Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

daveman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2010
76,336
29,350
2,250
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.


Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.​
Article's from a couple of years ago. He makes a point I haven't ever seen discussed:

The atmosphere just can't hold enough heat to warm up the oceans.

Can anyone knowledgeable of thermodynamics point out any flaws in his reasoning?
 
Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.


Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.​
Article's from a couple of years ago. He makes a point I haven't ever seen discussed:

The atmosphere just can't hold enough heat to warm up the oceans.

Can anyone knowledgeable of thermodynamics point out any flaws in his reasoning?
In my retired state, I sit and watch some of the TV commercials put out by GM, Chrysler, Audi, Jaguar and other car companies. As I am watching them, in these commercials I see high performance cars that are "speeding" down the road, sometimes burning rubber. Now my question to the libtards is "Why do you allow Hollyweird to put so much CO2 into the air when they make movies and commercials, while telling the rest of US that it is bad to be driving cars"?. Are you dumbasses hypocrites?
 
I'm not going to use numbers, just keep in mind that the astronomy parts of this tend to use astronomical numbers ...

We get energy from the Sun, and the Earth radiates energy back out into space, in a perfect world this would be joule for joule ... unfortunately, the atmosphere isn't transparent at the wavelengths of light that the Earth radiates at ... mostly due to the presence of water vapor and carbon dioxide ... so some small sliver of this energy flow remains in the atmosphere raising it's temperature ...

Now when the atmosphere's temperature rises, the sea surface will start drawing the energy out and adding to it's own temperature ... until the temperatures are the same again ... and as you pointed out, it takes A LOT of energy to raise the temperature of water ... the good news is that the higher temperatures make the sea surface more buoyant, so the extra energy stays at the surface ... until it conducts down the water column, that takes time ...

I think it's better to look at this in terms of power ... joules per second ... any amount of energy can be had given enough time ... and if all we're talking about is a couple degrees over a hundred years, then our power need not be all that great ... remember we're just heating the ocean surface, so it's easier to keep the atmosphere heated ...

Carbon dioxide doesn't heat the ocean directly, it heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the ocean ...
 
I'm not going to use numbers, just keep in mind that the astronomy parts of this tend to use astronomical numbers ...

We get energy from the Sun, and the Earth radiates energy back out into space, in a perfect world this would be joule for joule ... unfortunately, the atmosphere isn't transparent at the wavelengths of light that the Earth radiates at ... mostly due to the presence of water vapor and carbon dioxide ... so some small sliver of this energy flow remains in the atmosphere raising it's temperature ...

Now when the atmosphere's temperature rises, the sea surface will start drawing the energy out and adding to it's own temperature ... until the temperatures are the same again ... and as you pointed out, it takes A LOT of energy to raise the temperature of water ... the good news is that the higher temperatures make the sea surface more buoyant, so the extra energy stays at the surface ... until it conducts down the water column, that takes time ...

I think it's better to look at this in terms of power ... joules per second ... any amount of energy can be had given enough time ... and if all we're talking about is a couple degrees over a hundred years, then our power need not be all that great ... remember we're just heating the ocean surface, so it's easier to keep the atmosphere heated ...

Carbon dioxide doesn't heat the ocean directly, it heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the ocean ...





The atmosphere doesn't heat the oceans. UV radiation from the Sun, does. It penetrates to a depth of around 500 meters and that is what warms the oceans.

Everything else is noise.
 
Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.


Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.​
Article's from a couple of years ago. He makes a point I haven't ever seen discussed:

The atmosphere just can't hold enough heat to warm up the oceans.

Can anyone knowledgeable of thermodynamics point out any flaws in his reasoning?
In my retired state, I sit and watch some of the TV commercials put out by GM, Chrysler, Audi, Jaguar and other car companies. As I am watching them, in these commercials I see high performance cars that are "speeding" down the road, sometimes burning rubber. Now my question to the libtards is "Why do you allow Hollyweird to put so much CO2 into the air when they make movies and commercials, while telling the rest of US that it is bad to be driving cars"?. Are you dumbasses hypocrites?

Hey man....I own a 2014 Mustang Gt making 432hp at the tire. I routinely pull up to those faggy hybrid/electric vehicles and do brief burnouts right next to them! You want to see heads explode? I damn near shit my shorts laughing so hard.....these people want to kill me!!:auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:.....its one of my favorite things to do!
 
Oh idk....the "real scientists" say the ONLY driver of climate change is CO2!:eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:

Nothing else!!!

Deforestation is a well documented driver of climate change ... thus the New Green Deal cutting meat consumption in half ... all that land can regrow her forests ...






In the case of the Amazon rainforest there is some evidence to support localised changes due the clear cutting. But local, not global.

Your primary assertion has no factual support.
 
In the case of the Amazon rainforest there is some evidence to support localised changes due the clear cutting. But local, not global.

Your primary assertion has no factual support.

Obviously, this is difficult to demonstrate ... the Sahel is generally given the "poster child " status, clear cut the forests and the rains stopped, replant the forests and the rains returned ... quite a bit of water is pulled up from the roots to the leaves and evaporated, then this precipitates downwind and cycles through another tree etc etc etc ...

I'm speaking to places like the East China Plain, the USA east of the Mississippi and the entirety of Europe ... these were all forestlands before humans arrived in large numbers ... get on Google Earth and scan around, just about everyplace on land has been significantly altered by humans ... just the change in albedo effects climate ...

The global climate is oceanic, and temperature has no effect on that ... and I'm not worried about deforestation on the sea surface ... but in the end there is factual support for my assertion that there's more to global warming than just carbon dioxide ...
 
In the case of the Amazon rainforest there is some evidence to support localised changes due the clear cutting. But local, not global.

Your primary assertion has no factual support.

Obviously, this is difficult to demonstrate ... the Sahel is generally given the "poster child " status, clear cut the forests and the rains stopped, replant the forests and the rains returned ... quite a bit of water is pulled up from the roots to the leaves and evaporated, then this precipitates downwind and cycles through another tree etc etc etc ...

I'm speaking to places like the East China Plain, the USA east of the Mississippi and the entirety of Europe ... these were all forestlands before humans arrived in large numbers ... get on Google Earth and scan around, just about everyplace on land has been significantly altered by humans ... just the change in albedo effects climate ...

The global climate is oceanic, and temperature has no effect on that ... and I'm not worried about deforestation on the sea surface ... but in the end there is factual support for my assertion that there's more to global warming than just carbon dioxide ...

All localized events.. And all quickly balanced by nature and regrowth.

CO2 has limited effect in the atmosphere and zero affect on the oceans as LWIR is absorbed in the first ten microns where evaporation is taking place. The thermal layer just below is slightly warmer so there is no way it can warm the oceans. The 2nd Law kills this fantasy dead.
 
Last edited:
In the case of the Amazon rainforest there is some evidence to support localised changes due the clear cutting. But local, not global.

Your primary assertion has no factual support.

Obviously, this is difficult to demonstrate ... the Sahel is generally given the "poster child " status, clear cut the forests and the rains stopped, replant the forests and the rains returned ... quite a bit of water is pulled up from the roots to the leaves and evaporated, then this precipitates downwind and cycles through another tree etc etc etc ...

I'm speaking to places like the East China Plain, the USA east of the Mississippi and the entirety of Europe ... these were all forestlands before humans arrived in large numbers ... get on Google Earth and scan around, just about everyplace on land has been significantly altered by humans ... just the change in albedo effects climate ...

The global climate is oceanic, and temperature has no effect on that ... and I'm not worried about deforestation on the sea surface ... but in the end there is factual support for my assertion that there's more to global warming than just carbon dioxide ...





Change in albedo MAY affect climate. There is support for cooling, there is none for warming. Urban heat island affect is a measurable phenomenon, but it is local.

The temperature of the Earth is regulated by the oceans, not the atmosphere. The only known energy source for increasing oceanic temperatures is UV from the Sun, and volcanic heat from the various vents on the ocean floor.
 
No ... the typical Indiana farmer plows his fields every year so the forest doesn't grow back ... 95% of the state is under agriculture, nothing natural about that ...

I agree with you about carbon dioxide's effect on the atmosphere, my point is that it's not the only thing that causes climate change, deforestation is an example where local climate can be changed ...
 
Albedo is a factor for temperature ... which doesn't have much to do with climate at the levels we're discussing ... and cloud cover is the dominate feature ... just want to make sure we're discussing global warming and not climate change ...
 
No ... the typical Indiana farmer plows his fields every year so the forest doesn't grow back ... 95% of the state is under agriculture, nothing natural about that ...

I agree with you about carbon dioxide's effect on the atmosphere, my point is that it's not the only thing that causes climate change, deforestation is an example where local climate can be changed ...





Already agreed to. However all government plans to deal with the local issues are continental in nature.

Which means they will have no effect.
 
Albedo is a factor for temperature ... which doesn't have much to do with climate at the levels we're discussing ... and cloud cover is the dominate feature ... just want to make sure we're discussing global warming and not climate change ...





Like I said, albedo can lower global temperatures. We have evidence for that. But we have no supporting evidence for a claim for warming.
 
Like I said, albedo can lower global temperatures. We have evidence for that. But we have no supporting evidence for a claim for warming.

That doesn't make sense ... higher albedo lowers temperature ... lower albedo raises temperatures ... albedo isn't a thing, it's a dimensionless ratio of reflected light over incident light ... roughly 0.3 for Earth ... or 30% of incoming solar radiation is reflected back out into space, and 70% is absorbed by the Earth's surface ...
 
I'm not going to use numbers, just keep in mind that the astronomy parts of this tend to use astronomical numbers ...

We get energy from the Sun, and the Earth radiates energy back out into space, in a perfect world this would be joule for joule ... unfortunately, the atmosphere isn't transparent at the wavelengths of light that the Earth radiates at ... mostly due to the presence of water vapor and carbon dioxide ... so some small sliver of this energy flow remains in the atmosphere raising it's temperature ...

Now when the atmosphere's temperature rises, the sea surface will start drawing the energy out and adding to it's own temperature ... until the temperatures are the same again ... and as you pointed out, it takes A LOT of energy to raise the temperature of water ... the good news is that the higher temperatures make the sea surface more buoyant, so the extra energy stays at the surface ... until it conducts down the water column, that takes time ...

I think it's better to look at this in terms of power ... joules per second ... any amount of energy can be had given enough time ... and if all we're talking about is a couple degrees over a hundred years, then our power need not be all that great ... remember we're just heating the ocean surface, so it's easier to keep the atmosphere heated ...

Carbon dioxide doesn't heat the ocean directly, it heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the ocean ...
The author of the article explained how that can't happen, not to the degree claimed.
 
No ... the typical Indiana farmer plows his fields every year so the forest doesn't grow back ... 95% of the state is under agriculture, nothing natural about that ...

I agree with you about carbon dioxide's effect on the atmosphere, my point is that it's not the only thing that causes climate change, deforestation is an example where local climate can be changed ...





Already agreed to. However all government plans to deal with the local issues are continental in nature.

Which means they will have no effect.
An angry little girl at the UN said if we pay more taxes in America, the planet will be saved.
 
The author of the article explained how that can't happen, not to the degree claimed.

I agree with the author that this doesn't happen to degree claimed ... these are small amounts at low power that's surprisingly difficult to measure ... the ocean can absorb one hell of a lot of energy with only a tiny temperature change ...

She sure is a feisty one ... that's for sure ... reminds me of how the high school cheerleaders treated me ... she's caused more carbon pollution in that past few months than I produce in a year ... she doesn't believe a word she's saying ...
 
Daveman,

how much energy is contained in a mylar blanket you might use to warm yourself on a chilly winter night?

In the GW analogy that uses a valve to restrict the draining of a tank of water, how much water is actually contained in the valve?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top