Math and Science of Warming

[CrusaderFrank]

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

I'm skeptical about including a whole new data set to magically make the numbers work. Do we have accurate temperature readings of this new dataset from 1880? 1900? 1940?

Too bad Bernie Madoff couldn't tell his investors that "you money is working hard for you -- but it's 2000m deep in the ocean" He's still be in the equity fund business.

Again, how does atmospheric CO2 warm the ocean 2,000m deep, I haven't seen that posted yet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's a 3,400C torch. If we apply it to the surface of the water, please tell me how it is supposed to "heat" the ocean 3m or 700m or 2,000m down.

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[Crick]

Here's a 3,400C torch. If we apply it to the surface of the water, please tell me how it is supposed to "heat" the ocean 3m or 700m or 2,000m down.

Anyone?

Bueller?

What is it you think that video is demonstrating Frank? The ocean's depths are heated by MIXING. And they aren't very warm. The deepest parts are universally 4C because that is the temperature at which water is most dense. But the ocean is a mixing son-of-a-gun. That's why they contention that IR doesn't heat it is such nonsense.

Did you think that the bowl of water with the oxyacetylene flame submerged in it was not being heated?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's a 3,400C torch. If we apply it to the surface of the water, please tell me how it is supposed to "heat" the ocean 3m or 700m or 2,000m down.

Anyone?

Bueller?

What is it you think that video is demonstrating Frank? The ocean's depths are heated by MIXING. And they aren't very warm. The deepest parts are universally 4C because that is the temperature at which water is most dense. But the ocean is a mixing son-of-a-gun. That's why they contention that IR doesn't heat it is such nonsense.

Did you think that the bowl of water with the oxyacetylene flame submerged in it was not being heated?

Just like on Europa or Enceladus, the water stays liquid because of pressure, not IR.

The heat on the surface does not Mix down to 2,000 meters.

 

[Crick]

Frank, I'm quite sure you've heard of the Meridional Overturning Current. Take a guess what it is that overturns.

Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Wikipedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, no one has posted the experiment showing how much "extra" energy is generated by an additional 120ppm of CO2. Is there a non-imaginary number that's ever been posted, especially in KJ, since thats relevant to the issue of the energy needed to raise the temperature of water

Second, failing that, how can we say with any confidence that the CO2 alone generates the 4.19 kj of energy necessary to raise the temperature of water by 1C.

 

[jc456]

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.

and yet, there still is no observed empirical data to support your human CO2 claim.

 

[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've watched the video a few times and here are some observations:

If the Theory of AGW is correct, you would expect to see a steady, non-seasonally adjusted CO2 output from the American east "rust belt - Industrial Center", that's not shown on the video. Instead, CO2 appears to be directly related to the amount of leaves on trees. In the winter in the northern hemisphere, the CO2 spikes, again, not due to mankind, but lack of trees.

 

[Crick]

The full range on that video graphic was 15 ppm and for most of the video I saw nothing exceeding a 5 ppm range.

 

[mamooth]

If the Theory of AGW is correct, you would expect to see a steady, non-seasonally adjusted CO2 output from the American east "rust belt - Industrial Center",

No, that makes no sense. It assumes plants don't eat CO2, but they do eat CO2.

that's not shown on the video. Instead, CO2 appears to be directly related to the amount of leaves on trees. In the winter in the northern hemisphere, the CO2 spikes, again, not due to mankind, but lack of trees.

Isotope ananlysis says your theory is wrong, therefore it's wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So there's no CO2 AGW hotspot from industrial activity; the Arctic was redder than the Rust Belt

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the Theory of AGW is correct, you would expect to see a steady, non-seasonally adjusted CO2 output from the American east "rust belt - Industrial Center",

No, that makes no sense. It assumes plants don't eat CO2, but they do eat CO2.

that's not shown on the video. Instead, CO2 appears to be directly related to the amount of leaves on trees. In the winter in the northern hemisphere, the CO2 spikes, again, not due to mankind, but lack of trees.

Isotope ananlysis says your theory is wrong, therefore it's wrong.

The video confirms that there is no discernible CO2 from human activity. The highest CO2 concentrations were in the northern hemisphere- in winter.

Science = settled.

 

[Crick]

The video shows us that CO2 is a well-mixed gas. As I said elsewhere, the maximum range in that video is only 15 ppm and I never saw more than 5 ppm difference worldwide.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Incoming sunlight hits the earth at an average of 168 W/m^2. The sunlight is actually stronger than that, but 168 is the part that is absorbed and not reflected.
That is equivalent to 0.168 kJ/sec.

If it takes 4.19 kJ to heat one kg of water 1 degree
then the heating would take 4.19/.168 seconds.

That is 24 seconds to heat a kilogram of water 1 degree from sunshine.
That is how fast the entire ocean gains heat. Pretty fast, huh.

But that part of your question is simple. It assumes that no heat escapes from the ocean. So the problem isn't so much the way you framed it - how heat is getting into the ocean.

The most difficult part of the physics is how much of that heat escapes the earth to prevent the oceans from boiling after a number of years. A lot of people here are under the mistaken assumption that CO2 is claimed to heat the ocean. It just doesn't and nobody claims that.


.

 

[SSDD]

View attachment 252140

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*****

It isn't the CO2...it is the mass... Change the CO2 with argon, keep the same mass and you would still have the same climate on venus. Look at the gas giants...jupiter, saturn...go down into their atmospheres and you find very high temperatures even though there are no so called greenhouse gasses..it is the mass of the atmosphere, not the composition.

 

[Crick]

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.

Incoming sunlight hits the earth at an average of 168 W/m^2. The sunlight is actually stronger than that, but 168 is the part that is absorbed and not reflected.
That is equivalent to 0.168 kJ/sec.

If it takes 4.19 kJ to heat one kg of water 1 degree
then the heating would take 4.19/.168 seconds.

That is 24 seconds to heat a kilogram of water 1 degree from sunshine.
That is how fast the entire ocean gains heat. Pretty fast, huh.

But that part of your question is simple. It assumes that no heat escapes from the ocean. So the problem isn't so much the way you framed it - how heat is getting into the ocean.

The most difficult part of the physics is how much of that heat escapes the earth to prevent the oceans from boiling after a number of years. A lot of people here are under the mistaken assumption that CO2 is claimed to heat the ocean. It just doesn't and nobody claims that.

I'm not sure, Wuwei, what you mean when you say the CO2 is not heating the oceans. The oceans radiate IR and some of that is captured by GHGs. The oceans can be heated by IR backradiation but, as you suggest, the higher frequencies are more efficiently absorbed.

 

[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.

Incoming sunlight hits the earth at an average of 168 W/m^2. The sunlight is actually stronger than that, but 168 is the part that is absorbed and not reflected.
That is equivalent to 0.168 kJ/sec.

If it takes 4.19 kJ to heat one kg of water 1 degree
then the heating would take 4.19/.168 seconds.

That is 24 seconds to heat a kilogram of water 1 degree from sunshine.
That is how fast the entire ocean gains heat. Pretty fast, huh.

But that part of your question is simple. It assumes that no heat escapes from the ocean. So the problem isn't so much the way you framed it - how heat is getting into the ocean.

The most difficult part of the physics is how much of that heat escapes the earth to prevent the oceans from boiling after a number of years. A lot of people here are under the mistaken assumption that CO2 is claimed to heat the ocean. It just doesn't and nobody claims that.


.

I think that IPCC4 claimed that atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean and therefore added that datasets to their overall warming computation.

I'll double check later

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC 5, initially said that the oceans have long been considered our planet's heat sponge - a 2014 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that the oceans had absorbed 93% of the excess heat that greenhouse gases have trapped within the Earth's atmosphere. But, they quickly realized this was a gigantic peer reviewed error and have since retracted this peer reviewed claim.

The Oceans Are Warming Even Faster Than We Previously Thought

Overall, the numbers are so totally fucked up and stupid there's just no sense in quoting IPCC

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Page not found.

We have a new website and as a result many links to documents have changed.

 

[Wuwei]

I think that IPCC4 claimed that atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean and therefore added that datasets to their overall warming computation.

I'll double check later

Heat moves away from and around the earth surface largely by convection (updrafts, wind) phase changes in water, and long wave radiation (IR). Analytically it's a mess.
Ultimately heat can only escape the planet by LWIR. If there were no GHGs, that LWIR would be so much that the earth surface would be well below freezing (-18C)

As you know, GHG's holds back some of the radiation that would otherwise escape, so the earth doesn't freeze at -18C, but maintains an average of +15C. If more GHGs were added to the atmosphere, less radiation would escape and the earth would be warmer.

This is the crux which many do not understand:
Adding more CO2 does not directly heat anything. CO2 prevents heat from escaping, thus causing the temperature to rise. When people mock others and think they are foolishly saying "CO2 heats the ocean", they are forgetting the nature of the process - that it is preventing more heat from escaping.

In short, the sun heats the ocean. GHG's slow that heat from escaping.


.

 

[SSDD]

As you know, GHG's holds back some of the radiation that would otherwise escape, so the earth doesn't freeze at -18C, but maintains an average of +15C. If more GHGs were added to the atmosphere, less radiation would escape and the earth would be warmer.

Got a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere? Didn't think so..