Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

No babe...half truth. WATER VAPOR is the major green house gas---it is the only one in large enough quanties to warm anything. Your mentioning of CO2 is meaningless---its a tiny greenhouse gas that isn't available in large enough quantities to do shit. Historical record found in ice core samples, prove this. Co2 in the atmosphere is a LAGGING indicator of a warmer cycle usually---(due to ice and perma frost melting releasing it into the atmosphere which occurs by the end of a warming cycle.) However, even with all the extra CO2 released---the earth then usually cools down for awe cold cycle as it is prone to do.
I keep trying to get a sane explanation of that exact point as well.

There is a 450,000 year dataset showing CO2 LAGGING temperature on the increase and decrease by 800 to 1,000 years.

Yet we're supposed to accept that the CO2 molecule changed in 1850 to now drive temperature.

They have no explanation, not now, not ever
 
LOL When you say a known ratio of latent heat of water to other things is one number, and it is ridiculously wrong, that is not a difference of opinion, that is proof that you are one dumb ass.

So are you telling us that a 1C increase in atmospheric temperature will cause a equal 1C increase in oceanic temperatures?
 
So are you telling us that a 1C increase in atmospheric temperature will cause a equal 1C increase in oceanic temperatures?

That is what the 2nd Law predicts ... try this yourself ... draw a glass of cold water and stick it in a dark cupboard ... wait a few hours ... see how the water is room temperature now? ... that's the air warming the water ... same as the atmosphere warming the ocean ... you can also time it, figure out how long it takes for a pint of water to warm 1ºC ... then multiply by how many pints in the world's oceans ... easy peasy ...
 
That is what the 2nd Law predicts ... try this yourself ... draw a glass of cold water and stick it in a dark cupboard ... wait a few hours ... see how the water is room temperature now? ... that's the air warming the water ... same as the atmosphere warming the ocean ... you can also time it, figure out how long it takes for a pint of water to warm 1ºC ... then multiply by how many pints in the world's oceans ... easy peasy ...
Thanks for the laugh.
 
All flap yap without a link to show your source for that. By the way, how much energy to you think the sun delivers to earth in a single day?

"Our solar technologies are still new and increasing in efficiency all the time. So how much power we can get from the sun is one thing, but how much power is available from the sun is another.

At any moment, the sun emits about 3.86 x 1026 watts of energy. So add 24 zeros to the end of that number, and you’ll get an idea of how unimaginably large an amount of energy that is!

Most of that energy goes off into space, but about 1.74 x 1017 watts strikes the earth. (ie: 174,000,000,000,000,000, or 174 quadrillion watts)."

Add enough GHGs to the atmosphere to trap a small percentage of that, and over a few centuries, you have melted the ice in Antarctica.
Co2 goes up slowly and quickly, done so for billion of years, and will continue to do so. I was listening to the radio the other day and climate alarmists were in melt down because we are all gonna die in a few decades, obviously they don't know the dinosaurs were galloping about in 2,500ppm co2. And any scientist person that goes against the stupid climate political ethos will be sacked by their employer.
 
co2

can live without it, democrats claim we can, yet nothing on earth can live without co2, but democrats know the magic number?

how so? they have no experiments that prove theory to be fact

last I checked, co2 likes to be cold. last I checked the best place to find a lot of co2 is, dry ice?
 
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?

Can't just dismiss CO2 as a Greenhouse component gas-- Because it is and and it has SOME capability to warm SURFACES -- including the oceans.. But CO2 is NOT the Catastrophic warming lever...

Your author stops just a tad short of being a clueless "denier", but is rightfully bothered about "warming an ocean with 1.5 time 10 to the X power litres".. What ya got here is more rhetorical than a PROOF of anything.

How does heat get deep into the ocean? It aint just from radiant sunlight. It's from melting ice every summer at the North pole and INCREASED runoff from over-developed coastal areas.. It's also from HUMONGEOUS rivers of heat re-distribution running N/South on the oceans that if they STOP or slow down =-== CAN bring a climate crashing down.. It's also from the "ocean safety heat valves" of El Nino/La Nina and other basin periodic oscillations.

Submarines hide in ocean thermal layers. There are inversions of thermal zones throughout it's depth.. It is not "well mixed homogenous" bath water.. In the NWest coast, DEEP COLD waters well UP to the surface from miles deep.. And WARM waters sink around the sub-freezer of an Antarctican continent..

In about 2009 -- a bunch of scientists including Trenberth modeled the "energy content" of the oceans at depth.. Data taken from sparse but believable sampling in most oceans. What they found that "energy storage" was INCREASING linearly at depths up to (IIRC) 8000 feet..

They "matched" that to the Greenhouse "forcing function" at the surface due to backradiation..

But Trenberth (who was famous for his "energy diagram" that found the miniscule 1.4W/m2 of global warming from back of envelope guesses at a bunch of relatively unknown thermo streams between the surface and greenhouse -- made some SIMILAR mistakes in this study of finding the "lost global warming" responsible for the 14 year period "HIATUS" that shook the warmers off their game..

That MISTAKE in his energy diagram was that nothing he showed was an ENERGY flow.. They were POWER measurements.. And AS SUCH -- He miraculously "balanced" this "energy" flow and FOUND the exact amount of warming he expected WITHOUT EVER CONSIDERING WHAT AMOUNT OF POWER WENT INTO STORAGE IN THE OCEANS... LOL. So when this Navy scientist came back with the 411 forensics on how global warming disappeared deep down in Davy Jones locker for 14 years and MATCHED the increased in surface forcing function in SHAPE and relative sizing - -- HE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE.. His chart showed ENERGY STORAGE increasing linearly over that period.. IF -- it had all come from "back radiated" greenhouse anomaly -- to get a LINEAR INCREASE IN ENERGY STORED -- you only need a CONSTANT forcing function -- not one that is also linearly increasing.. Accumulated Energy is the time integral of Power,

If major scientists in the field can't come to grips with the diff btwn POWER and ENERGY -- this biz that your link is about aint as simple as believing that the ocean cannot warm from CO2..

It's NOT that simple.. There IS adequate surface mixing to take warmer waters to depths. But NO REPRESENTATION IS ever made in the Global warming science that the we are HOMOGENOUSLY WARMING the entire volume of the oceans.. So your "chemistry expert" is not disproving a thing really. GW anomalies are ONLY surface measurements.
 
Last edited:
That can be messy. Satellites obviously measure surface temperature, but a particular surface could be 10,000 ft. above sea level or 100 ft. below. They should be corrected or averaged to a standard elevation called "surface."

For the land, the fact that the GW influence is measured as the "anomaly" NOT an altitude adjusted number -- removes elevations from the process. THAT IS IF - they have adequate surface sampling points AND those measurement points never CHANGE in location. In some cases of really bad modeling, especially what's called "re-analysis", they will seed a model with a surface point for a fairly large grid and TRY to make altitude adjustments. These are not thermometer measurements, they are a construct fraught with problems..

For the SEA -- NOAA for instance -- was not FINDING enough ocean surface warming -- so some activists in labcoats brought back an 18th century method of measuring surface temp.. They allowed sparse and random "ship intake measurements" to be ADDED to the buoy and satellite data. Which FOUND some additional warming due to the difference between pre-1940s method of dropping a bucket into the water versus the modern age measuring of water entering the ships' cooling system.. Errors can abound because shipping usually confines itself to traffic lanes that are a small portion of the earth's oceans...

For BOTH cases, satellite measurements by a fleet of 8 to 10 solidly stable platforms "up there" is the way to go.. And the satellite measurements which USED TO AGREE brilliantly with the surface measurements are now diverging due to the additional fudging and horsing with the land based measurements that are NOT location stable nor even time stable and sparsely distributed over massive areas of the planet.
 
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 ...




Then provide measurable evidence that it has.
 
No, there are many other factors as well. The composition of the two materials, their thickness, etc.

Equal masses, equal flux ... what the hell are you thinking? ... if you're disputing SB, then you need to post in the thread pinned to the top of this forum reserved for such discussions ...

Either the energy is absorbed or it's reflected, it can't be destroyed willy-nilly ... only absorption effects temperature ... more energy reflected, less energy absorbed, lower temperature ... easy peasy ...
 
That is what the 2nd Law predicts ... try this yourself ... draw a glass of cold water and stick it in a dark cupboard ... wait a few hours ... see how the water is room temperature now? ... that's the air warming the water ... same as the atmosphere warming the ocean ... you can also time it, figure out how long it takes for a pint of water to warm 1ºC ... then multiply by how many pints in the world's oceans ... easy peasy ...

Most elementary thermo classes only teach 2/3 of the laws. That's because they dont address (much) RADIATIVE heating - which is the 3rd way that heat propagates. So EVEN in the dark closet -- HEAT is equalizing thru the Infra-Red RADIATIVE transfers between objects.

In FACT -- Radiative transfer is the mode of forcing that causes Global surface warming.

So what's goin on in that "dark cardboard" is also heat transfer by INFRA-RED light emitted directly from every OTHER item in that cupboard. NOT dependent on an "outside source" of light.

Scientist STILL dont have a clear picture of HOW heat gets to depths in ocean.. There are thermal transfer RIVERS that run pole to pole.. There is mixing of layers where currents and belts meet a continental shelf.. THAT gets cold to the surface and heat to Davey Jones to SOME effect, but the back radiation from GreenHouse warming is a SURFACE EVENT ONLY.. And it's really not a surface of any substance. The long wave back radiation is really a "skin effect" warming only..

Warming and acidification of the oceans ALSO come from ever increasing RUNOFF from human development of asphalt, concrete replacing soils and plants. Most storm run-off is fairly HOT compared to the ocean water temps they are dumped in.. EVEN WARMER if the runoff has be diverted (by law) thru treatment plants before it's dumped.
 
Flacaltenn.

Did you understand the accent?

only English accent I have trouble with are the Scots.. Worst plane ride on BAir was sitting next to a Scottish BA engineer.. Hardly understood a word for 7 hours.. Also worked at corporate partner site in Scotland and TRIED to adapt. But I was EXHAUSTED after about 10 minutes of heavy conversation..
 
only English accent I have trouble with are the Scots.. Worst plane ride on BAir was sitting next to a Scottish BA engineer.. Hardly understood a word for 7 hours.. Also worked at corporate partner site in Scotland and TRIED to adapt. But I was EXHAUSTED after about 10 minutes of heavy conversation..

That reminds me of the story of the band Garbage, which came out of Madison, Wi. When the three American bandsmen flew over to a London hotel to audition a Scottish female singer, they didn’t understand one word she said. She got the job though.

The regional accent in the aforementioned clip, btw, comes from the Birmingham UK region. An area renowned for its black humour. The blackest I’ve ever encountered on this planet.
 
Most elementary thermo classes only teach 2/3 of the laws. That's because they dont address (much) RADIATIVE heating - which is the 3rd way that heat propagates. So EVEN in the dark closet -- HEAT is equalizing thru the Infra-Red RADIATIVE transfers between objects.

All my understanding of the radiative transfer of energy comes from astrophysics ... the school made us learn the basics before they let our grubby hands on their world-class photometer ... I forget the target but it was a well-worn path and we got really good results ... pretty amazing stuff ... and no one got bit by the rattlesnakes that were everywhere ... as far as I know, only Toobfreak has any formal training in such matters among the more active posters ... downright shame no one listens to him ...

In FACT -- Radiative transfer is the mode of forcing that causes Global surface warming.

So what's goin on in that "dark cardboard" is also heat transfer by INFRA-RED light emitted directly from every OTHER item in that cupboard. NOT dependent on an "outside source" of light.

Scientist STILL dont have a clear picture of HOW heat gets to depths in ocean.. There are thermal transfer RIVERS that run pole to pole.. There is mixing of layers where currents and belts meet a continental shelf.. THAT gets cold to the surface and heat to Davey Jones to SOME effect, but the back radiation from GreenHouse warming is a SURFACE EVENT ONLY.. And it's really not a surface of any substance. The long wave back radiation is really a "skin effect" warming only..

Warming and acidification of the oceans ALSO come from ever increasing RUNOFF from human development of asphalt, concrete replacing soils and plants. Most storm run-off is fairly HOT compared to the ocean water temps they are dumped in.. EVEN WARMER if the runoff has be diverted (by law) thru treatment plants before it's dumped.

I disagree with your claim that scientists don't have a clear picture of how energy gets to the ocean depths ... first we have energy coming up from the Earth interior, this has been guessed at 0.1 W/m^2, a very very small amount compared to the amount of solar energy at roughly 1,000 W/m^2 ... otherwise, we don't have very many options ... the radiative transfer of energy down the water column is troublesome, not the least of which is the biology greedily sucking up as much energy as it vcan to make it's various acid products, DNA and RNA ... [giggle] ... convection is completely inhibited due to the thermal inversion in the water column ... so that leaves conduction, hot water molecules colliding with the cold water molecules below it ... the equal partition theory says that IF energy can conduct down the water column, THEN it will ... in direct proportion to the magnitude of the force pushing the conduction down compared to the other forces at play ...

That's only the downward motion of the energy ... far more dominate at the ocean surface is energy returning to space ... here we do have convection, one hell of a lot of convection ... plus the radiation ... and a slight amount that's conducted up the air column ... even if this upward motion is 99.999% of the energy, we still have 0.001% of the energy moving down ... given enough time, the ocean floor will start warming due to a warmer atmosphere ...

I know five times the age of the universe sounds like a long time ... but the universe is still in it's infant stage, newborn as it were ... 50 billion years isn't all that long of a time frame ... and yes, our ocean will have boiled off long before this time ... so nothing to worry about ...

9 million people are pooping in the Florida Keys everyday ... perhaps the small increase in water temperature is a stressor ... the cause of the environmental damage is all that poop ... outrageous anyone would try to deflect from that fact ...
 

Forum List

Back
Top