
80"NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability."
81"Applying combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels is the cause of anthropogenic climate change"
82"That's what I said, that's what I'm saying, that's what I will continue to say, because that is a fact."

83"Both statements can't be true. Either entropy must increase in all cases, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false"
84"This is another example of me learning something correctly, then some joker on the internet says I'm wrong."
85"There's no way you're a chemist. "
86"That's not math. That's nonsense."
87" You're an anonymous piece of crap, pal. I know your kind.

Keep pushing, psycho."
88"False. There's nothing spontaneous about it "
89"The first and second laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with causality. "
90"I understand entropy just fine."
91"This is my second physics forum in 3 years,"
92"False. If I locked you in a small, airtight room, that's a closed system. Breathe, and the CO2 content goes up. "
 Yet another straw man.
93"Your bias as an alleged chemist is showing."
94"Uh, oh. Looks like particles are moving backward in time. Are you sure you really want to go there? You already look pretty silly discussing your area of expertise, and I know A LOT more about physics than chemistry."
95"you've basically made the argument here that chopping a donkey's leg off a little bit at a time isn't eventually going to affect the way it walks"
Yet another straw man.
96"Wrong on two counts.
97"A Fish Called Wanda is a random tangent."
98"When particles interact as per creation/annihilation events pictured in Feynmann diagrams, YES, there IS entropy."
99"At least Bored Chemist and alancalverd are using cherry-picked science facts to prop up their flimsy arguments and nitpick at the details of climate change. "
100"Lots of those diagrams indicate "one way" processes. Normally, particles decay from heavier, less stable particles to lighter, more stable particles. You're not going to see any Feynman diagrams of processes going the other way unless you've added energy to the system somehow,"
101"In short, when you see a Feynman diagram, rest assured, the entropy law is being expressed somewhere, quite possibly right there in the diagram itself."
102"Burning logs is related to the thread topic. Your question is not. "
103"You present no challenge to anyone. Your posts are devoid of useful information."
104"Can't hold your own in a scientific debate, so now you're nitpicking about etymology? Pathetic."
105"FALSE.

CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit heat, but not necessarily right back in the direction it came from. CO2 molecules aren't stationary, but rather tumble through space. Depending on the orientation of a CO2 molecule at the time of emission, that infrared photon might come back to earth, or it might escape into space. CO2 does NOT trap ALL the heat, just some. More CO2 traps more heat, but still not all of it."
106"That statement makes no sense."
107"The entropy law assures me that last sentence of yours is ridiculous."
108"No, you're either lying, or your reading comprehension sucks."
109"Again, either you're scientifically clueless, or you obfuscate just because you like to argue, both inexcusable for a moderator of a physics forum."
110" You don't have a real name. You don't have any credentials. All you have is a sock puppet account and a lot of confirmation biased arguments."
"111Again, I understand Entropy just fine."
112"By the way, the fact that you said nuclear forces both are and aren't changed during combustion renders your own rant irrelevant, and further demonstrates your need to consider retaking chemistry."
113" We've merely got ourselves a renegade moderator on the loose, spreading misinformation."
114"On the contrary, the fact that this thread is full of trolls moderated by a flamer me tells me something about its pathos."
115"Nonsense. If you had a sackful of professional qualifications, you wouldn't be in a public forum arguing with an artist. You would be hanging out with Stephen Hawking, publishing a scientific paper, or converting kinetic energy to mass. Public forums are for hobbyists and people who read pop science books, but they also harbor crank scientists and nobodies with science degrees eager to make themselves feel better by trashing out laymen and people who read pop science books. I am well experienced with this phenomenon."
116"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. I'm guessing I probably know more about chemistry than he does just from being a former professionally certified carpet cleaning technician. He's challenging me to do Calculus problems, "
117"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."
118"Global warming IS entropy, flat earther. "
119"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."
120"There is no such thing as a reversible process. That IS the entropy law."
121"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."
122"Again, it takes energy to get a process to go in reverse. "
123"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.""
124"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."
125"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."
126"YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
127"I understand the process is reversible,"
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
You don't expect Craig to take you seriously, do you? In his mind he is never wrong so he will brush off all 127 objections. Otherwise he would notice the glaring contradictions in his statements and realise how silly he looks.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.


*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2016 14:54:01 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.
Yes, I am not a bad writer:

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

Are YOU good at anything?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

I have numbered them 1 to 127 for easier reference.
Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
1 "No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
That's not my quote. In fact, it says right there, "Quote from: Tim the Plumber."

That's okay. You spent a lot of time compiling that list for me. I'm always flattered when people think I'm important enough to spend so much of their time compiling lists like that. Thanks for all the attention. That's very sweet of you.


Oops; typo
It should have been
"Quote from: Tim the Plumber on 19/03/2016 12:19:51
"No, the amount of heat produced directly by human activity is utterly tiny in comparison with the heat budget of nature. "
1"FALSE.
2 The earth's life forms spent hundreds of millions of years taking solar energy OUT of the system. That's what oil and coal are: dead plants and animals.""

Sorry for the confusion.

It will be interesting to see if he actually tries to show that he was right in all 127 cases.
Obviously, he's wrong- very wrong.
He's so wrong I wonder if he's trying to get a TV show  "Craig W Thomson's world of wrong" or something.
If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.

Seriously, I recognise he's not going to take me seriously, he can't admit that he's wrong. I'm just trying to make sure that others who visit this site done't get fooled into thinking he's actually credible.
Screw you. First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree. Secondly, if people want to check that claim, they can call the University of North Texas and order a copy of my transcript. That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree.

What are your credentials? What's your last name? Where did you go to school?

Poser, you lie. You haven't been right about squat in this form, and I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. You're just another internet nobody pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have, trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet.

Donald Trump doesn't need a speech writer. Much like you, he just spews out whatever brain fart he's having at the time.
"Screw you."
I very much doubt you are my type.
"First of all, I'm not trying to "fool" anyone"
Nobody said you were- I'm just concerned that you might do it by accident.
" because I never claimed to be anything other than a layman who took some science courses in college while getting an unrelated degree."
Nope, you have repeatedly claimed to bean expert on entropy- because you have read one book four times.
"secondly, if people want to check that claim,..."
As I have asked before, who cares what your qualifications are, and why?
What matters isn't what you learned at college- what matters is what you post here and so far you haven't covered yourself in glory.
"That's because Craig W. Thomson is a real person, "
It's not as if that's been disputed.

"...who took 16 hours of real science courses, got real grades, and received a real cum laude Bachelor's degree."
Again so what?
It hasn't stopped you messing up badly here.
"What are your credentials?"
The important ones here are that I generally post stuff that people accept is correct because I can back it up with evidence.
"What's your last name?"
Why would that matter- especially since I have already explained why I post under a pseudonym?
"Where did you go to school?"
Cheshire or later OX1 4AJ
And I'd like you to explain why you thought that was worth asking- not least because there's no way you can verify it.

"Poser, you lie."
What deliberately false statement do you think I have made?

"You haven't been right about squat in this form,"
I presume you mean forum.
And it's clear that I have been right about rather a lot of things.
Please point out a few times where you think otherwise  (other than trivial ones) so I can comment on them.
" I don't believe for one instant you are a chemist. "
Well, since I am, that just shows that you don't recognise reality. That's more your problem than mine.

"You're just another internet nobody "
Everybody on the internet is a nobody because it's practically impossible to prove your identity.
"pretending to have qualifications they don't actually have,"                       
Why would I bother?   
As I have said, qualifications are unverifiable here so they are meaningless.
I am, on the other hand, well enough qualified to earn  a living as a scientist.
" trolling people as an anonymous sock puppet"
We covered your failure to understand the word troll earlier.
Also I asked you why you think I'm a sock puppet.
For that to be the case there would have to be a puppet master.
Who do you think that is?

If all else fails, he can get a job writing speeches for Trump.
Yes, I am not a bad writer:

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

Are YOU good at anything?

Well, I'm a published writer.
I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson

(Please don't waste time trying)
Craig,
here are some of the things you have got wrong in this thread.

126 "YOU DON'T GET TO SWEEP ALL THAT EXTRA ENERGY UNDER THE RUG."
I find this one especially amusing.

Okay, my mistake, sweep away, sweep the 2nd Law and the Scientific Method under there while you're at it, and don't forget to use your frictionless broom.

No, just learn to understand physics.
Do you understand, for example, that when 4 subatomic particles interact there is no friction?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
By the way,
You forgot to address any of the 127 mistakes you made.
Pleas try harder to do so.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Well back to the subject at hand. Data is everything but you also have to understand that the accuracy of the data can never be 100% and all of the factors that skew the data must be understood. Here is a page that discusses the ice core data and some of these issue surrounding data accuracy.

http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html

I would be interested in Alan's view of this page or anyone else for that matter. Even Craig if he has something reasonable to say.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
You can find the ice core data here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html. With respect to my previous post the most recent data is likely to be the most accurate. If we look at the graph for the last 2000 years it is methane that stands out more prominently then CO2. Although the last two gases are recorded in parts per billion that does not take away from the fact that methane increase has outstripped that of CO2. At that level I am unable to say what effect this increase would have.



*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
You can find the ice core data here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html. With respect to my previous post the most recent data is likely to be the most accurate. If we look at the graph for the last 2000 years it is methane that stands out more prominently then CO2. Although the last two gases are recorded in parts per billion that does not take away from the fact that methane increase has outstripped that of CO2. At that level I am unable to say what effect this increase would have.



A brief discussion of methane can be found here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm

The basic point is that there is so much less methane it accounts for less than 30% of the observed warming. Also, the following graph is very promising:



as it shows that the methane concentration may have leveled off. As long as a natural source of methane like melting permafrost or clathrates don't start releasing massive amounts of methane we might be able to reverse that trend soon.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
In the atmosphere methane, carbon dioxide and water vapour are linked together.

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

"Troposphere

The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001; however, increasing emissions of methane over time reduce the concentration of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere.[18] With less OH˚ to react with, the lifespan of methane could also increase, resulting in greater concentrations of atmospheric methane."

"Stratosphere

Even if it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane can usually only last 12 years before it is eventually destroyed in Earth’s next atmospheric layer: the stratosphere. Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor."

"Reaction with free chlorine

Methane also reacts with natural chlorine gas in the atmosphere to produce chloromethane and hydrochloric acid (HCl). This process is known as free radical halogenations.

CH4 + Cl2 → CH3Cl + HCl"

This balance is what human activity is disturbing.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson
False:

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

See the I.D.?

I posted that for a different troll a couple of years ago when he questioned my identity.

At least he had a real name and a real master of physics degree.

You're just a sock puppet.


*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If it is correct the levelling off of methane is a positive sign

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
I can't prove that, but then again, you can't prove that you are the real Craig W Thomson
False:

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

See the I.D.?

I posted that for a different troll a couple of years ago when he questioned my identity.

At least he had a real name and a real master of physics degree.

You're just a sock puppet.


Well, you just proved my point about three things
The first is that you are not good at getting things right- your "argument is vacuous here and it presumably was when you employed it earlier.
You have also proved my point that it isn't practical or possible to prove who you are on the web and you also proved that you don't understand what a sock puppet is.
If I'm a puppet, who is the puppeteer?

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ikmiwyR1pA
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?
Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.

I knew that several weeks ago. Why do you think I'm still arguing with you?

You lie about people and identities just like you lie about climate change.

You're just like every other liar--suspicious that everyone else is lying.
« Last Edit: 13/04/2016 14:05:10 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
Just in case you still don't understand.
Here's evidence the I'm President Obama- it's video of me voting in a recent election.
Can you see the ID?
Oh, I totally understand; you can't be trusted to present factual information.

I knew that several weeks ago. Why do you think I'm still arguing with you?

You lie about people and identities just like you lie about climate change.

You're just like every other liar--suspicious that everyone else is lying.
How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.
There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.

How long have you had this cowardice problem, trolling people anonymously?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
How long have you had this problem with understanding irony?
Also, please answer the 127 items you got wrong.
There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity.

How long have you had this cowardice problem, trolling people anonymously?


"There's no irony in suggesting I'm lying about my identity."
Nobody suggested that there was.
This is silly.
There is a difference between what I said and what you claim I said.
That's straw-manning and you really should know better.

What I said was that nobody  prove who they are on the net- which is why it's pretty much pointless to worry about anyone's real ID.
That's not the same as saying you are lying about your identity.


Do you really not understand the difference?


Now, since you keep steadfastly refusing to answer legitimate questions - like why did you get those 127 things wrong- and you steadfastly keep asking pointless questions even after they have been answered, it' pretty clear that you are the troll.

Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?
You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.
« Last Edit: 15/04/2016 14:18:35 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
Why not just explain why you got all those things wrong?
You've been thanked just 13 times out of more than 8,000 posts. That's one of the lowest percentages at the site. You didn't get that percentage by being correct and helping people. You got it because you present weak arguments, spew misinformation and troll people. In fact, I would be willing to bet money you got most of those thank yous from other trolls who were amused by your trolling.
You are a twit, aren't you?
You forgot to check what the other reasons might be.
The "thank you" feature is new so I probably posted something near 8000 times before anyone "thanked" anyone on this site.
So, it's probably at least as realistic to simply compare totals- where I outpace you about 3 to 1.

However the fact that I'm still here after 8185 posts suggests that, whatever my style might be, I haven't been banned yet.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
Wherever he is, let's try.
There are no perfect records of past temperature or past CO2 content of the atmosphere.

However we can, today, make measurements of the spectroscopic properties of  CO2.
Those properties indicate that it would act in in a way that has become known as the "greenhouse effect".
There is little or no doubt that temperatures are currently rising.
There is no doubt that mankind has added roughly a third to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last century or two- and much of that addition has been recent.

Setting aside the issue of proving that the temperature rise has been due to the excess CO2.

How could you explain that the additional CO2 would not give rise to a temperature increase?

Unless you can disprove the observation that CO2 absorbs IR there's no way round the fact that more CO2 will give rise to more trapped heat.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
I don't believe the weather models are using liquid state physics. CO2 in air and CO2 in water use two different sets of physics; gas and liquid state physics.   

That belief would be wrong. Also, irrelevant as weather models and climate models are different things.
Yes, thank you. "Two sets of physics," that's rich. The only two "sets of physics" I know are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that's only because they don't play nicely when physicists try to describe things like singularities. Other than that, gauge invariance, symmetry, all that seems to imply that the behavior of mass and energy is predictable in all sorts of environments. One does not have to change to a different set of physics rules just because the local conditions are warm enough to make steam or cool enough to condense it.

Actually, though, isn't it possible to describe both weather and climate using a set of equations to construct a chaotic fluid dynamics model? Weather I would say yes, climate I'm not sure but am tempted to say yes. I'm pretty sure I remember that from James Gleick's book Chaos, but I'd like to hear what you think.

Liquid, solid and gases all use the same laws of physics. However, each phase does so in different ways. For example, gases can't be placed under tension. Gases are defined and modeled exclusively by partial pressure. If I take a gas in a cylinder, like in a shock absorber, and pull the cylinder to elongate the gas, the pressure will drop. I don't create tension in the gas. The gas molecules are still randomly colliding; exerting pressure.

Solids can be placed under pressure or tension. I can push or pull a solid and place it under pressure or tension. What I can't do is push and pull or apply pressure and tension, at the same time, and form a steady state. If I push and pull the object at the same time, the object will move linearly, rotate, or I will create shear stresses.

Liquids are different from both gases and solids, in that they can be placed under tension and pressure, at the same time, and achieve a steady state. A glass of water open to the atmosphere will be under pressure; STP. While the surface contact between the air and liquid will create surface tension. Both pressure and tension can occur at steady state. The properties of that glass of water can measured and will be the same in all labs. They do not keep changing toward a steady state.

The fundamental laws of physics are the same for all three phases. However, each state uses different combinations of the same laws. Anomalies in one state can be the norm in another. Modeling the universe as a liquid allows paradoxical combinations of properties you can't get with solids and gas state models. Life makes use of the paradoxes of the liquid state, because life is mediated by water. There is no such things as gas or solid state life. Even if you argue life can form in other solvents, these will work due to the unique nature of liquid state physics.

Further examples of liquid state physics;

For example, in the discussion of entropy, entropy in liquid state physics, is a state variable. Water at 25C defines a specific amount of entropy that is always the same. It does not increase with time. The entropy of water at 25C will not change 10,000 years from now even wth the second law in affect. If most people associate entropy with disorder and random, then how can a liquid always define an ordered amount of entropy, even with the second law in affect? Gas and solid state analogies, which are more common to physics, don't know this is possible in liquids. This is how I inferred modern physics does not teach liquid state physics but conditioned the young mind for solid and gas state models.

One interesting set of liquid state physics properties are called colligative properties. A colligative property is only dependent on the concentration of the solute; in water for example. These are not dependent on electromagnetic character of the solute; specific atoms and  their arraignment, whether they contain plus to minus ions, single or double ions, or the strength of the ions. We can essentially ignore the  the EM forces in water when dealing with colligative properties in water.

My favorite example of colligative properties is osmosis. Osmosis is critical to the living state. Below is a diagram of an osmotic device. With osmosis one will get the same osmotic pressure exerted by water, regardless of the EM character of the solute that is dissolved in water. It is only dependent on the unit count; concentration, and not the specific EM character of any solute.

Osmosis is driven only by the entropy of the water. This entropy is not dependent on any specific force interaction between solute and water. The same concentration of any solute, will define a specific osmotic pressure; macro-level, based on the randomness; entropy, of the water, at the micro-level. In the liquid state physics of life, entropy both random and ordered at the same time. This may be hard to grasp if you are look at reality only in terms of solid or gas state physics. 

If you look at an osmotic device below, at steady state, a pressure head will build on the left; osmotic pressure. Since pressure is force/area the entropy is exerting a force. I call this force the entropic force. There is a fifth force of nature in liquid state physics. This is inferred since osmosis is not traditional force dependent; EM, but will still generate a force.

If we do reverse osmosis, and apply a physical force to the pressure head, that force will translate into a very specific decrease in water entropy. Conceptually, I can use entropic force to alter the entropy environment around enzymes. This can be used to influence changes of configuration and activity, that rely on entropy.

The pressure head should be exerting a force in the water, that is pushing the water from left to right at steady state. Yet the micro-scale water at the membrane will diffuse in both ways at the same rate, as though the water at the micro-level does not see the pressure head force.

I am not expert at climate models but I would guess nobody is using liquid state physics or else they would have an easier time correlating the randomness to ordered states. They appear to be using solid state analogies than can't form equilibrium.


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Unless you can disprove the observation that CO2 absorbs IR there's no way round the fact that more CO2 will give rise to more trapped heat.
CWT is on a temporary ban for unparliamentary behaviour.

Everyone knows CO2 absorbs IR, but physics is about numbers. At some point, when you add more and more absorber to a medium, there's so little absorbate left that adding more absorber doesn't make a ha'porth of difference.  Now the absorption spectrum of CO2 is very narrow. The effective thickness  of CO2  (i.e the amount of gas you would have if it was all at 1 atm pressure, not distributed over several kilometers at at 0.0004 atm) in the atmosphere is about 3 meters. The mean absorption coefficient of CO2 is about 10 cm-1 at atmospheric pressure, which suggests that the amount of in-band IR reaching the earth's surface (or leaving it) is e(-10 x 300) of the incident intensity.

Now add 33% more CO2, i.e another meter or so at 1 atm pressure. The difference between e-3000 and e-4000 is, to my mind, the difference between buggerall and a gnatscock less than buggerall.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
You seem to have tacitly assumed that the absorption bands have infinitely steep sides- they don't.
So, as you say, it's all down to the numbers.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Tim the Plumber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 256
    • View Profile
Wherever he is, let's try.
There are no perfect records of past temperature or past CO2 content of the atmosphere.

However we can, today, make measurements of the spectroscopic properties of  CO2.
Those properties indicate that it would act in in a way that has become known as the "greenhouse effect".
There is little or no doubt that temperatures are currently rising.
There is no doubt that mankind has added roughly a third to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last century or two- and much of that addition has been recent.

Setting aside the issue of proving that the temperature rise has been due to the excess CO2.

How could you explain that the additional CO2 would not give rise to a temperature increase?

Unless you can disprove the observation that CO2 absorbs IR there's no way round the fact that more CO2 will give rise to more trapped heat.

Given that thewhole IR absorption/re-emission thing is beyond my science I'll take your and others word for all that.

The IPCC has a figure that they use as the basis for the heatimg from the effect of CO2 which they then add an additional amount to due they say because of feedback effects of additional water vapour.

Since there is already lots of water vapour up there why would this happen and if it does not what fogure of temperature rise would you expect from a doubling of CO2?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Given that thewhole IR absorption/re-emission thing is beyond my science I'll take your and others word for all that.

The IPCC has a figure that they use as the basis for the heatimg from the effect of CO2 which they then add an additional amount to due they say because of feedback effects of additional water vapour.

Since there is already lots of water vapour up there why would this happen and if it does not what fogure of temperature rise would you expect from a doubling of CO2?

Water vapor has an enormously wide IR absorption spectrum as a momomer. It also exists in the atmosphere as a dimer, trimer, and probably heaxamer, all with additional IR spectra. Water also exists in the atmosphere as a solid (in several forms) and a liquid (both supercooled and normal). H2O, quite simply, is capable of absorbing or reflecting practically every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, which is why we get radar reflections and shadows on the ground from clouds, very little penetration of radio waves under water, and the bottom of the sea is dark and cold.

Warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air, so the water greenhouse effect is inherently self-multiplying, up to the point at which the water condenses into clouds which cut off the heating during the day and prevent heat radiation at night.

And just to make it interesting, all the phase changes of H2O occur at normal atmospheric temperatures so the specific heat capacity of saturated air is tens of times greater than that of dry air - which is why we get every kind of weather, and the British winter (cool and damp) upsets visiting Americans who find their cold, dry conditions much less chilling! Without water, the atmosphere would be as stable and uniform as that of Mars.   

And for a further complexity, the circulation of atmospheric water is crucially different in the northern and southern hemispheres. There being no land mass in the Southern Ocean, there is a constant westerly wind that determines the mixing of polar (cold, dry) oceanic (warmer, moist) and continental (warm, dry) air. This is quite different from the northern hemisphere where large chunks of land interrupt the circumpolar flow. In consequence, tropical and equatorial climates are inherently unstable as the extremely variable northern flow meets the relatively more constant southern circulation. As a simple example of the medium-term complexity, events in the Weddell Sea have a predictable effect on Argentine crop yields three years later, but North Atlantic storms have no predictable effect beyond a month.   

Adding more CO2, ven doubling the concentration, would have negligible effect. Whatever you do to the atmosphere is ultimately swamped by the subsequent redistribution of water.
« Last Edit: 17/04/2016 16:54:13 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
You seem to have tacitly assumed that the absorption bands have infinitely steep sides- they don't.
So, as you say, it's all down to the numbers.
That's why I quoted the weighted mean over the entire NIR spectrum. In places it's over 20 cm-1.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
How do you weight it?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
The point remains that, since there are bits that are not saturated, more means more.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
I've already linked to an argument debunking the CO2 saturation argument. Here it is again:

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

At three different levels of complexity.

A particularly important point:

Quote
There's one more subtle effect related to increased absorption. Upon increasing CO2 concentration, the layer at which the absorption coefficient at each wavelength is low enough to let the IR light escape will be found higher in the atmosphere. The emitting layer will then have a lower temperature, at least until the tropopause is reached, and hence a lower emitting power.

By moving the layer at which the atmosphere becomes transparent to IR to higher altitudes we've reduced the amount of IR it can radiate because the gas is cooler. Thus even if we ignore the changes in the amount of absorption due to the band edges we've still reduced the ability of the atmosphere to emit heat into space and thus the Earth must warm. Well at least until we put so much CO2 into the air that it is opaque all the way to the tropopause but I think we can all agree that would be a bad idea.

Here is something more generic about CO2 (which I'm fairly certain I have also linked to):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

I would appreciate not having to link these again.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Over 50% of the energy that comes from the sun, that reaches the earth, is in the form of infrared; IR. Since CO2 is sensitive to IR, doesn't that mean the CO2 will also trap heat in space; CO2 will keep some of the solar IR heat out in space?

As an analogy, water is also a very important greenhouse gas.  A cloudy night in the fall will prevent frost, due to the greenhouse affect trapping heat.

If you look at a cloud of water. A cloud can block and reflect solar energy entering the earth, away from the surface. A cloud gives us shade so it feel cooler. Water can also trap heat at night, so there is no frost on cool fall nights.

If we have a dry day, more solar heat will reach the surface, while at night the lower water content in the air allows the heat to escape faster; desert. The greenhouse gas, water, creates a two way affect. I would expect the same of CO2. 

A one way greenhouse assumption of CO2; only traps heat in, could explain why all the computer model predictions are always higher than experimental. They appear to assume CO2 can only trap heat in, but not keep heat out, like water does. If the models are 100-1200% to high in terms of temperature predictions, the trap out affect, appears to be very significant.

The affect should be similar to thermal pane glass. This keeps the heat out in the summer and it also keeps the heat in during the winter. It blocks IR with no direction preferences. It appears the greenhouse affect of CO2 makes use of thermo pane glass.


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I would appreciate not having to link these again.
By all means save yourself the trouble. A reference that includes graphs of global mean temperature back to 1850 is a work of fiction, not science.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Over 50% of the energy that comes from the sun, that reaches the earth, is in the form of infrared; IR. Since CO2 is sensitive to IR, doesn't that mean the CO2 will also trap heat in space; CO2 will keep some of the solar IR heat out in space?

As an analogy, water is also a very important greenhouse gas.  A cloudy night in the fall will prevent frost, due to the greenhouse affect trapping heat.

If you look at a cloud of water. A cloud can block and reflect solar energy entering the earth, away from the surface. A cloud gives us shade so it feel cooler. Water can also trap heat at night, so there is no frost on cool fall nights.

If we have a dry day, more solar heat will reach the surface, while at night the lower water content in the air allows the heat to escape faster; desert. The greenhouse gas, water, creates a two way affect. I would expect the same of CO2. 

A one way greenhouse assumption of CO2; only traps heat in, could explain why all the computer model predictions are always higher than experimental. They appear to assume CO2 can only trap heat in, but not keep heat out, like water does. If the models are 100-1200% to high in terms of temperature predictions, the trap out affect, appears to be very significant.

The affect should be similar to thermal pane glass. This keeps the heat out in the summer and it also keeps the heat in during the winter. It blocks IR with no direction preferences. It appears the greenhouse affect of CO2 makes use of thermo pane glass.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html

The most basic of basic things about the greenhouse effect is that visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the surface of the Earth and then reemitted by the surface as infrared light. This is the infrared light that is trapped by clouds and greenhouse gases. No reputable climate scientist would ever make the mistake of assuming that greenhouse gases only absorb IR light coming from the surface.

The reason we call this the greenhouse effect is because this is exactly how greenhouses work. The glass of the greenhouse lets in visible light. The stuff in the greenhouse absorbs the visible light and emits IR light. The IR light is then trapped inside the greenhouse by the glass because the glass is much more reflective to IR than visible light. In short, visible light comes in and is converted to IR light which can't get out.

By all means save yourself the trouble. A reference that includes graphs of global mean temperature back to 1850 is a work of fiction, not science.

You're certainly welcome to have this opinion as long as you recognize it as an opinion that is unsupported by observational evidence and scientific reasoning. As is demonstrated here (which I have also previously linked):

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

People with absolutely no affiliation to each other and no ulterior motive have analyzed the data using different methodologies and got the same result. Independent temperature records have been analyzed and produced the same result. The temperature records have been analyzed without the corrections people cite as being used to fudge the data and the result doesn't change. Temperature proxies have been measured and produced the same result. Does a perfect data set exist? No of course not because nowhere in any scientific discipline is there ever a perfect data set and that problem is worse when you can't really repeat the experiment easily. However, science can still be done if you get enough independent measures of the same thing and they all give the same result.

Also the trend of increasing temperature is very clear even only going back to 1950-1960. Therefore even if we ignore the data going back to 1850 as you suggest that doesn't actually change the conclusion at all.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
I would appreciate not having to link these again.
By all means save yourself the trouble. A reference that includes graphs of global mean temperature back to 1850 is a work of fiction, not science.

ok, if you write off the graphs of temperature vs date because they go back too far (Though in post 407 you were perfectly happy to cite the Vostok cores that go back a lot further) you are left with the spectroscopy.
How do you respond to that?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
What happens to plant growth rates when soils become saturated as in flood events? How does this affect plant growth and the carbon cycle? Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink. The water cycle is very important.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
ok, if you write off the graphs of temperature vs date because they go back too far (Though in post 407 you were perfectly happy to cite the Vostok cores that go back a lot further) you are left with the spectroscopy.
How do you respond to that?

I have never suggested that Vostok or Mauna Loa data gave us the absolute mean global surface temperature. What they provide is utterly credible records at two single points, over a time scale in which they were actually collected. Both sets of data unequivocally show that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, so CO2 cannot be the controller of temperature.

If I extrapolated my bank account to a time before I was born, would you consider that to be a reasonable proxy for your grandfather's bank balance, never mind the world average?  So how can anyone dare to assert what the mean temperature of the globe was, fifty years before anyone visited the poles and a hundred years before anyone made any accurate measurements on land, let alone at sea?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
People with absolutely no affiliation to each other and no ulterior motive have analyzed the data using different methodologies and got the same result. Independent temperature records have been analyzed and produced the same result.
Alas, the sources you cite talk about reconstructions, not measurements. If we all use the same hypotheses and extrapolate from the same data set, it would be surprising if we came up with different extrapolations.

We know for a fact that the only actual measurements of mean global surface temperature come from satellites, post-1970. Everything else, whether you call  it proxy, model, or extrapolation from airfield data, is guesswork over the 90% of the planet for which we have no credible previous data.
 
We also know that whenever the satellite data is "corrected", the new curve is a better fit to the CO2 curve, and the "corrections" now exceed the error bars in the original data. Funny, that.   

Beware of the straw man. Only a fool would pretend that the climate hasn't changed, and I'm quite happy to accept that mean global temperature has indeed risen during my lifetime

BUT

Historically and by recent measurement, temperature leads CO2

AND

the discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under a retreating glacier tells us unequivocally that Canada, at least, was significantly warmer 500 years ago than it is today. 

These rather boring facts get in the way of the prevailing consensus of anthropogenic global warming. Which is a pity, because the consensus implies that we could do something to prevent it, whereas the observation sugests that we need to do something to mitigate its effect.

Not that it matters, as politicians have decided on your behalf to do nothing anyway.
« Last Edit: 18/04/2016 23:59:10 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
I have never suggested that Vostok or Mauna Loa data gave us the absolute mean global surface temperature. What they provide is utterly credible records at two single points, over a time scale in which they were actually collected. Both sets of data unequivocally show that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, so CO2 cannot be the controller of temperature.

Repeating refuted arguments does not in anyway change the fact that they were refuted. In addition to the links given below we've been over quite clearly how the measured seasonal variation of CO2 concentration is perfectly consistent with the combination of seasonal changes in photosynthetic activity, seasonal changes in the temperature of the ocean, and the general resistance of any large system to instantaneous change.

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

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

Quote
If I extrapolated my bank account to a time before I was born, would you consider that to be a reasonable proxy for your grandfather's bank balance, never mind the world average?  So how can anyone dare to assert what the mean temperature of the globe was, fifty years before anyone visited the poles and a hundred years before anyone made any accurate measurements on land, let alone at sea?

For starters there is definitely some amount of correlation between your bank account and that of your parents and grandparents. With a large enough sampling of bank accounts and some statistics a reasonable guess and long term trends regarding the wealth of families over generations would become predictable. Beyond that in terms of temperature data we actually have many other temperature proxies beyond straight measurements of temperature that show the same thing. So your analogy grossly mischaracterizes both the amount of data we currently have and the nature of the data that we currently have.

Quote
Alas, the sources you cite talk about reconstructions, not measurements. If we all use the same hypotheses and extrapolate from the same data set, it would be surprising if we came up with different extrapolations.

Data processing happens all the time in science. Rarely in science is it possible to directly measure the thing you wish to measure. Scientists have become very good at processing data to get at the relevant quantities without distorting their conclusions. They've also come up with ways of proving that they have not reached false conclusions from their data. This is the entire point of statistical analysis. Unless you can specifically point out how all the different statistical analysis of all the different groups was done incorrectly this line of argument is meaningless. Your claim that somehow the mathematical apparatus that has allowed science to advance for generations and is currently employed in everything from biology to particle physics is flawed or was somehow misapplied in this specific case is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof on your part.

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

Quote from: Unadjusted Numbers
The temperature increase is not an artifact of the GHCN adjustment process
Most of the analyses shown above actually use the raw (unadjusted) GHCN data. Zeke Hausfather has done comparisons using both the adjusted and raw versions of the GHCN data set, and as shown in fig. 5, the results are not substantially different at the global scale (though 2008 is a bit of an outlier).

Quote from: On the Impact of Using Less Stations
The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations
While it is true that the number of stations in GHCN has decreased since the early 1990s, that has no real effect on the results of spatially weighted global temperature reconstructions. How do we know this?

Comparisons of trends for stations that dropped out versus stations that persisted post-1990 show no difference in the two populations prior to the dropouts (see, e.g., here and here and here).
The spatial weighting processes (e.g., gridding) used in these analyses makes them robust to the loss of stations. In fact, Nick Stokes has shown that it's possible to derive a global temperature reconstruction using just 61 stations worldwide (in this case, all the stations from GISTEMP that are classified as rural, have at least 90 years of data, and have data in 2010).
Other data sets that don't suffer from GHCN's decline in station numbers show the same temperature increase (see below).
One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong.

And you characterization that it is all the same data set is clearly wrong:

Quote from: Alternate Data Sets
The temperature increase is present in other data sets, not just GHCN
All of the above studies rely (mostly or entirely) on monthly station data from the GHCN database. But it turns out that other, independent data sets give very similar results.

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. Figure 7 shows a comparison of land, ocean, and global temperature data from the surface reconstructions (averaging the multiple analyses shown in figs. 3 and 4) and from satellites (averaging the results from RSS and UAH):

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).

A paper by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link to global surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents).  The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two (0.76; Figure 9).

//////////////

Quote from: alancalverd
We know for a fact that the only actual measurements of mean global surface temperature come from satellites, post-1970. Everything else, whether you call  it proxy, model, or extrapolation from airfield data, is guesswork over the 90% of the planet for which we have no credible previous data.
 
We also know that whenever the satellite data is "corrected", the new curve is a better fit to the CO2 curve, and the "corrections" now exceed the error bars in the original data. Funny, that.   

Beware of the straw man. Only a fool would pretend that the climate hasn't changed, and I'm quite happy to accept that mean global temperature has indeed risen during my lifetime

BUT

Historically and by recent measurement, temperature leads CO2

AND

the discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under a retreating glacier tells us unequivocally that Canada, at least, was significantly warmer 500 years ago than it is today. 

These rather boring facts get in the way of the prevailing consensus of anthropogenic global warming. Which is a pity, because the consensus implies that we could do something to prevent it, whereas the observation sugests that we need to do something to mitigate its effect.

Not that it matters, as politicians have decided on your behalf to do nothing anyway.

We've previously covered the ins and outs of why the CO2 and temperature trends are not always exactly as one would naively expect. There are complicating factors that need to be taken into account and once they are a very reasonable and highly predictive theory emerges. To review the complicating scenarios, no system (especially one the size of the planet's atmosphere) can respond infinitely quickly to changes in environmental factors, there is a natural carbon cycle that has seasonal variation (and are subject to the lags of the first point), and there are long term climate variations due to the various ways in which the Earth orbits and its rotation wobbles as well as solar cycles but these changes cannot account for the total temperature changes without the help of CO2 (specifically there is a positive feedback were these changes increase or decrease CO2 concentration due to the feedback which exacerbates the changes). Currently there are no non-anthropomorphic  changes in the Earth or the Sun that can account for the observed warming.

Further, climatologists don't just rely on temperature/CO2 correlation to make their point:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

There are several different ways one can fingerprint if the changes we are seeing are caused by humans or natural. Here are some selected bits:

Quote from: Stratospheric Cooling
Stratospheric Temperature Change
As the lower atmosphere warms due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, the upper atmosphere is expected to cool as a consequence. The simple way to think about this is that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Since less heat is released into the upper atmosphere (starting with the stratosphere), it cools.

Jones et al. (2003) investigated the changes in temperature over the past 4 decades at both the near surface (troposphere) and stratosphere layers, and compare them to changes predicted by a coupled atmosphere/ocean general circulation model, HadCM3. They concluded as follows.

"Our results strengthen the case for an anthropogenic influence on climate. Unlike previous studies we attribute observed decadal-mean temperature changes both to anthropogenic emissions, and changes in stratospheric volcanic aerosols. The temperature response to change in solar irradiance is also detected but with a lower confidence than the other forcings."

This change in the stratospheric temperature in conjunction with increasing surface temperature is only explained via increased heat trapping of the lower atmosphere.

Quote from: Precipitation Changes
Precipitation
Zhang et al. (2007) showed that models using natural + anthropogenic forcings do a much better job of matching observed precipitation trends than either natural or anthropogenic alone. The correlation with natural forcings alone is extremely weak - only 0.02. With anthropogenic alone is 0.69, and with both combined is 0.83 over the past 75 years.

"We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation"

There are even direct measurements of the changes in IR radiation that match what is expected based on the changes in greenhouse gasses and don't have any other explanation:

Quote from: IR changes
Infrared Radiation
Increase in downward longwave radiation
Anthropogenic global warming is caused by an increase in the amount of downward longwave infrared radiation coming from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Philipona et al. (2004) measured the changes and trends of radiative fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas increases and temperature and humidity changes measured from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network. They concluded as follows.

"The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the "theory" of greenhouse warming with direct observations."
Evans et al. (2006) took it a step further, performing an analysis of high resolution specral data which allowed them to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The study went as far as to conclude,

"This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
Decrease in upward longwave radiation
As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, we expect to see less infrared radiation escaping at the top of the atmosphere. Satellite observations have confirmed that the decrease in upward longwave radiation matches well with model predictions, including in Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, and Chen 2007, the latter of which concluded:

"Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra."

Those examples are of course not exhaustive. You seem to be under the impression that the only evidence is temperature/CO2 correlation and that pretty much couldn't be further from the truth. In fact framing the argument purely in terms of temperature/CO2 correlation could be considered a strawman as it ignores the fact there is a lot of other evidence that is telling us that the changes we are observing are not natural and must be due to the greenhouse effect.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile
ok, if you write off the graphs of temperature vs date because they go back too far (Though in post 407 you were perfectly happy to cite the Vostok cores that go back a lot further) you are left with the spectroscopy.
How do you respond to that?

I have never suggested that Vostok or Mauna Loa data gave us the absolute mean global surface temperature. What they provide is utterly credible records at two single points, over a time scale in which they were actually collected. Both sets of data unequivocally show that temperature leads CO2, not the other way around, so CO2 cannot be the controller of temperature.

If I extrapolated my bank account to a time before I was born, would you consider that to be a reasonable proxy for your grandfather's bank balance, never mind the world average?  So how can anyone dare to assert what the mean temperature of the globe was, fifty years before anyone visited the poles and a hundred years before anyone made any accurate measurements on land, let alone at sea?

And, as I said, if you don't like the historic temperature (and/ or CO2) data forget it. Just address the issues about spectroscopy raised by those posts.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline tkadm30

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1038
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Beware of the straw man. Only a fool would pretend that the climate hasn't changed, and I'm quite happy to accept that mean global temperature has indeed risen during my lifetime

BUT

Historically and by recent measurement, temperature leads CO2

AND

the discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under a retreating glacier tells us unequivocally that Canada, at least, was significantly warmer 500 years ago than it is today. 

These rather boring facts get in the way of the prevailing consensus of anthropogenic global warming. Which is a pity, because the consensus implies that we could do something to prevent it, whereas the observation sugests that we need to do something to mitigate its effect.

Not that it matters, as politicians have decided on your behalf to do nothing anyway.

You're forgetting geoengineering. Solar geoengineering may destroy the ozone layer and lower temperature by injecting sulfate aerosol in the troposphere. Ozone and temperature are strongly correlated.

Quote
Therefore, geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles and cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer even though future halogen concentrations will be significantly reduced.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108/meta
The bliss of ignorance is deeper in the region of tyranny.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8730
    • View Profile


You're forgetting geoengineering. Solar geoengineering may destroy the ozone layer and lower temperature by injecting sulfate aerosol in the troposphere. Ozone and temperature are strongly correlated.

Quote
Therefore, geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles and cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer even though future halogen concentrations will be significantly reduced.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108/meta


Try to get a grip here; what might happen in the future
"geoengineering by means of sulfate aerosols is predicted to accelerate the hydroxyl catalyzed ozone destruction cycles "
is not the same as what is happening now.
You kept making that mistake in the other thread too.
Please stop.
Please disregard all previous signatures.