Global warming is not anthropogenic

tmiddles wrote:

sealover wrote:
I'll have to check out your posts.

I'm curious how would you describe your stance?

I'm would say I'm skeptical that global warming is as much of an emergency as is claimed. But that the stakes or so high we should take great care anyway.

sealover wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

sealover wrote:
I'll have to check out your posts.

I'm curious how would you describe your stance?

I'm would say I'm skeptical that global warming is as much of an emergency as is claimed. But that the stakes or so high we should take great care anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I'm cautious about sharing all the reasons to be terrified.

sealover wrote:
It's not yet too late, but the window is closing fast.

sealover wrote:
Now that someone wants to LEARN something, and not just bully and heckle, I'll pick up on the many worst-case scenario changes that arrived sooner than even worst-case scenarios predicted.

sealover wrote:
And the many vicious feedbacks.

sealover wrote:
Disastrous wildfires

sealover wrote:
and tundra methane release

sealover wrote:
are just two examples of non-anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions

sealover wrote:
that climate change itself causes to increase.

sealover wrote:
And the ocean is the mother lode of CO2

sealover wrote:
ready to start going the wrong direction.

sealover wrote:...I'll pick up on the many worst-case scenario changes that arrived sooner than even worst-case scenarios predicted...

I concluded that a good 350 kJ of work was done by the surrounding atmosphere on the 1 kg of gas in this example. The work was calculated to be 353 kJ, and the change in internal energy was calculated to be 351 kJ. Let's take 352 kJ for further calculation.

The kinetic energy is given as E_kin = 1/2 * m * v^2, where m is the mass and v is the speed. The speed of the molecules in a gas follows a Maxwell distribution, where the average speed is given by v = sqrt (3 * R * T / M)
where R is the gas constant, T is temperature and M is the molar mass, which is 43.45e- 3 kg/mol in this example.

At a temperature of 737 K, the speed becomes: v = sqrt (3 * R * 737 K / 43.45e-3 kg/mol) = 650 m/s

Thus the kinetic energy for 1 mol becomes: E_(kin, mol) = 1 /2 * 43.45e-3 kg/mol * (650 m/s)^2 = 9 kJ

In 1 kg of gas consisting of 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% N2 there is 1 kg / 43.45e-3 kg/mol = 23 mol . Thus the total kinetic energy for 1 kg becomes: 9 kJ * 23 = 212 kJ

.....

That is, of the 352 kJ the internal energy has increased by, 212 kJ - 91 kJ = 121 kJ have gone to raise the temperature. The rest, i.e. 231 kJ, can be found as vibrations and rotations.

IBdaMann wrote:...explaining why Venus is so hot.

tmiddles wrote:But you don't believe Venus is hot.

tmiddles wrote:You refused here to accept a 200 degree margin of error on Venera probe data.

tmiddles wrote:To correct you false understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as applied to planets in our solar system: the SUN is a constant source of "new" energy.

IBdaMann wrote:...claim an increase in temperature, you cannot claim that the sun is now providing additional energy beyond what it was providing. You must account for additional energy ... and the sun is not it.

tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel metal planet ...the surface rusts.

tmiddles wrote:If you want to say it's no longer the same planet go ahead. It doesn't matter.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...explaining why Venus is so hot.

But you don't believe Venus is hot.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php

tmiddles wrote:
You refused here to accept a 200 degree margin of error on Venera probe data.

So you simply don't know.

tmiddles wrote:
But you're the only one that doesn't know.

tmiddles wrote:
To correct you false understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as applied to planets in our solar system: the SUN is a constant source of "new" energy.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...claim an increase in temperature, you cannot claim that the sun is now providing additional energy beyond what it was providing. You must account for additional energy ... and the sun is not it.

A shiny steel metal planet has a nitrogen atmosphere, with oxygen trapped below the surface. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere and the surface rusts. The planet gets hotter, a lot hotter. Yet the Sun the planet orbits hasn't changed. How can this be?

An object can change the way it's surface will interact with incoming radiance. This can raise or lower it's temperature without any change being made to the radiance it is receiving.

This is the entire theory of the greenhouse effect.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible.

Okay. First problem. Proofs are only available in closed functional systems, such as mathematics or logic. So a proof is not possible here. I will examine your arguments now. As you are making several, I will split them up and address them one by one.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Let me begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

Nope. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The 33 degC number is purely a made up value. It's a random number of type randU. The atmosphere does not add a single degree of temperature to the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it.

There is no ATE, so this predicate is not valid to use for any statement by the IPCC.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If the IPCC were right to say this

They aren't, since the predicate their argument is based upon is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position.

Again, not a proof. A fallacious argument, based upon denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is.

A presumption based on an invalid predicate. There is no ATE.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise.

This gets into the ideal gas law. While compressing a gas into a smaller volume does increase its temperature, this is describing the dynamic action of compressing said gas. A gas that is already compressed can be any temperature, and it's temperature is no longer changing because it's compressed. An example of this is a compressed gas cylinder (CO2, oxygen, hydrogen, take your pick). The cylinder containing the gas is not hot. It has no insulation. It is just a steel bottle. That cylinder and the gas inside it is the same as the room temperature. These bottles have gas compressed to 3000psi, or over 200 times atmospheric pressure at the surface of Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE

Nope. It's already compressed. There is no ATE. For folks in the U.S., this is equivalent to 14.7apsi, the standard pressure at standard temperature and altitude (sea level), used for various engineering purposes, including aircraft instrument design and calibration.

A static pressure of 14.7aspi can be any temperature. It does not add a single degree of temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote:
leaving nothing for the GE to account for

There is no magick gas or 'greenhouse effect' either. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so CO2 is of no consequence,

But it has, just not for temperature. CO2 is a gas necessary for plant life to exist on Earth, and in turn, us.

Pete Rogers wrote:
including our 3% of it.

The global atmospheric CO2 content is unknown. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant

This is not a constant or a measured value. It is a random number. This predicate is invalid.

Pete Rogers wrote:
it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation

Oddly enough, the predicate is not needed for this conclusion. The conclusion itself, however, is based upon a different invalid predicate. There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface may or may not be absorbed. If not absorbed, it is simply reflected back into space again. Absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. It may result in chemical energy or ionization, neither of which directly affects temperature. Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption. Most of the energy coming from the Sun that strikes the Earth is infrared light.

Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles

Both of these factors does affect the intensity of sunlight striking a given area of the surface of the Earth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and Albedo effects.

Albedo is not an effect. It is the inverse of emissiivity, the form used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, relating the intensity of light radiated due to temperature. It is a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. To measure it, one must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth, which is also unknown and cannot be measured. We simply do not have enough thermometers...nowhere near enough.


Now. Having addressed each of arguments, which tended to be based on the invalid predicate of an ATE, and having described that the use of the ideal gas law in this way is also invalid, a few points that should be made here.

First, you will see wild variations of temperature on, say, the Moon's surface. The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it's so thin it's safe to ignore it for this point. The average temperature of the Moon, like the average temperature of the Earth, is unknown. We simply do not have enough thermometers to measure either body. A single thermometer left on the surface of the Moon, however, routinely records temperatures as high as 250 deg F, and as low as -250 deg F, as it moves from day to night on the Moon. This is a temperature swing of 500 degF.

Here on Earth, temperatures do not swing nearly as radically. Why?
This is where the thicker atmosphere comes in. The atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat and cool it. Further, the Earth spins once every 24 hours. The moon takes about a month. Remember, the average temperature of either body is unknown and cannot be calculated to any useful margin of error. There is no reason the emissivity of the Moon and the emissivity of the Earth must be identical either.

While an atmosphere can directly absorb energy from the Sun, most energy absorbed and converted to thermal energy is absorbed by the surface, including the oceans. It is primarily the surface that heats the atmosphere. Not the other way around.

The atmosphere is a fluid, just as the oceans are. It has currents, convection, and even has a 'tide'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It can occur by conduction (a hot body contacting a cold body), convection (a hot parcel of air rising and cooling as it does so by losing pressure, or a cold parcel of air sinking and warming as it does so by gaining pressure.), or by radiance (conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again). Heat always flows from hot to cold, or from a concentration of energy toward a relative void of energy. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also why the atmosphere contains less thermal energy as you rise into the sky away from the surface. Through the troposphere, the temperature drops also. In the stratosphere, the temperature is rising, even though total thermal energy is still less.

Temperature is average thermal energy, not the total thermal energy. This a point of confusion among the scientifically illiterate.

Here the ideal gas law can come into play, with air moving over things like mountain ranges, convective movement (like storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc), and just simply benign air movement that supports hot air balloons and even gliders and soaring birds, allowing them to stay aloft for hours, gaining altitude from rising air. This air is cooling as it rises, possibly squeezing out visible droplets of water vapor as it does so, forming clouds (why clouds tend to have a flat base, and happen at the same altitudes in the vicinity.

Like any fluid, hot and cold air do not mix well. This same kind of thing can be seen in ocean water as well, in the form of warm currents like the Gulf Stream. In air, this is how we get 'warm' fronts and 'cold' fronts. A warm front is warmer air contacting colder air and riding up over the top of it, rising as it does so (and cooling). Warm fronts tend to have stratus clouds associated with them (like the clouds common in Seattle). A cold front is colder air plowing into warmer air, throwing it aloft. Such fronts have violent storms associated with them, since the warm air is getting thrown higher very quickly, cooling as it does so. Cold fronts tend to move faster than warm fronts also. The greater the difference in temperature and the faster the front, the more violent the storm.

Cold air coming from the Rockies and Canada collide with warmer air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. They can meet anywhere from Texas, through Oklahoma, or possibly as far north as the Dakotas. You can get some pretty violent thunderstorms, hail, or tornadoes from these storms.

Hurricanes are far bigger, and are caused by the difference between hot surface air and very cold air aloft.

Violent as these storms can get, they are nothing more than convective heating of the upper atmosphere by the surface of the Earth. It is truly amazing what a bit of water vapor and a temperature difference can really do.

The atmosphere is not static by any means.

So you are saying that the atmosphere does not add temperature to the Earth? Wouldn't this mean that the Earth without an atmosphere would actually be a space rock with outer space being present at ground level?