Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

[80zephyr]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

While your statement is factually correct, you also have to remember that while the residence time is 10 days, the H2O in the atmosphere is being perpetually replenished.

Mark

Of course it is. And the determining factor is the temperature of the atmosphere and water. And the GHGs determine the temperature of the atmosphere and water. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere we would have ice on the oceans clear down to the equator. That has actually happened in deep geological time.

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

So why bring it up? If H2O is perpetually replenished, the residence time means nothing.

Mark

Is it now? How then did the Snowball Earth situation come to be? If the atmosphere is very cold, it will not hold much water vapor. So, if there is a serious deficit of GHGs in the atmosphere, there will be little water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback effect of the GHGs in the atmosphere.

I don't know what happened in the past. No one does. So tell me, how did the Earth climb out of the "snowball" situation?

Mark

 

[RollingThunder]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

Nope. Never said that. Every condition affects heat transfer. But in every case that we know of, heat is transferred thru conduction, convection, and radiation. Whether here or on the moon.

And, the calculations used to access that heat transfer don't change either, just the variables do.

And just how does convection work in a vacuum on a planetary body with atmosphere or liquids on the surface?

Does it matter? The gist of what I am saying is that the physics of climate change is no different that the physics of any other situation.

Climate change is not special.

And the gist of what everyone who knows anything about climate science is telling you is that you very, very obviously know very little about the actual physics involved in climate science, no matter what Dunning-Kruger Effect induced delusions you may have about your own imaginary competence in science compared to the PhD physicists who have been learning about and studying climate science for many decades. Who all, BTW, would be the first ones to tell you that you are full of crap on this issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Frankie boi, as explained many times, the residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is about ten days. So H2O is a feedback from the GHGs with much longer residence times, CO2 and and CH4.

While your statement is factually correct, you also have to remember that while the residence time is 10 days, the H2O in the atmosphere is being perpetually replenished.

Mark

Of course it is. And the determining factor is the temperature of the atmosphere and water. And the GHGs determine the temperature of the atmosphere and water. Without the GHGs in the atmosphere we would have ice on the oceans clear down to the equator. That has actually happened in deep geological time.

"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator

So why bring it up? If H2O is perpetually replenished, the residence time means nothing.

Mark

Is it now? How then did the Snowball Earth situation come to be? If the atmosphere is very cold, it will not hold much water vapor. So, if there is a serious deficit of GHGs in the atmosphere, there will be little water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback effect of the GHGs in the atmosphere.

I don't know what happened in the past. No one does. So tell me, how did the Earth climb out of the "snowball" situation?

Mark

On the contrary, in the last 50 years we have learned much about the prior times. You are setting in front of the greatest machine that was ever invented for education, use it.

New research sheds light on end of Snowball Earth period

New research sheds light on end of Snowball Earth period
Posted on 24 Aug 2015

The second ice age during the Cryogenian period was not followed by the sudden and chaotic melting-back of the ice as previously thought, but ended with regular advances and retreats of the ice, according to research published by scientists from the University of Birmingham in the journal Nature Geoscience today (24 August 2015).

The researchers also found that the constant advance and retreat of ice during this period was caused by the Earth wobbling on its axis.

These ice ages are explained by a theory of Snowball Earth, which says that they represent the most extreme climatic conditions the world has ever known and yet they ended quite abruptly 635 million years ago. Little was known about how they ended - until now.

For the study, the scientists analysed sedimentary rocks from Svalbard, Norway that were laid down in that ice age. The deposits preserved a chemical record which showed high levels of CO2 were present in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide was low when the ice age started, and built up slowly over millions of years when the whole Earth was very cold - this period is represented only by frost-shattered rubble under the sediments.

Eventually the greenhouse warmth in the atmosphere from carbon dioxide caused enough melting for glaciers to erode, transport and deposit sediment. The sedimentary layers showed ice retreat and advance as well as cold arid conditions. They reveal a time when glacial advances alternated with even more arid, chilly periods when the glaciers retreated, rivers flowed, lakes formed, and yet simple life survived.

As theory predicts, this icy Earth with a hot atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide had reached a ‘Goldilocks’ zone – too warm to stay completely frozen, too cold to lose its ice, but just right to record more subtle underlying causes of ancient climate change.

The geological researchers invited a French group of physicists who produce sophisticated climate models to test their theory that the advances and retreats of ice during this period were caused by the Earth wobbling on its axis in 20,000 year periods. The rocks and the models agreed: slight wobbles of the Earth on its spin axis caused differences in the heat received at different places on the Earth’s surface. These changes were small, but enough over thousands of years to cause a change in the places where snow accumulated or melted, leading the glaciers to advance and retreat. During this time the whole Earth would have looked like the Dry Valley regions of Antarctica – a very dry landscape, with lots of bare ground, but also containing glaciers up to 3 km thick.

 

[80zephyr]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

Nope. Never said that. Every condition affects heat transfer. But in every case that we know of, heat is transferred thru conduction, convection, and radiation. Whether here or on the moon.

And, the calculations used to access that heat transfer don't change either, just the variables do.

And just how does convection work in a vacuum on a planetary body with atmosphere or liquids on the surface?

Does it matter? The gist of what I am saying is that the physics of climate change is no different that the physics of any other situation.

Climate change is not special.

And the gist of what everyone who knows anything about climate science is telling you is that you very, very obviously know very little about the actual physics involved in climate science, no matter what Dunning-Kruger Effect induced delusions you may have about your own imaginary competence in science compared to the PhD physicists who have been learning about and studying climate science for many decades. Who all, BTW, would be the first ones to tell you that you are full of crap on this issue.

They would tell me that our climate doesn't follow the laws of physics? Interesting.

Mark

 

[RollingThunder]

Zephyr, you seem to be saying that the presence or absence of atmosphere makes no difference in heat transfer. Such an opinion indicates you know virtually nothing about heat transfer.

Nope. Never said that. Every condition affects heat transfer. But in every case that we know of, heat is transferred thru conduction, convection, and radiation. Whether here or on the moon.

And, the calculations used to access that heat transfer don't change either, just the variables do.

And just how does convection work in a vacuum on a planetary body with atmosphere or liquids on the surface?

Does it matter? The gist of what I am saying is that the physics of climate change is no different that the physics of any other situation.

Climate change is not special.

And the gist of what everyone who knows anything about climate science is telling you is that you very, very obviously know very little about the actual physics involved in climate science, no matter what Dunning-Kruger Effect induced delusions you may have about your own imaginary competence in science compared to the PhD physicists who have been learning about and studying climate science for many decades. Who all, BTW, would be the first ones to tell you that you are full of crap on this issue.

They would tell me that our climate doesn't follow the laws of physics? Interesting.

Nope! They would tell you that you very obviously don't understand the laws of physics very well at all, in spite of your foolish delusion that you understand them better than all of the world's actual physicists and scientists.

Here's something you were shown before...but you either ignored it like an idiot or you were just too stupid and brainwashed to understand what it means. It means that you are an ignorant fool, pretending to know something that you actually have no understanding of whatsoever.

AIP Endorsement of American Geophysical Union Climate Change Statement
Publication date:
6 April 2004
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. AGU is one of ten Member Societies of the American Institute of Physics. The statement follows:

"Human Impacts on Climate"

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the ' . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.' AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."