Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

[antagon]

"residence time" is about hypothetical molecules precisely like my diesel. this is the same fact which you put forward with H2O and < 10 days. this H2O figure does not align with your CO2, 200 year figure. that remains inaccurate. if anything is a sly lie, it is this apple/orange juxtaposition which you've made.

i was presuming it was just a mistake. now you put this 200 year decline bit forward as if you meant something different than residence time when you said residence time. dont bother to explain.

no sweat.

my diesel argument is aimed at exploring the significance of this bullshit altogether. water vapor might last a week in the air, but there remains an equilibrium which keeps an average abundance in the atmosphere. while you have claimed that CO2 is that facilitator, i have made it real clear that CO2 does not significantly warm the atmosphere, but that the sun and water, particularly do in degrees more significant than are availed CO2. while the atmosphere can scarcely heat standing water, standing water which absorbs massive amounts of infrared can heat the atmosphere. one of the mechanisms is through water vapor itself. i'm a broken record on this.

this shit is dead-obvious, rocks. if you live on the coast, you can witness uptake and deposit indicating the extent which water directly influences atmospheric temperatures to a greater degree than land. this is water, rocks. one of the highest levels of heat enthalpy on the planet. CO2 dont play that.

tell you what, 'easily detect with a bit of research' how sea temperature averages dramatically increased in the 1970s and make the case that the directly correlated water vapor and atmospheric temperature increases are actually due to CO2 instead of water temps. alternatively, you can explain how CO2 could make the sea surface temp increase despite H2O holding about a 1000:1 heat retention advantage over air -- explain your thermodynamic magic, buddy.

What you are describing is two completely separate events. Both are net neutral.

First the state change of water liquid to water vapor does extract a lot of energy out of the parent material (water) when it occurs, but this energy is released when the water recondenses later.

Second you are describing water's unique ability as a gas or a fluid to carry heat and transfer heat. Again a net neutral reaction.

All of this is distinct from water's ability to secure and store heat and cause global warming. That is a purely atmospheric effect. It is based purely upon water vapor's ability to extract heat energy from passing photons in the atmosphere.

A different effect entirely.

this is not distinct. heat transfer is perfectly inversible, such that the capacity for water to heat air, whether vapor or liquid is ~ 1000:1 while the inverse - for air to heat water - is 1:1000. for this reason, those who contend that CO2 or the atmosphere is responsible for warming need to answer to global warming in the earth's oceans where i argue the vast majority of warming has been recorded. the atmospheric warming is a consequence of oceanic warming is what i argue, and trends in warming bear that out.

the challenge remains to explain the magic heat transfer which works against conventional logic.

as to net neutrality, this is not accurate. liquid water absorbs huge masses of ir energy, while ice reflects substantially more. the potential for land to absorb energy is facilitated by water and water-bearing plant life. vapor effects heat transfer to the atmosphere in ways which land mass cant manage. the atmosphere and oceans determine the degree which the planet can retain the heat of the sun. the oceans are responsible for better than 3/4 of this retention and water the vast majority of it's distribution.

this is another non-zero sum scenario, cannon. energy which reflects out of the atmosphere is lost to the system. the components which interact with the energy make all the difference and water is the one which makes warming on earth happen by and large.

 

[antagon]

Your answer to Antagon was a model of clarity, thank you.

clear but inaccurate.

what is your answer to the correlation of atmospheric and oceanic warming, and how the hell can the atmosphere or CO2 be responsible?

 

[code1211]

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

And we produce less than one tenth of what is produced by nature. Yeah that's going to make a difference.



But we cannot prove that our insignificant output is the source of any increase or decrease previous to modern technology in the mid 1900's

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

That is syllogism, not correct logic. It assumes:

1, only manmade sources increased production since the beginning of the industrial age which also started at the end of the little ice age during the mid to late 1800's

2, Sun activity being system neutral.

3, Volcanic activity has been stagnant during that period

No, you have spouted a syllogism. All ravens are birds. All ravens are black. Therefore all birds are black.

Fail. Fail. Fail.

Next?

If man hasn't had a big effect on GHGs, where are they coming from? I assume nothing about the sun, the sun doesn't produce GHGs, does it? Volcanic output(<1%) is dwarfed by human emissions. My syllogism was in correct form and your objections are either unsupported or ireelevant. Your attempt at a syllogism was not logical. You committed the fallacy of the "Undistribued Middle". Look it up and get back to me.

96 to 97% of all GHG 's emitted today come from natural sources. As plants and animals grew and then died in places that were recently gripped by perma frost, they contained carbon which was sequestered. During this period of warming, we are seeing that these areas are thawing and the sequestered CO2 is now being released.

Two things to note in this:
1. If the plants grew there in the past, those areas were warmer in the past.
2. The glacial retreat so loudly trumpeted by AGW proponents as a sign of the apocolypse, has caused a retreat of glaciers to a point that they were at 5000 years ago. This is proven by the discovery of the "Iceman" some years back perfectly preserved under a glacier which seems to have started while the poor guy was dying alone in a snow storm. We have warmed to a point at which this planet was in the very recent past, but not yet to the point at which it was 3000 years before that.

So, the CO2 comes primarily from natural souurces and we have been much warmer than today even during this interglacial.

 

[code1211]

Ah yes. Until we study the natural forcings in the climate, we should not consider what the rapid increase in GHGs is doing to that climate. And, by the way, we are going to defund all such studies since we know they are useless anyway.

Platform Of Willful Ignorance Babelgum Michael Sharp | someecards.com

I thought I had heard that NASA was out of the NASA business and had entered into the Global Warming business.

 

[loosecannon]

this is not distinct. heat transfer is perfectly inversible, such that the capacity for water to heat air, whether vapor or liquid is ~ 1000:1 while the inverse - for air to heat water - is 1:1000. for this reason, those who contend that CO2 or the atmosphere is responsible for warming need to answer to global warming in the earth's oceans where i argue the vast majority of warming has been recorded. the atmospheric warming is a consequence of oceanic warming is what i argue, and trends in warming bear that out.

the challenge remains to explain the magic heat transfer which works against conventional logic.

as to net neutrality, this is not accurate. liquid water absorbs huge masses of ir energy, while ice reflects substantially more. the potential for land to absorb energy is facilitated by water and water-bearing plant life. vapor effects heat transfer to the atmosphere in ways which land mass cant manage. the atmosphere and oceans determine the degree which the planet can retain the heat of the sun. the oceans are responsible for better than 3/4 of this retention and water the vast majority of it's distribution.

this is another non-zero sum scenario, cannon. energy which reflects out of the atmosphere is lost to the system. the components which interact with the energy make all the difference and water is the one which makes warming on earth happen by and large.

You are really clouding a fairly simple group of effects.

The ability of air to heat water and water to heat air normalize a lot closer to 1:1 when the water becomes vapor, or air.

Second the atmosphere and rain and ice meltoff contribute very significantly to the temp of the oceans.

Third it is expressly the fact that the oceans give away heat so readily that cools them. What is the mean surface temp of the earth? roughly 56 degrees? A few degrees more or a few degrees less? The oceans basically reside between a solid mass that is 56 degrees and a gaseous mass that is what? 52 degrees?

And land actually has a very ability to retain heat because of it's color and non reflective surface. Whereas the reflective surface of the oceans along with it's color (that of the air above) inhibit it's ability to obsorb heat energy, both visible and invisible infrared as well as visible light itself. All three of those can be converted directly to heat by matte surfaces with dark colors.

I can't really tell what exactly your point is, antagon, but if your point is that water vapor is not a leading GHG, or a leading factor in solar energy retention I can't agree.

I strongly believe that the atmosphere is the leading component of solar radiation retention and conversion to heat. Water vapor being the principle agent. The largest role the ocean plays may be it's surface absorbtion of solar energy, or merely it's role in the cycle of water.

If it clear tonight temps will be in the low 30's. If it is cloudy the temps will be mid 50's. That is the role the atmosphere plays in heat retention.

If it is clear tomorrow it will reach 80, if it is cloudy only about 60. But the heat that isn't realized at the surface will be captured by those clouds and deposited elsewhere. That is the role that the atmosphere plays in heat capture.

I will agree tho, that the oceans play a far, far larger role in distributing heat around the globe than air movement does. Maybe that is what you meant.

 

[loosecannon]

Oh one more thing: the state change from liquid water to water vapor requires so much energy that regardless of the oceans ability to capture solar energy nearly all of that energy would necessarily be lost fueling that state change, which again reverses itself returning that heat later when the vapor changes back to a liquid.

But I assume most of that energy comes from geothermal sources. But to be certain you only need to know what the temp differential is between the ocean floor's mean temp, it's mean temp at all intermediate depths, and it's mean surface temp.

 

[loosecannon]

A question, antagon: what % of the solar energy that enters the earth's atmosphere reaches the surface without striking a gas molecule first? A water molecule in the atmosphere?

 

[antagon]

You are really clouding a fairly simple group of effects.

The ability of air to heat water and water to heat air normalize a lot closer to 1:1 when the water becomes vapor, or air.

this is only true because water vapor is only about 1% of air. because enthalpy of evaporation and condensation are perfectly inverse, a water molecule's capacity for heat transfer is conserved. it is also one of the most effective GhGs molecule by molecule. it is the most abundant, furthermore.

Second the atmosphere and rain and ice meltoff contribute very significantly to the temp of the oceans.

the sun contributes most to warming of ocean temps. by far. like i've argued, the atmosphere cant leverage heat transfer on water. 1000:1 the effect will go the other way. you mention melt off. i believe that something has affected the cooling influences on our oceans in the last 35 years. perhaps glacial/polar ice has lost its leverage on the oceans or currents have changed of been dominated by warmer tropical surface currents.

Third it is expressly the fact that the oceans give away heat so readily that cools them. What is the mean surface temp of the earth? roughly 56 degrees? A few degrees more or a few degrees less? The oceans basically reside between a solid mass that is 56 degrees and a gaseous mass that is what? 52 degrees?

false. water does not give away heat readily. few other substances can hold heat like water. few others wick heat like water.

And land actually has a very ability to retain heat because of it's color and non reflective surface. Whereas the reflective surface of the oceans along with it's color (that of the air above) inhibit it's ability to obsorb heat energy, both visible and invisible infrared as well as visible light itself. All three of those can be converted directly to heat by matte surfaces with dark colors.

false again. water absorbs more heat than land. the color we see is the color of the unabsorbed spectrum. deep water is a dark color. the heat we feel is the heat reflected and radiated off of a surface, water absorbs and retains heat. this is why it imparts a cooling effect on hot surfaces which few other materials can match. this saturation effect is perfectly inversible, so that if water is hotter, it will have the inverse effect on heat transfer. heating exactly as effectively as it cools. water covers more of the planet, communicates temperature throughout its mass more effectively than land mass, and has a higher capacity for temperature absorption and retention as well as distribution through its vapor phase in the atmosphere and in its ocean currents.

I can't really tell what exactly your point is, antagon, but if your point is that water vapor is not a leading GHG, or a leading factor in solar energy retention I can't agree.

it is the opposite of what you've said there. water vapor is the most influential GhG for its warming effect and spectral absorbtion/scattering capacity as well as its unique capacity to absorb and transfer heat. the oceans are a source for WV and are the most significant absorbtion point of the sun's energy, vastly dominating the role which land or atmosphere play. specifically i was pointing out to old rocks that his proposal that CO2 was responsible for warming was not plausible. his attribution of CO2 in the atmosphere as the catalyst for atmospheric water vapor is also implausible in that water vapor enters the atmosphere through evaporation caused by light from the sun not heat from the atmosphere. in fact, the atmosphere only has 1:1000 leverage on water with respect to heat transfer.

I strongly believe that the atmosphere is the leading component of solar radiation retention and conversion to heat. Water vapor being the principle agent. The largest role the ocean plays may be it's surface absorbtion of solar energy, or merely it's role in the cycle of water.

you are wrong.

If it clear tonight temps will be in the low 30's. If it is cloudy the temps will be mid 50's. That is the role the atmosphere plays in heat retention.

If it is clear tomorrow it will reach 80, if it is cloudy only about 60. But the heat that isn't realized at the surface will be captured by those clouds and deposited elsewhere. That is the role that the atmosphere plays in heat capture.

this reinforces the roll of water vapor in and out of the atmosphere. the phenomenon which you are tracking functions by way of humidity does it not?

because of the leverage which water has to air with respect to absorption and transfer of heat, the heat required to effect your 30* temp change is many hundreds of times less than would be required to change temperatures of the same volume of water to the same degree. the perfect inversion means that temps in vapor or in liquid water have that much more influence on atmospheric temps.

this is basic heat transfer. thermal dynamics.

 

[antagon]

Oh one more thing: the state change from liquid water to water vapor requires so much energy that regardless of the oceans ability to capture solar energy nearly all of that energy would necessarily be lost fueling that state change, which again reverses itself returning that heat later when the vapor changes back to a liquid.

But I assume most of that energy comes from geothermal sources. But to be certain you only need to know what the temp differential is between the ocean floor's mean temp, it's mean temp at all intermediate depths, and it's mean surface temp.

~174,000,000,000,000,000joules from the sun constantly bombard the planet. 47,000,000,000,000joules come from geothermal sources. the sun contributes 3700 x the energy than the earth does.

whachutakinbout, cannon

far greater energy is absorbed by water than effects evaporation. sensible heat transfer spreads this energy deeper while latency is only obtained at the surface. it is the subjection to surface heat which causes the evaporation, so without at sufficient levels, there's no evaporation, no evaporative cooling. hence there's no way that evaporation could effect net cooling on water.

 

[antagon]

A question, antagon: what % of the solar energy that enters the earth's atmosphere reaches the surface without striking a gas molecule first? A water molecule in the atmosphere?

i couldn't imagine much/any energy sneaks by the gasses at all. i couldn't account for your point here.

 

[loosecannon]

Absolutely false. The ocean is warmed by the earth first, atmosphere and solar radiation are second and third tho none of us knows the exact order until we have further data.

The earth is a several thousand degree hot rock that is actually touching the ocean along a large surface area, whereas the sun is a much hotter rock 108 million miles away and most of the suns' energy never reaches the surface of the earth because the atmosphere gets first access to that energy.

 

[loosecannon]

the atmosphere cant leverage heat transfer on water. 1000:1 the effect will go the other way.

It doesn't make any difference if water transfers heat into the atmosphere 1000 times more readily, what matters is which is warmer, the ocean or the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is warmer than it will heat the oceans, period.

Heat transfer works two ways: a cold window can radiate cold just as readily as a hot window can radiate heat. In fact a window always does both at once. IF there is a temp differential between inside and outside.

Which brings us back to which is warmer the mean ocean surface temp or the mean surface atmosphere temp?

 

[loosecannon]

false. water does not give away heat readily. few other substances can hold heat like water. few others wick heat like water.

Actually you are deeply confused on this point.

NOTHING gives away heat as well as water, at least no common material. And there is a VERY simple way that you can prove this to yourself.

Stick your hand into an oven that is heated to 212 degrees

then stick your hand into water heated to boiling

then pick up a piece of aluminum, copper and then steel all heated to the exact same temp.

In order you will receive the worse burn by far from the water, then the copper, aluminum, steel and the oven won't even phase you.

Water gives away heat AND absorbs heat with EXACTLY the same efficiency.

Which is why water is the premium liquid to use in your truck's cooling system. It absorbs heat from the engine faster than anything else and releases that heat thru the radiator faster than anything else. If you add antifreeze to the system that efficiency drops, but the water won't corrode your engine or freeze.

 

[Charles_Main]

There was a time when the clergy and scientists harmoniously declared that the Earth was FLAT. This dogma was mandated and forced upon everyone until the flat-earth theory was undeniably disproved.

Presently, the hot-air notion that carbon emissions are causing global warming is backed by scientific dogma. The hot-air dogma has been repeatedly drummed into people&#8217;s heads. Any who dare to question the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) dogma are ridiculed and labelled as ignorant sceptics.

There is supposedly sufficient scientific basis behind the hot-air notion of the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming that is so overwhelming that to question or debate the notion is deemed irresponsible and ignorant. In other words, the proponents of this notion expect everyone to swallow their dogma.

One has to wonder why this carbon dogma has been elevated to an unassailable &#8220;fact&#8221;. Why are all scientists expected to accept the carbon dogma and convince the public to believe in it?

There was a time when environmentalists were very concerned with pollution issues, and they constantly warned people of the dangers of nuclear reactors. It was not long ago that environmentalists cringed, violently protested and even stopped trains when nuclear power was advocated, and they were quick to bring up the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify their concerns. Many of these same environmentalists have now been &#8220;educated&#8221; to believe that nuclear power is carbon friendly. These &#8220;newly enlightened&#8221; environmentalists have shifted 180 degrees in their positions regarding nuclear energy. They now openly accept that nuclear power will combat global warming because they believe so strongly in the notion that carbon emissions are directly responsible for global warming.

The environmentalists who now propose nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions have been &#8220;educated&#8221; to forget that many nuclear reactors use water to cool them. The heated water is then discharged into the streams. This may be defined as carbon friendly, but it is detrimental to the environment. These new &#8220;greens&#8221; were once the &#8220;save-the-planet&#8221; environmentalists, but they have been &#8220;educated&#8221; to now actively lobby for more nuclear reactors to be constructed! So thorough has been their &#8220;education&#8221; that these environmentalists have forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the fact that nuclear reactors heat up the rivers and kill the fish. They have forgotten that nuclear waste is not really biodegradable. In short, they have forgotten their self-proclaimed mission to protect the planet.

According to the current &#8220;scientific&#8221; notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, &#8220;Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?&#8221;

My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the &#8220;educated&#8221; scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being &#8220;educated&#8221; to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they &#8220;educated&#8221; ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?

Amitakh Stanford

Let's see if you have YOUR facts straight.

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

We know, according to ice-core data, that their concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

Your logic does not negate the possibility that Global Warming is not Mostly man mad. It simply proves we act as a contributing Factor to it. If you had actually read the post you would see the argument being made is simply that man is not the sole, nor the biggest cause of the warming we are seeing.

That isn't Dogma either, that's realizing there are more factors than just the Extra C02 man adds to the equation.

 

[Oddball]

false. water does not give away heat readily. few other substances can hold heat like water. few others wick heat like water.

Actually you are deeply confused on this point.

NOTHING gives away heat as well as water, at least no common material. And there is a VERY simple way that you can prove this to yourself.

Stick your hand into an oven that is heated to 212 degrees

then stick your hand into water heated to boiling

then pick up a piece of aluminum, copper and then steel all heated to the exact same temp.

In order you will receive the worse burn by far from the water, then the copper, aluminum, steel and the oven won't even phase you.

Water gives away heat AND absorbs heat with EXACTLY the same efficiency.

Which is why water is the premium liquid to use in your truck's cooling system. It absorbs heat from the engine faster than anything else and releases that heat thru the radiator faster than anything else. If you add antifreeze to the system that efficiency drops, but the water won't corrode your engine or freeze.

Stupid comparison.

People are 70+% water...The localized temperature increase of boiling water can't be as readily dispersed as it can with other far more dissimilar materials....In any case, a 212° piece of metal is still going to be plenty hot to the touch.

 

[loosecannon]

~174,000,000,000,000,000joules from the sun constantly bombard the planet. 47,000,000,000,000joules come from geothermal sources. the sun contributes 3700 x the energy than the earth does.

You better prove that because I absolutely can not imagine it is true.

As per water you seem to have a remarkably strong attachment to a complete misunderstanding of how water reacts with heat.

Do a simple thought experiment:

Surround a volume of water with the material of your choice being sure to select one that doesn't retain heat well or transfer heat well. Now surround that with a perfectly insulated enclosure.

Now if the water is 100 degrees and the material surrounding it is 200 degrees will the water and the surrounding material reach an equal temp equilibrium?

The answer is of course they will. Because all materials conduct heat and all materials conduct heat and receive heat in the exact same efficiency.

If they didn't, if water had this bizarre ability to absorb heat but not release it, the two materials would never achieve equilibrium. Ever.

Which is of course not the way it works.

 

[loosecannon]

I am curious why you mentioned thermodynamics since heat transfer is not an energy conversion and therefore not covered by the laws of thermodynamics.

It is covered by the conservation of energy principle.

 

[Oddball]

You really know nothing of meteorology, do you?

How 'bout you tell the class how and why advection fog forms?

 

[loosecannon]

Now lets do another thought experiment:

Imagine that the Earth had a twin planet that shared our orbit.

That twin had no atmosphere.

Would it then be as cold as the moon, completely solid, or would it still be hot and molten like the earth insulated only by a thin atmosphere?

Apparently it is the thin atmosphere that keeps the earth warm and molten after 6 billion years of cooling.

Not the fact that the Earth happens to have oceans.

 

[Oddball]

How about an experiment IRL?

How and why do clouds and fog form?