[Craig W. Thomson]

Be warned Alan. You are challenging a man with a vast skill set and a high IQ.

At least I recognize that a science forum is for talking about science. You can't seem to talk about anything but me.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting.

No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.

[Tim the Plumber]

Then kindly demonstrate your ability to work out how much sea level rise would happen due to 200 km³ of ice melting.

No. You show me how you came up with 1 + 1/15,000 = 1, calculator boy. Then, show me how you cause a rise in sea level by unclogging a toilet incorrectly.

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

That's 100% false. I've only been kicked out of a forum once. That was on my birthday, and I was drunk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your money just went up in smoke with your arguments.

If you still can't see that, it's because the smoke is getting in your eyes.

[Tim the Plumber]

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

You don't have to have all the answers. Like I said, I took some science and math in college, and did quite well. I've literally read hundreds of pounds of science literature over the years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.

False on two counts.

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

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

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

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

[jeffreyH]

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

[Tim the Plumber]

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

You're completely ignoring the most important part: At no time during the past 800,000 years was there a 150 year period where the carbon dioxide contained in 100 million years worth of fossil fuels was being released by tens of thousands of factories and hundreds of millions of automobiles.

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim the Plumber]

The direct heating as a result of burning fossil fuels is not at all significant except for the heat island effect.

False on two counts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[alancalverd]

because you have absolutely NO IDEA what happens when all of a sudden, carbon dioxide starts leading.

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

[agyejy]

Just to make sure everyone is aware of all the evidence:

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

Nice video. I happen to have one too, the whole reason I'm posting this late, which I usually don't. Mornings are my time for math and physics. US news coverage is geared more toward Atlantic than Pacific storms, so I first heard about this in a greatest natural disasters of 2015 documentary on Hulu I watched today and thought about this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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

What in blazes are you talking about?

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

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

You mentioned Mauna Loa, so here:

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

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

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

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

Are you actually a moderator, or is that just your username? I still have a hard time believing a moderator of a SCIENCE forum would be so lackadaisical about interpreting empirical evidence.

[alancalverd]

So let's put it very simply, once again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bored chemist]

Combustion of methane produces a net reduction in entropy.
Here is the calculation for you
http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter5/chap5_4.htm
It's aimed at students.

So
STOP SAYING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE; YOU ARE UNDERMINING THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT CLIMATE. CHANGE.

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH, HYPOCRITE.

Read at the top of the page you just posted, where it says this in the gray boxed area:

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

That includes the combustion of methane, flat earther. That is the act of taking apart a complex, high energy molecule to get the energy, leaving you with less complex molecules in more stable forms. For someone so arrogant with a science degree, you have some huge gaps in your knowledge. It's pretty sad a layman like me has to point that out.

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

[Bored chemist]

You seem utterly unable  to read

You seem unable to do math...

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


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

So, would you like to discuss what I did say, rather than strawmanning what I never said?

[jeffreyH]

Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?

[Craig W. Thomson]

Craig, you know full well that a moderator has to be above all the nonsense and lead by example. Which is why you attempt to push the boundaries with insults and disparaging remarks. I however have no such limitations. Would you like to share some of those comments from other threads?

NO, I want you to talk about science. I already told you that, at least half a dozen times. Apparently, you have a learning disability.