[Bored chemist]

Please stop pretending that the heat liberated by burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor- it is, as has been pointed out, tiny.

Please stop pretending you are a chemist. You are not a big fan of reality, huh? Remember my analogy about having a fever? It only takes a few little degrees above 98.6 Fahrenheit, and you will die. That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?

Also, your logic is flawed. Of course, EVERYTHING that happens on earth is tiny compared to the sun, because the sun is HUGE. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.

I remember it- it wasn't relevant then, and it isn't relevant now.
"That can be achieved with less than a gram of bacteria. What makes you think a 500 million tons of humans can't do the same thing to the planet?
I don't think that humans can't affect the planet.
In fact I'm perfectly convinced they have done, and are doing so.

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

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

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

[Bored chemist]

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

It's nice to know that irony is alive and well.

[JoeBrown]

When I first became concerned about global warming, like many others associated heat from fossil fuels as a potential culprit.  So I did some research on the Internet.  Been a few years ago (somewhere around 2007) when I did this, but I was kind of shocked.  I might have been a little biased one way or the other, can't remember...

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

Coal BTUs/yr 188,190,000,000,000,000 188

Oil BTUs/yr 187,573,685,712,000,000,000 187,574

Fossil BTUs

Fossil BTUs per hour 21,434,004,076,712,300 21

Fossil BTUs per day 514,416,097,841,096,000 514

Fossil BTUs per year 187,761,875,712,000,000,000 187,762

Square feet on planet 5,490,383,247,360,000

Fossil BTUs per square foot per hour 3.9

Solar radiation

BTUs per solar day 56,621,224,353,374,200,000 56,621

BTUs per solar year 20,666,746,888,981,600,000,000 20,666,747

Solar radiation 429.7

+

BTUs Solar & fossil fuel per day 57,135,640,451,215,300,000 57,136

2007 fossil percentage 0.90%

2005 remaining coal 997,748 Million tons

2007 rate of consumption 6,150 Million tons

Years remaining at 2007 rate 162

2007 remaining oil 1,327,000 Million barrels

2005 consumption rate 30,660 Million barrels

Years remaining at 2005 rate 43

2005, 2007 baseline numbers for oil and coal consumption pulled from http://www.peaktoprairie.com/?D=188

The solar constant is defined as 429.7 Btu/sq. ft./hour, a ball of hydrogen that has a 12 year cycle isn't very constant, but somewhat predictable.

In 2007 nearly 1 percent of the heat on earth came from fossil fuel.  2013 – 2014 when the sun shifts into it's hottest part of the 12 year cycle, it will be hotter!

A wild guess 10% of the excess fossil heat was consumed by air conditioners relocating excess heat.  Ahh the luxuries of being the one's heating the earth

If I were a wise race of beings, I'd be saving that fuel for an ice age, when it was really needed, and hope it lasts.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Just plain wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

FALSE. I'm not trying to upset you or sow discord. You're doing that to me on behalf of climate change skeptics. I'm merely trying to inject real science into the conversation. And again, I'm doing that as myself, not anonymously like you.

[Craig W. Thomson]

And what really galls me is that I'd much rather be pointing out that the climate change deniers are the ones who can't do basic maths.
Why don't you try not talking nonsense? Then they won't be able to say "but the people who believe in climate change can't do basic physics".

I'm not talking nonsense. You are. No scientist would ever say the stupid things you do. When you apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, that produces heat. It's not a coincidence that the planet is getting warmer as a response. That's the easiest way to explain it do a skeptic or denier. You can overcomplicate things as much as you like, but you are still wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

it's a problem with the zillion tons of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

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

Maybe you should take back the "zillion tons" comment instead of being a pretentious, ignorant hypocrite.

(shrugs)

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

Only a fool would deny that climate changes - it is inherently and observably unstable. But it takes a committed liar to insist, or a gullible nonscientist to believe, that CO2 is the driver of climate change.

No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of story.

[Craig W. Thomson]

This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).

I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.

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

[JoeBrown]

I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that.

Perhaps a chemist shouldn't worry about that.  e=mc² which is applicable to fusion.

Burning hydrocarbons is a chemical reaction which is more subtle than e=mc², although there are similarities.

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

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

That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.

[Tim the Plumber]

2015 was one of the lowest tornado years;

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/noaa-number-of-major-tornadoes-in-2015-was-one-of-the-lowest-on-record-tornadoes-below-average-for-4th-year-in-a-row/

The models which predict increased storm activity are the same ones which have failed to predict the climate for 18 years. Surely more even temperatures would create conditions of less wind and storms. And tornadoes. [/color]

FALSE. The vast majority of the tornadoes in the world happen in Tornado Alley. That's because of geography. Air masses travel over the Rocky Mountains and dump all their snow. What is left is very cold, very dry air. In Tornado Alley, that air mass meets up with a very warm, very moist air mass travelling up from the Gulf of Mexico. That's what powers most of the world's tornadoes.

http://www.universetoday.com/75828/where-is-tornado-alley/

When the climate gets warmer, that shifts climate zones. When you warm up the atmosphere, that affects circulation patterns. If you shift the movement of air masses away from the geography that makes them clash, you get less tornadoes.

http://sites.sinauer.com/ecology3e/ccc/CCC-24-01.jpg

Again, you are led by Confirmation Bias. You start with a theory (climate change is not real), then cherry pick information that you believe supports your non-factual claim. That's the exact opposite of the Scientific Method, and your hypotheses therefore have no place in a scientific forum.

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

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

[Bored chemist]

This might help Craig understand BC's perspective, or confuse the issues more... (lol).

I already understand his perspective. He's supposedly a chemist. When combustion is applied to fossil fuels, what is happening is that a tiny fraction of mass is being converted to a great deal of energy, according to the formula E-mc^2. Chemists don't worry about that. They measure a mole of some stuff and a mole of some other stuff and make it have a reaction, then measure the mass of what's left after the reaction and come up with the same number. But, it's not the same number. Some mass was lost as heat. Chemists are a bit imprecise because they disregard that missing mass. Physicists don't.

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

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

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

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

[alancalverd]

No, climate is NOT inherently and observably unstable. That would imply no patterns. There is order within the disorder, also known as "chaos."

Please use correct mathematical terminology. A chaotic oscillator is inherently unstable - it wouldn't oscillate i9f it was stable. There is short-term rationale within the behavior of climate, but the different periodicities of the components make it unpredictable. And of course it is observable (even if most of the so-called observations are massaged proxies) - we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise.

Both temperature and carbon dioxide content have stayed within well-defined parameters

Temperature and CO2 content are parameters. A parameter is not a limit.

I've never said carbon dioxide is "the" driver of climate change. It is "a" driver of climate change.

The only data you have presented, clearly shows that it is an effect, not a cause.

You guys are basically telling me, we can apply combustion to 100 million years of fossil fuels, and there will be no consequences, no equal and opposite reaction.

Nobody has said that. But a few of us have asked you to put numbers to the "consequences" and offered some suggestions. And the whole business of climate scaremongering depends on the reaction not being equal and opposite! 

[Craig W. Thomson]

I start with your cliam that climate change has caused more tornadoes and find the data the says it is wrong. There have been less tornadoes.

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

blah blah blah

Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere, pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, roll down your windows, and leave the car running, because I'm tired of refuting your biased nonsense. Your arguments are ignorant and silly enough to post at FOX news.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Well, saying things on a science that are wrong, even though you don't care if they are or not, is sowing discord.

I haven't said anything "wrong." If you knew your science correctly, you would that. You are the one sowing discord, along with "global moderator" alancalverd. Your confirmation biases and inability to accept empirical evidence is the problem. That is to say, neither of you operate according to the Scientific Method. You are nothing more than a couple of Flat Earthers. You might as well be burning me at the stake for being a witch.

[Craig W. Thomson]

That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.

Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.

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

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

This is the whole race of humanity we are talking about. I'm really sick of skeptics controlling the conversation. Of course, I didn't have any biological children, so my conscience is clean. I'm not leaving anyone a mess to deal with.

[alancalverd]

Not even the "scientists" who contribute to the IPCC consensus suggest that the heat from burning fossil fuels is significant. You are of course entitled to  your opinion but you are not entitled to claim the support of those who disagree with it.

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

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

If observing that A always precedes B is called cherrypicking, what name would you give to pretending that it doesn't?

[Bored chemist]

blah blah blah

Again, if you don't believe burning fossil fuels changes the temperature and composition of the atmosphere,

Straw man.
I said all along that it changes the composition of the atmosphere.
Why are you pretending I didn't?
Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.

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

[Bored chemist]

That's almost 1% of heat.  It's not entirely insignificant but its a tiny fraction, which seemed to be BC's point.

Oh, well, if you and a plumber say it's true, I suppose I should listen. Nevermind what an international panel of scientists has to say.

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

Since it's easy to check what I actually said, the real question now is whether you are a deliberate liar, or just too lazy to read.

There's another explanation. I got my trolls mixed up. You sound just like all the other flat earth climate skeptics to me.

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

And you're fighting me on that ...