Math and Science of Warming

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers have a theory that an additional wisp of CO2 is: Heating the atmosphere, heating the oceans down to 700m, altering the chemistry of the oceans and doing many other dastardly things in the process.

Let's start with the basics: how much heat, if any, if generated by adding 120PPM of CO2 to Earth atmosphere? We have been asking this question literally for decades and have never been shown the repeatable scientific experiment that shows any consistent result.

Recently, I think IPCC 4, added the concept that atmospheric CO2 is - somehow - heating the deep oceans, and this newly added data set heat now squares away the missing "warming". In the course of investigating the mechanics by which atmospheric CO2 can "heat" the oceans, I came across the follow formula. This solves for the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1C. Basically, it takes 4.19 KJ of additional heat to create the temperature increase.

Q = cp m dT

where

Q = amount of heat (kJ)

cp = specific heat (kJ/kgK)

m = mass (kg)

dT = temperature difference between hot and cold side (K)

Example Heating Water

Consider the energy required to heat 1.0 kg of water from 0 oC to 1 oC when the specific heat of water is 4.19 kJ/kgoC:

Q = (4.19 kJ/kgoC) (1.0 kg) ((1 oC) - (0 oC))

= 4.19 (kJ)

Heat, Work and Energy

I'm not getting into the heat required to heat to water down to 700M, that's a whole other area.

Do any scientific studies exist showing 120PPM of CO2 creating the additional 4.19KJ of heat necessary to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1C?

The ocean surface covers 510 million square kilometers, so it's easy enough to solve for the total heat required.

It's math and science, if the science is there and it can be shown that 120PPM of CO2 is capable of generating the additional heat, well, Bravo, you're on your way. If the additional heat is not shown in a lab, then the theory fails.

Real science, real math.

 

[Oddball]

Can't be right....No pretty 3-color charts and graphs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can't be right....No pretty 3-color charts and graphs.

It's just math, nothing to fear. Remember, 4.19KJ is just to heat the water. We have to heat the land and air as well.

That's part 2

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Been posting for years that if the air was thick as soup, like Venus's atmosphere, then atmospheric CO2 would make a significant difference. However on earth the major driver of climate change is the oceans and to some extent the land masses. The oceans act just like a boiler does. If the boiler is only filled with air and heated up the heat dissipates a lot quicker than if the boiler is filled with water. Basic thermodynamics. No math required.

*****SMILE*****

 

[toobfreak]

Real science, real math.

I'll just say Frank that 120 ppm of CO2 isn't much. As a student of geology and volcanism, I'm continuously amazed at the constant stream of outgassing of CO2, water vapor, methane, sulfur dioxide, etc., into the sky from volcanoes. Yet despite this ever present to a degree greater than what man puts out, the climate goes up and down quite peacefully. Then a super volcano comes along and really punches it, wrapping the entire planet in a haze of chemicals. Yet despite all this over and over for 4.6 billion years, pushing the earth past the tipping point each and every time, the climate fear-mongers predictions STILL fail to come true and the Earth rights herself and goes right back to a moderate climate when all is said and done.

Can anyone explain that to me?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real science, real math.

I'll just say Frank that 120 ppm of CO2 isn't much. As a student of geology and volcanism, I'm continuously amazed at the constant stream of outgassing of CO2, water vapor, methane, sulfur dioxide, etc., into the sky from volcanoes. Yet despite this ever present to a degree greater than what man puts out, the climate goes up and down quite peacefully. Then a super volcano comes along and really punches it, wrapping the entire planet in a haze of chemicals. Yet despite all this over and over for 4.6 billion years, pushing the earth past the tipping point each and every time, the climate fear-mongers predictions STILL fail to come true and the Earth rights herself and goes right back to a moderate climate when all is said and done.

Can anyone explain that to me?

When the OCO2 satellite was first put into orbit, it showed that the vast majority of CO2 was concentrated around rain forest burning. You don't get massive CO2 output from American cities

Science 1 - AGW Theory 0

 

[mamooth]

Yet despite this ever present to a degree greater than what man puts out,

No, volcanic CO2 emissions equal about 1% of human emissions.

Funny that a student of volcanism wouldn't know such a basic thing.

Can anyone explain that to me?

Sure. It's a meaningless red herring on your part. Climate changing naturally in the past does not prevent humans from changing climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet despite this ever present to a degree greater than what man puts out,

No, volcanic CO2 emissions equal about 1% of human emissions.

Funny that a student of volcanism wouldn't know such a basic thing.

Can anyone explain that to me?

Sure. It's a meaningless red herring on your part. Climate changing naturally in the past does not prevent humans from changing climate.

Check the post above for the OCO2 readings

Thank you

 

[mamooth]

When the OCO2 satellite was first put into orbit, it showed that the vast majority of CO2 was concentrated around rain forest burning.

Meanwhile, the full story, which you're deliberately ignoring, and which debunks your fantasy.

 

[boedicca]

In Realityland, Global Warming has been very good for humanity. Contrast living conditions during the Medieval Warming Period with the depths of the Dark Ages.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the OCO2 satellite was first put into orbit, it showed that the vast majority of CO2 was concentrated around rain forest burning.

Meanwhile, the full story, which you're deliberately ignoring, and which debunks your fantasy.

I wasn't aware that the industrial centers in the USA stop producing CO2 during winter months. Can you explain why that is?

I posted 5 weeks work of reading that show CO2 generated by rain forest fires, and not by USA industrial activities.

 

[toobfreak]

No, volcanic CO2 emissions equal about 1% of human emissions.

The folly of that claim is the fact that any one major volcano erupting causes an immediate worldwide change in climate for 1-5 years! If man were putting out 100X as much, we would all be dead. Further, even after a super-volcano, which you cannot argue is dwarfed by man, the Earth rights itself back where it started, showing a natural equilibrium and ability to absorb the change.

Everything that volcanos or man is putting out, came from the Earth and back to the Earth it goes.

 

[mamooth]

Do any scientific studies exist showing 120PPM of CO2 creating the additional 4.19KJ of heat necessary to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1C?

I think your 4.19 KJ is covered, being that the science talks about things on a scale of 10^22 J

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960112010389

 

[mamooth]

I wasn't aware that the industrial centers in the USA stop producing CO2 during winter months. Can you explain why that is?

Don't ask me. It's your bizarre theory, so you'll have to explain it to everyone.

The video showed increased CO2 in the winter, then CO2 levels plummeting in spring as renewed plant growth ate the CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do any scientific studies exist showing 120PPM of CO2 creating the additional 4.19KJ of heat necessary to raise the temperature of 1kg of water by 1C?

I think your 4.19 KJ is covered, being that the science talks about things on a scale of 10^22 J

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960112010389

Did you realize you quoted from a paper that had the following OPENING PARAGRAPH?

"A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately −0.03±0.06W/m2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: normal; font-size: 16.2px; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; position: relative;">−0.03±0.06W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change."

Your AGW Theory has to add in yet another data set, 700 to 2,000M below the surface to make your math work!!

Again, how can atmospheric CO2 heat the ocean now down to 2,000m? How much energy is required to heat that 1kg of water --- 2,000m deep?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wasn't aware that the industrial centers in the USA stop producing CO2 during winter months. Can you explain why that is?

Don't ask me. It's your bizarre theory, so you'll have to explain it to everyone.

The video showed increased CO2 in the winter, then CO2 levels plummeting in spring as renewed plant growth ate the CO2.

So, you're saying the video showed that most of the CO2 is a natural byproduct and NOT the steady result of factories in the Rust Belt

 

[mamooth]

So, you're saying the video showed that most of the CO2 is a natural byproduct and NOT the steady result of factories in the Rust Belt

Obviously not. Stop asking me to explain your insane theories. The only one who needs to explain them is you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you're saying the video showed that most of the CO2 is a natural byproduct and NOT the steady result of factories in the Rust Belt

Obviously not. Stop asking me to explain your insane theories. The only one who needs to explain them is you.

Math and Science of Warming

"The video showed increased CO2 in the winter, then CO2 levels plummeting in spring as renewed plant growth ate the CO2"

YOU said the above. Clearly stating CO2 is a natural occurrence

 

[mamooth]

Did you realize you quoted from a paper that had the following OPENING PARAGRAPH?

And then they explained why the previous paper was wrong. What about that baffles you?

Your AGW Theory has to add in yet another data set, 700 to 2,000M below the surface to make your math work!!

Fascinating. You seem to be upset because the ocean below 700m was included.

As your theory requires that inconvenient data be erased, it's obviously not a good theory

 

[mamooth]

"The video showed increased CO2 in the winter, then CO2 levels plummeting in spring as renewed plant growth ate the CO2"

YOU said the above. Clearly stating CO2 is a natural occurrence

No, my sentence doesn't state or imply that in any way, and it makes no statement about the source of the winter CO2.

Please try discussing what I actually say, instead of what you wish I'd said.