[Bored chemist]

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

That could ultimately trigger earthquakes and volcanoes....We might be setting ourselves up for a serious catastrophe if the "nuclear winter" induced by erupting volcanoes is one of the factors that helps regulate the earth's temperature range.

So we are talking about some "special" volcanoes you  have invented which erupt, but don't make lava.
OK
Glad we got that cleared up

[alancalverd]

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

They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.

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

Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.

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

Probably negligible as the CO2 absorption bands are already saturated and CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas in a complex, wet atmosphere like ours. It is actually quite easy to do the experiment but, significantly, none of the believers has ever done it.

[alancalverd]

I'm trying to speak to you in chemistry language, in case you didn't notice.

Except that you keep using nuclear physics - conversion of mass to energy. The significant energy in a chemical process has nothing to do with mass loss: chemical laws are all based on conservation of mass.

[Tim the Plumber]

Your inability to do any maths is also noted.

False. I can do maths just fine. I don't need math in this thread. Combustion produces heat. Even cavemen figured that one out, with no math.

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

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

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

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

[Tim the Plumber]

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

It took us a while to figure out that the ocean was absorbing a lot of the extra CO2. That accounts for most of the discrepancy. Regardless:

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

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

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

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

2, Why has this not produced the expected warming?

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

[Bored chemist]

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

Yes, I know about it.
And what you have written

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

[Tim the Plumber]

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

They will reduce, slightly, due to the anomalous thermal expansion of water below 4 deg C.

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous assumption. Most of the additional heating will simply increase surface evaporation, the additional temperature gradient will not stop at 700 m, and even if it did, the convective flow of the oceans does not allow a usefully predictive model to be made over a single year.

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

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

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

[Claude Garneau]

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

[Claude Garneau]

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

[Claude Garneau]

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

[alancalverd]

All of this occurs between 35000 and 37000 feet.

i.e., below the ozone layer.

[Bored chemist]

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

And so on.

[Tim the Plumber]

Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

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

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

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

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

[Bored chemist]

Thanks to Alancard and B.chemist.

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

Perhaps you should find a language you actually understand and write in that.

I write in English just fine. I was an English minor. That's probably one of about ten things I can do better than you.

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

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

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

Ice is less dense than water, it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder. Water takes up more space when frozen into a crystal lattice.

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.

Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

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

[Bored chemist]

No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.

Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

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

Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

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

[Bored chemist]

Er.. no. If the temperature of the cold bits of the ocean was reduced it would expand,

I it actually EXPANDS when it gets colder.

You seem utterly unable  to read

[Craig W. Thomson]

No, the 1st law has nothing to do with entropy.

Nonsense. The first law states that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to the other, and the second law states that when you do that, there is entropy, or increased disorder in the system.

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

Ok, so here's the first law (from wiki)
"First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible."
Now where does that mention entropy?
Well, clearly it doesn't.

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

Source: https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

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

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

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

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