Climate Physics

[Macadoodle]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

 

[JGalt]

You just made little Greta cry.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

Another prime factor of Green House effect that liberals will never tell about.....Water Vapor....That is a substance that a liberal cannot tax "YET". When they find out how to, then you can bet tax payers will be making liberals even richer from stealing our taxes. So far the closest they have come was Maryland "Rain Tax", but that is just run off, that goes to the rivers....

As a potent greenhouse gas, water vapor plays a key role in global climate: As temperatures rise, water vapor increases, and because water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this produces even more warming.
Twelve years of satellite data help decode climate change
climate.nasa.gov/news/2264/twelve-years-of-satellite-data-help-decode-climate-cha…

 

[ReinyDays]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

1. The ocean gives up it's CO2 if and only if the ocean is currently saturated with CO2 ... and it is not ... the amount of CO2 in the ocean depends on the concentration in the atmosphere ... not that I disagree, but you need a better theory as to the cause of CO2 levels following temperature ...

2. I think you got your GHGs mixed up ... it's water vapor that has twice the heat capacity as air ... CO2's heat capacity is only about 85% for air is all ... AGW theory relies on the radiative properties of the GHG's ... we have plenty of energy flow through the system to account for a trivial increase in temperature ...

3. We only have a very weak correlation between the Maunder Minimum (which ended closer to 1750 AD) and the Little Ice Age ... as the Little Ice Age was well under way before the start of apparent minimum sun spot activity ...

There's better arguments against the Climate Change Hoax ... read through the other threads here and you'll find some dandies ...

 

[SSDD]

1. The ocean gives up it's CO2 if and only if the ocean is currently saturated with CO2 ... and it is not ... the amount of CO2 in the ocean depends on the concentration in the atmosphere ... not that I disagree, but you need a better theory as to the cause of CO2 levels following temperature ...

Temperature is an important factor...polar and temperate oceans are thought to net sinks for CO2 while equatorial ocean is thought to not only be a net source of CO2 but one of the prime natural sources of CO2.

 

[Sunsettommy]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Revised 11/16/09; 9/2/13.

Excerpt:

ABSTRACT

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

LINK

=====

Dr. Glassman has a BS, MS, and PhD from the UCLA Engineering, Department of Systems Science, specializing in electronics, applied mathematics, applied physics, communication and information theory. For more than half of three decades at Hughes Aircraft Company he was Division Chief Scientist for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems Divisions, responsible for engineering, product line planning, and IR&D. Since retiring from Hughes, he has consulted in various high tech fields, including expert witness on communication satellite anomalies for the defense in Astrium v. TRW, et al, and CDMA instructor at Qualcomm. Lecturer, Math and Science Institutes, UCI. Member, Science Education Advisory Board. Author of Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, New Hampshire, 1992, ISDN 0-89341-707-6. He is an expert modeler of diverse physical phenomena, including microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere and in solids, ballistic reentry trajectories, missile guidance, solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics and in microcircuit devices, infrared communication, analog and digital signals, large scale fire control systems, diffusion, and electroencephalography. Inventor of a radar on-target detection device, and a stereo digital signal processor. Published A Generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 1972. Previously taught detection and estimation theory, probability theory, digital signal processing.

 

[ReinyDays]

Temperature is an important factor...polar and temperate oceans are thought to net sinks for CO2 while equatorial ocean is thought to not only be a net source of CO2 but one of the prime natural sources of CO2.

There's a bit of confusion about the factoid the OP mentioned ... yes, it is true that the saturation level of CO2 in water goes down with increasing temperature ... that doesn't mean that increasing temperature automatically forces CO2 out of solution, this only occurs if the solution is already saturated with CO2 ...

Let's remember the physics here ... at all times there's CO2 molecules in the atmosphere striking and dissolving into the water, and at the same time CO2 molecules dissolved in the water reach the surface and re-enter the atmosphere ... when the rates of these two processes are the same, then we have our equilibrium state ... if we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, then more CO2 enters the water, and as the CO2 builds up in the water, more CO2 leaves back into the atmosphere, creating a new equilibrium state ...

The saturation state comes about when the water is holding all the CO2 is can and not one molecule more, even with a pure CO2 atmosphere ... all the extra CO2 striking the water surface just bounces off without dissolving ... and we're a long ways from this condition, so the amount of CO2 in the water depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if we raise the water's temperature ... especially if we only raise temperature a trivial amount, like the 2ºC in 100 years predicted by the most recent IPCC report ... that's no where close enough to cause the oceans to become saturated ...

We have a couple of important chemical reactions that take place in the water ... roughly 1/3 of the CO2 that dissolves combines with water to form carbonic acid ... CO2 + H2O <=> H(+) + CHO3(-) ... notice the double arrow in the reaction equation, as CO2 escapes this reaction proceeds right to left making more CO2 available for escaping to the atmosphere in order to maintain the 1/3 ratio ... the other chemical reaction that takes place is photosynthesis ... solar energy is used to strip the oxygen atoms off leaving behind reduced carbon, which is then used to make the myriad of organic compounds needed for the biology at hand ... CO2 + hv ==> C + O2 ... notice the one way arrow, this is not a reversible reaction, we have many long and winding roads for this reduced carbon to be respirated back into CO2 ...

We do have a smoking gun when it comes to this additional CO2 in our atmosphere today ... if you understand how carbon dating works, then you know there's a fairly well set ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-14 in our environment ... and this includes CO2 trapped in the ocean depths, the hydrosaline circulation completes a circuit in thousands of years, not enough time to seriously effect the C-12/C-14 ratio ... however, when we actually measure this ratio we find a rather large amount of C-12 ... as though 280 ppm is the correct ratio and the extra 135 ppm is pure C-12 ... fossil fuels buried hundreds of millions of years will be pure C-12 ... the challenge here is finding where all this extra C-12 came from if not burning fossil fuels ...

We know we're burning fossil fuels ... we know this burning creates CO2 ... we know we're using the atmosphere as a sewer ... it can't magically disappear ... ergo, this addition CO2 concentration is from this burning of long buried fossil fuels ... it's currently 7ºC in Jefferson City, Missouri, in 50 years, and the same meteorological conditions, the temperature will be 8ºC ... will anyone notice? ... I think not ...

 

[SSDD]

Volcanic CO2 and CO2 from burning fossil fuels have the same distinctive isotopic fingerprint and we know now that volcanic CO2 has been grossly underestimated.

 

[ReinyDays]

Volcanic CO2 and CO2 from burning fossil fuels have the same distinctive isotopic fingerprint and we know now that volcanic CO2 has been grossly underestimated.

Volcanic CO2 is part of the natural carbon source ... and is included in the 280 ppm ratio ... carbon date a document known to have been written 500 years ago ...

 

[SSDD]

You sound like mammoth again...how much CO2 comes from volcanic sources. You claim to know how much when the best estimate science can come up with at present is that it has been grossly underestimated.

As if it matters since CO2 only reacts to climate change...it doesn’t cause it...ever find any empirical evidence regarding how much changes in CO2 in increments of PPM effects the temperature of bodies of water? No? Without such basic empirical evidence, why would you believe that it can cause changes in global temperature?

The opposite of skeptical is gullible...

 

[ReinyDays]

You sound like mammoth again...how much CO2 comes from volcanic sources. You claim to know how much when the best estimate science can come up with at present is that it has been grossly underestimated.

As if it matters since CO2 only reacts to climate change...it doesn’t cause it...ever find any empirical evidence regarding how much changes in CO2 in increments of PPM effects the temperature of bodies of water? No? Without such basic empirical evidence, why would you believe that it can cause changes in global temperature?

The opposite of skeptical is gullible...

Cross-threading on accident? ... or are you just thread-shitting? ... post your accusations in the proper thread and maybe I'll answer them there ...

 

[SSDD]

You sound like mammoth again...how much CO2 comes from volcanic sources. You claim to know how much when the best estimate science can come up with at present is that it has been grossly underestimated.

As if it matters since CO2 only reacts to climate change...it doesn’t cause it...ever find any empirical evidence regarding how much changes in CO2 in increments of PPM effects the temperature of bodies of water? No? Without such basic empirical evidence, why would you believe that it can cause changes in global temperature?

The opposite of skeptical is gullible...

Cross-threading on accident? ... or are you just thread-shitting? ... post your accusations in the proper thread and maybe I'll answer them there ...

It is a relavent question on any climate change thread....not my fault that you can’t bring yourself to simply answer it.

maybe you could complain to the mods on me for asking for answers to embarassingly hard questions about the AGW hypothesis.

 

[mamooth]

As a degreed civil engineer and 40-year environmental professional, I have examined the facts surrounding man made climate change and must conclude that:

1.Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere has no measurable effect on planet temperatures. Proponents of Man-Made-Climate-Change pointed to elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere during warm periods when examining ice core samples, the elevated concentrations in the warming atmosphere occurred at the end of the warm period making it an effect, not a cause. When temperatures are elevated, oceans give up their CO2 to the atmosphere. Something else caused the warming

Big logic failure on your part, your dumb assumption that a forcing can't be a feedback.

2. 400 ppm CO2 is supposed to be close to a point of no return. This is the mathematical equivalent of one part in 2500 parts. Specific heat of carbon dioxide is roughly only twice that of other atmospheric constituents. Causing a measurable temperature increase would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord. For those who avoided high school physics, specific heat is the amount of heat energy in btu’s or calories required to raise the temperature of a substance, one degree. A specific heat twice the other air components would have enough heat energy to raise the other 2499 molecules 2/2499 multiplied by the temperature differential, degrees.

That was senseless. I could detect no sort of point inside of it. It ranted about specific heat, even though that has nothing to do with global warming.

3. The apparent agent of planet temperature change is sun spot activity. The Maunder Minimum, a 200-year period of almost no sun spot activity, is associated with the Little Ice Age which ended in 1849. It has been gradually warming since and is still not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period which saw orchards in Greenland.

Total nonsense, being that warming is not correlated at all with sunspot activity. Some deniers try to lie brazenly by cherrypicking, but that scam fools nobody outside of the cult.

Macadoodle examines the Climate hoax in more detail: ENERGY/CLIMATE CHANGE

You're really bad at this science thing. That's because you've allowed yourself to by conspiracy cult blogs, which have a disturbing habit of making everything up. But don't worry, you're in good company. _All_ denier suck hard at science and logic, because they all rely entirely on conspiracy cult blogs instead of actual facts.

 

[mamooth]

Another prime factor of Green House effect that liberals will never tell about.....Water Vapor....

A substance which is only a short-term feedback, and not a forcing. Water vapor is controlled by temperature, instead of controlling temperature.

You're also really bad at this science thing.

That is a substance that a liberal cannot tax "YET". When they find out how to, then you can bet tax payers will be making liberals even richer from stealing our taxes. So far the closest they have come was Maryland "Rain Tax", but that is just run off, that goes to the rivers....

As one of my ongoing points is that all deniers are right-wing authoritarian conspiracy cult wackadoodles, I thank you for confirmeing that point.

Every denier bases his beliefs entirely on his crank poliitcs. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would vanish with it.

in stark contrast, the real science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's real science. If left-wing politics vanished, the science wouldn't change a bit.

 

[mamooth]

You sound like mammoth again...how much CO2 comes from volcanic sources.

So you're saying he has common sense, and rejects conspiracy mewling from Stalinist nutjobs like you. That's quite a complement.

You claim to know how much when the best estimate science can come up with at present is that it has been grossly underestimated.

You have zero evidence for that loopy cult claim, yet you still cling to it with your wild-eyed fanaticism. It's become a religious belief on your part.

As if it matters since CO2 only reacts to climate change...it doesn’t cause it...ever find any empirical evidence regarding how much changes in CO2 in increments of PPM effects the temperature of bodies of water? No? Without such basic empirical evidence, why would you believe that it can cause changes in global temperature?

And there you go, invoking your fairy magic. "Hah! You've never absolutely disproved my crank theory, so it has to be true, even if there is zero evidence for it!".

The opposite of skeptical is gullible...

And holy shit, are you gullible. You believe some of the stupidest things imaginable, all because your cult tells you to.

 

[mamooth]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE

That author didn't even know what Henry's Law is. He'd fail freshman chemistry.

Raging cases of EAS -- Engineer's Arrogance Syndrome -- lead to hilarious outcomes.

 

[JGalt]

You sound like mammoth again...how much CO2 comes from volcanic sources.

So you're saying he has common sense, and rejects conspiracyc mewling from Stalinist nutjobs like you. That's quite a complement.

You claim to know how much when the best estimate science can come up with at present is that it has been grossly underestimated.

You have zero evidence for that loopy cult claim, yet you still cling to it with your wild-eyed fanaticism. It's become a religious belief on your part.

As if it matters since CO2 only reacts to climate change...it doesn’t cause it...ever find any empirical evidence regarding how much changes in CO2 in increments of PPM effects the temperature of bodies of water? No? Without such basic empirical evidence, why would you believe that it can cause changes in global temperature?

And there you go, invoking your fairy magic. "Hah! You've never absolutely disproved my crank theory, so it has to be true, even if there is zero evidence for it!".

The opposite of skeptical is gullible...

And holy shit, are you gullible. You believe some of the stupidest things imaginable, all because your cult tells you to.

Blahh blah...conspiracy mewling from Stalinist nutjobs....loopy cult claim...blah blah...wild-eyed fanaticism....blah blah woof woof...fairy magic...gullible...blah blah...meow meow...stupidest things imaginable...your cult...meow meow...woof woof...

Do you ever listen to yourself when you post the utter crap you come up with?

You should try it sometime.

 

[ReinyDays]

... mewling from Stalinist ...

You need to work a little on your allegories ... kittens mew, Stalinists behead ...

 

[mamooth]

Do you ever listen to yourself when you post the utter crap you come up with?

You're welcome to join in the science discussion on this thread.

Or you can just keep pout-raging at me.

Everyone knows which option you'll choose.

 

[JGalt]

Do you ever listen to yourself when you post the utter crap you come up with?

You're welcome to join in the science discussion on this thread.

Or you can just keep pout-raging at me.

Everyone knows which option you'll choose.

I don't see throwing insults at another and ranting about "Stalinist nutjobs" and "cults" as discussing science. If you want to discuss science, lay off the verbal abuse.

You seem to have a problem with that.