Problems with AGW Modeling

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not a scientist or a "Climate Researcher" or someone paid to post my propaganda on Internet Boards. I was a financial analyst back before the PC and am now doing real estate development.

I've been reading and analyzing the various "theories" put forth by the AGW proponents for about a decade now and my criticism of their methodology has increase proportionally to the sum of their refusal to provide any direct lab work plus their compounded credibility damage by calling skeptics "DENIERS!!"

The latest problem involves logic and math. Supposedly, the heat trapping caused by an additional 120PPM of CO2 has raised global temperature .9 degrees over the past 150 years (I will use number provided by the AGW "scientists" and not dispute their method, veracity or basic honesty).

OK, so for the entire planet: land, air and water, we have a .9 degree increase.

With me so far?

Now, according to the people who tell us that they're using Climate Change to redistribute wealth, "Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans (Figure from IPCC 5thAssessment Report)."

Ocean Warming

So, 90% of the heat is trapped by the oceans, but water requires much more heat to increase temperature than a similar volume of air. Not 700 times as some have suggested, but rather 4 times.

"About one unit of heat energy is needed to warm the air one degree Celsius. Four times more heat energy is needed to warm the water one degree Celsius"

Physical Properties Water Chemistry Temperature from Discovery of Estuarine Environments DOEE

Water has a specific heat of 4.186 J/g degreesC, versus air, which has a specific heat of 1.005 J/g degreesC.

Bridge Ocean Education Teacher Resource Center

So, if 120PPM of CO2 has raised the temperature of a system where 90% of the heat is trapped by water, which takes 4 times the energy to heat than air by .9 degrees, you would expect that 120PPM would raise the temperature of air alone by a full 4 degrees.

So, why can't any climate scientist show us this 4 degree increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2?

 

[Dot Com]

are you for the deregulation of all GHGs Frank?!!! What about scrubbers from coal-fired power plants that reduce harmful emissions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

are you for the deregulation of all GHGs Frank?!!! What about scrubbers from coal-fired power plants that reduce harmful emissions?

I'm for getting an answer to a simple math problem

 

[mamooth]

So, 90% of the heat is trapped by the oceans, but water requires much more heat to increase temperature than a similar volume of air. Not 700 times as some have suggested, but rather 4 times.

No. Totally wrong. 4 times for the same mass, but you said "volume". If you compare volumetric heat capacity, water is about 3000 times bigger than air.

So, if 120PPM of CO2 has raised the temperature of a system where 90% of the heat is trapped by water, which takes 4 times the energy to heat than air by .9 degrees, you would expect that 120PPM would raise the temperature of air alone by a full 4 degrees

Even if you hadn't botched the specific heats, that's just nonsense. The conclusion does not follow from the premise is any way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, 90% of the heat is trapped by the oceans, but water requires much more heat to increase temperature than a similar volume of air. Not 700 times as some have suggested, but rather 4 times.

No. Totally wrong. 4 times for the same mass, but you said "volume". If you comparing volumetric heat capacity, water is about 3000 times bigger than air.

So, if 120PPM of CO2 has raised the temperature of a system where 90% of the heat is trapped by water, which takes 4 times the energy to heat than air by .9 degrees, you would expect that 120PPM would raise the temperature of air alone by a full 4 degrees

Even if you hadn't botched the specific heats, that's just nonsense. The conclusion does not follow from the premise is any way.

Interesting, so what your saying is that a system with only air should show a temperature increase far, far, far greater than the 4 degrees supposed

Why doesn't it follow?

 

[mamooth]

No, I'm not saying any such thing. I'm sure of that because I have no idea what you just babbled about.

You need to explain in detail the reasoning behind your supposedly brilliant take down of all climate science, instead of just waving your hands around. That is, how did you go from this:

So, if 120PPM of CO2 has raised the temperature of a system where 90% of the heat is trapped by water, which takes 4 times the energy to heat than air by .9 degrees,

to this?

you would expect that 120PPM would raise the temperature of air alone by a full 4 degrees

Fully explain all of your reasoning, and include all calculations. If you don't, it's just you yelling "Because I say so!", and thus not worth anything.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, I'm not saying any such thing. I'm sure of that because I have no idea what you just babbled about.

You need to explain in detail the reasoning behind your supposedly brilliant take down of all climate science, instead of just waving your hands around. That is, how did you go from this:

So, if 120PPM of CO2 has raised the temperature of a system where 90% of the heat is trapped by water, which takes 4 times the energy to heat than air by .9 degrees,

to this?

you would expect that 120PPM would raise the temperature of air alone by a full 4 degrees

Fully explain all of your reasoning, and include all calculations. If you don't, it's just you yelling "Because I say so!", and thus not worth anything.

But you accept without any proof the claims of "scientists" if you do not then post for us the experiments conducted by these scientists that prove the point.

 

[mamooth]

Stop diverting. The thread topic is Frank's theory, the one you've willingly signed on to. So discuss it. If you can't explain the theory you're pushing, that doesn't reflect well on you.

 

[Dot Com]

looks like its back to the (denier) drawing board for OP

 

[jc456]

Stop diverting. The thread topic is Frank's theory, the one you've willingly signed on to. So discuss it. If you can't explain the theory you're pushing, that doesn't reflect well on you.

seems asking for the experiment is in line with the OP, nice try though. We know you ain't got it.

 

[Crick]

No, actually it has NOTHING to do with the OP.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the reason no scientific experiments exist to show us how x amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature by Z amount is because no one can duplicate the earth to run the experiment. BUT without that duplication or close to it and no realistic models that are any better scientists and warmers CAN say how much heating will occur?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No one wants to do the MATH? It doesn't really surprise me actually.

Frank,
The modeling fails because they refuse to acknowledge water vapor. Its the key to their whole failure to make an accurate model. They simply do not know how to quantify it because it can change by 40%, or more, in minuets at any place on the globe.

NOAA has been using Joules in their calculations because many dont know how to convert Joules into watts to make accurate comparisons. A few definitions are in order to show you how complex the calculations are.

Joule: The energy at one volt to sustain 1 watt for 1 second over an area 1mm x 1mm. Also defined as: the energy necessary to raise 1cc of water 1 deg C.

it will take me some time to write this up coherently, so think about this for a moment. Zeta-Joules is what NOAA was touting as evidence of what is causing warming but when you realize that number is divided every square mm of this planet it is far less than 0.07 W/M^2. 7 one hundredths of one watt and we have had the GRACE satellite for just 15 or so years. Anything reported beyond that time in the past is just a guess. The record isn't long enough to make any long term assumptions.

Also water absorbs at very different rates and depths in direct sun light due to salinity and other life forms/particles within it. At night water surface tension slows thermal release and waves speed it up.

0.0771 W/M^2 is capable of warming our oceans just 0.02dg C. (essentially your factor of four to one)

Air was affected but water vapor in the air dispersed the heat faster than it could build up. This is why CO2 has been empirically held at less than its lab defined potential, in our atmosphere. Were talking just 0.47 deg c. and if they used easily converted numbers the rate of warming isn't scary or a threat.

 

[Crick]

No one wants to do the MATH? It doesn't really surprise me actually.

Frank,
The modeling fails because they refuse to acknowledge water vapor. Its the key to their whole failure to make an accurate model. They simply do not know how to quantify it because it can change by 40%, or more, in minuets at any place on the globe.

NOAA has been using Joules in their calculations because many dont know how to convert Joules into watts to make accurate comparisons. A few definitions are in order to show you how complex the calculations are.

Joule: The energy at one volt to sustain 1 watt for 1 second over an area 1mm x 1mm. Also defined as: the energy necessary to raise 1cc of water 1 deg C.

it will take me some time to write this up coherently, so think about this for a moment. Zeta-Joules is what NOAA was touting as evidence of what is causing warming but when you realize that number is divided every square mm of this planet it is far less than 0.07 W/M^2. 7 one hundredths of one watt and we have had the GRACE satellite for just 15 or so years. Anything reported beyond that time in the past is just a guess. The record isn't long enough to make any long term assumptions.

Also water absorbs at very different rates and depths in direct sun light due to salinity and other life forms/particles within it. At night water surface tension slows thermal release and waves speed it up.

0.0771 W/M^2 is capable of warming our oceans just 0.02dg C. (essentially your factor of four to one)

Air was affected but water vapor in the air dispersed the heat faster than it could build up. This is why CO2 has been empirically held at less than its lab defined potential, in our atmosphere. Were talking just 0.47 deg c. and if they used easily converted numbers the rate of warming isn't scary or a threat.

HAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaa.... my god, that's the biggest pile of crap I have heard in a long time. You should try stand up. They model in Joules because they don't know how to do the conversions! HAHAHAHAHaaaaaa.... Oh jeez, Billy, you really made my day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, 90% of the heat is trapped by the oceans, but water requires much more heat to increase temperature than a similar volume of air. Not 700 times as some have suggested, but rather 4 times.

No. Totally wrong. 4 times for the same mass, but you said "volume". If you compare volumetric heat capacity, water is about 3000 times bigger than air.

So, if 120PPM of CO2 has raised the temperature of a system where 90% of the heat is trapped by water, which takes 4 times the energy to heat than air by .9 degrees, you would expect that 120PPM would raise the temperature of air alone by a full 4 degrees

Even if you hadn't botched the specific heats, that's just nonsense. The conclusion does not follow from the premise is any way.

If I understand what you've said, 120ppm of CO2 generates enough additional heat to raise the temperature of the water even though it takes 3000 times as much energy to heat the water?

 

[jc456]

No, actually it has NOTHING to do with the OP.

I say it does.

 

[mamooth]

If I understand what you've said

But you don't understand. Because you're so 'effin stupid.

Is there anything you didn't understand about that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If I understand what you've said

But you don't understand. Because you're so 'effin stupid.

Is there anything you didn't understand about that?

In other words you can not explain your claim, you can not provide evidence and so resort to petty insults and lies, got it down pat don't you?

 

[mamooth]

It's not my claim, shit-for-brains. It's Frank's claim, and he can't explain it. You're just whining because you jumped on the stupid bandwagon with Frank, and got humiliated for doing so.

But hey, maybe you're not just a herd-follower. Why don't you explain Frank's theory for us, step by step? You're the one proclaiming the glory of the theory, so you ought to be able to explain it. If you can't or won't, that doesn't reflect well on you.

(If you haven't noticed, I have little patience with brainless cult suckups who think belligerent stupidity is a substitute for honest discussion.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If I understand what you've said

But you don't understand. Because you're so 'effin stupid.

Is there anything you didn't understand about that?

What did I get wrong?

You described a system where the 120PPM of CO2 generates enough heat to warm the air and the oceans by .9 degrees, correct?