Remember me
▼ Content

Historic ocean acidification



Page 1 of 212>
Historic ocean acidification23-01-2019 15:27
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Hi,

my understanding is that it will probably be feasible to fight temperature rise by emitting cooling particles into the atmosphere.

That reassured me a little that we might not be completely doomed, it's difficult but not impossible to deal with the global rising temperatures.

However, that doesn't deal with ocean acidification, which might cause wide-spread ocean eco-system collapse because the base of the ocean food-chain can't form it's calcium shells properly.

My question is: I understand there were times in the past where CO2 was significantly higher than today, I assume this was correlated with also an increase in ocean acidification back then.

What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?

Thanks for sharing any insights...
23-01-2019 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
Hi,

my understanding is that it will probably be feasible to fight temperature rise by emitting cooling particles into the atmosphere.

That reassured me a little that we might not be completely doomed, it's difficult but not impossible to deal with the global rising temperatures.

What global rising temperatures? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis of that sort.
littleendian wrote:
However, that doesn't deal with ocean acidification, which might cause wide-spread ocean eco-system collapse because the base of the ocean food-chain can't form it's calcium shells properly.
Ocean water is alkaline. It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. It is also not possible to measure the pH of the oceans, which varies from place to place.
littleendian wrote:
My question is: I understand there were times in the past where CO2 was significantly higher than today, I assume this was correlated with also an increase in ocean acidification back then.

Dissolving CO2 in ocean (or any water) produces mostly...dissolved CO2 (think soda pop). The amount of CO2 in the oceans is about the same as in the air. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric or oceanic CO2 content. We don't have enough measuring stations, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the air or the oceans.

Assuming that 0.04% of the ocean water is CO2, only about 1% of that actually turns into carbonic acid, or about 0.0004% of the ocean water. This tiny amount of weak acid does not change the pH of the oceans at all in any significant way. It does, however, help to break up calcium deposits on the ocean floor and put the calcium into solution. Shellfish require their calcium to be in solution to make their shells. Far from harming them, the carbonic acid is HELPING them, if anything.

Higher amounts of CO2 will not significantly change the pH of ocean water. The pH scale is not a linear scale.
littleendian wrote:
What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?

We know that it existed. We have the fossils to show it. Old clams and other shellfish.

In summary, don't panic. There is nothing to worry about with CO2. It is incapable of warming the Earth, and it is not making any significant difference in the pH of ocean water. What you've been hearing from the IPCC is just flat wrong.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-01-2019 20:29
23-01-2019 21:47
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
littleendian wrote:
..... completely doomed.....

....ocean acidification significantly higher than today......

....What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?.....


Where did you get the notion of "completely doomed?"
From an actual climate scientist? Some flippant comment by an entertainer?

Anyway, about lowered pH in the ocean in the past, from about 120 million years ago because of volcanic CO2: try https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/07/marine-creatures-survived-ancient-ocean-acidification

and http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5990/428

What do we know about this? Not a lot really. Enough to know that some organisms came through OK, some didn't.
23-01-2019 22:48
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
littleendian wrote:
Hi,

my understanding is that it will probably be feasible to fight temperature rise by emitting cooling particles into the atmosphere.

That reassured me a little that we might not be completely doomed, it's difficult but not impossible to deal with the global rising temperatures.

Fortunately, the problem has been way overblow by the media. In reality, warming is a good thing. The physics of CO2 says that it will mainly warm the nights and winter time and have almost no impact on high temperatures. This means longer growing seasons and a much greater abundance of life. Our global temperatures are still well below epochs that were considered 'climate optimums' by scientists. The amount CO2 that needs to be emitted to impact the climate is astronomical. No need to worry.

littleendian wrote:However, that doesn't deal with ocean acidification, which might cause wide-spread ocean eco-system collapse because the base of the ocean food-chain can't form it's calcium shells properly.

There is more good news here. The ocean is a buffered system, where it is almost impossible to move the pH, no matter how much acid is added. That means you will have to dissolve ALL the limestone, dolomite, anorthite, and kaolinite in contact with the ocean first before you will get the pH to move beyond what it is right now. These rocks formed over millions of years with coral and other sea shells.

Also note that since the ocean is alkaline, raising pH is actually neutralizing the ocean, not acidifying. CO2 is actually reducing the capability of the ocean to dissolve things.

littleendian wrote:My question is: I understand there were times in the past where CO2 was significantly higher than today, I assume this was correlated with also an increase in ocean acidification back then.

What do we know about how life in the ocean reacted in these historic situations?

Thanks for sharing any insights...

You can just look at a typical month to see how much pH varies by much more that CO2 is capable of doing over thousands of years. Sea life survives this variation just fine. Again, this is not a problem.
24-01-2019 06:51
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Okay, sorry, I asked in the wrong place, I didn't realize this was a deniers forum. I'll give you the scientific consensus, not because I hope to convince you guys, because deep down I assume what you're actually doing is resisting change, and no matter how much scientific consenus I give you, I'm doubtful that that will actually change. I'll correct what is written here for anyone else who might be reading this, because what you write is absolutely not the case. I can just hope you'll be the minority in future elections, otherwise we are truly ****ed.
If I were you I would worry that I'll go down as by far the most globally destructive group of human beings who ever lived.

Yes, you can reasonably estimate global average temperatures.

Yes you can reasonably estimate the global atmospheric CO2 content.

Yes, both are rising. In case of CO2 to levels that we haven't seen in millions of years.

Yes, both are rising because of human action plus any positive feedbacks that are already triggered.

Yes, you can make something that is presently alkaline more acidic by adding CO2.

Yes, a major share of our emissions is ending up in the oceans, making them more acidic.

Yes, that can have an effect on the life-forms living in that more acidic environment.

No, by providing the example of a single measuring point varying in pH in California somewhere does not show that PH is not rising as a global average.

Yes, there is some argument to be made for an initial positive effect on the growing seasons or CO2 fertilization, but there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that in the whole an atmosphere with more heat (energy) will cause more severe weather (droughts, floods, heat waves, strong snows) that will have in total a very negative impact on agriculture and society.

And yes, because I know that will come as well: Yes, the climate has always changed. No, it hasn't signficantly changed since human civilization emerged (in the Holocene), so yes, climate change is a clear threat.
24-01-2019 10:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
Okay, sorry, I asked in the wrong place, I didn't realize this was a deniers forum.
There are actually both sides of the debate here. Some of your fellow members in the Church of Global Warming simply didn't respond yet.
littleendian wrote:
I'll give you the scientific consensus,
Science does not use consensus. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
littleendian wrote:
not because I hope to convince you guys, because deep down I assume what you're actually doing is resisting change,
No, I am resisting socialism, including fascism, that the Church of Global Warming champions.
littleendian wrote:
and no matter how much scientific consenus I give you,
Science does not use consensus.
littleendian wrote:
I'm doubtful that that will actually change.
Good. Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. Using the excuse of 'saving the planet' is not a reason to implement socialism.
littleendian wrote:
I'll correct what is written here for anyone else who might be reading this, because what you write is absolutely not the case. I can just hope you'll be the minority in future elections, otherwise we are truly ****ed.
Not likely. Capitalism is the only economic system that can create wealth.
littleendian wrote:
If I were you I would worry that I'll go down as by far the most globally destructive group of human beings who ever lived.
Ah, the usual predictions of doom and gloom, just like any fundamentalist religion.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, you can reasonably estimate global average temperatures.

No, you can't. It's a math problem. There are no enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis of this sort. Anyone claiming to know the temperature of the Earth is making up numbers. That's called an argument from randU fallacy.
littleendian wrote:
Yes you can reasonably estimate the global atmospheric CO2 content.

There are only a few dozen stations even capable of measuring CO2 concentration. They are all located on the surface. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Further, CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth at all. The whole 'greenhouse gas' model violates existing laws of physics, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, both are rising. In case of CO2 to levels that we haven't seen in millions of years.

It is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. Further, we have been only measuring atmospheric CO2 at all since 1958. No one was measuring CO2 concentration millions of years ago. Argument from randU fallacy.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, both are rising because of human action plus any positive feedbacks that are already triggered.
No one is able to determine the source of any CO2 in the atmosphere. You don't know what is natural, or what is caused by our fires. Argument from randU fallacy.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, you can make something that is presently alkaline more acidic by adding CO2.
No, you can't. You can only neutralize it. See acid-base chemistry.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, a major share of our emissions is ending up in the oceans, making them more acidic.

The concentration said to be measured at Mauna Loa is around 400ppm. That is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. This is the same concentration that is in the ocean, since the amount dissolved in ocean water follows the concentration in the air. Only about 1% of the dissolved CO2 becomes carbonic acid. That is 0.0004% of the ocean water. Carbon acid is a weak acid. No significant change on pH is possible at these concentrations. The pH scale is logarithmic, not linear. See acid-base chemistry.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, that can have an effect on the life-forms living in that more acidic environment.
Ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. pH does not significantly change at 0.0004% concentrations of a weak acid like carbonic acid.
littleendian wrote:
No, by providing the example of a single measuring point varying in pH in California somewhere does not show that PH is not rising as a global average.
It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. It is not uniform in ocean water.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, there is some argument to be made for an initial positive effect on the growing seasons
Growing seasons are set by the plant itself. Plants are not sensitive to temperature. Spring blooms occur at a generally fixed time interval from the day a plant loses it's leaves in autumn. Plants are sensitive to length of day, not temperature.
littleendian wrote:
or CO2 fertilization,

CO2 is not a fertilizer. Plants do use CO2 and water, however, to produce carbohydrates (sugars). That process also releases oxygen to the atmosphere.
littleendian wrote:
but there is an overwhelming scientific consensus

Science does not use consensus.
littleendian wrote:
that in the whole an atmosphere with more heat (energy)

Heat is not energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat has no temperature. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which defines heat.
littleendian wrote:
will cause more severe weather (droughts, floods, heat waves, strong snows) that will have in total a very negative impact on agriculture and society.

More gloom and doom predictions. We actually do have historical records of things like hurricanes. There has been no increase in the number or intensity of storms. See the National Hurricane Center data.

No one is measuring droughts, floods, heat waves, or 'strong snows'. The problem, you see, is define what these actually are in a quantifiable way.

littleendian wrote:
And yes, because I know that will come as well:

Doom and gloom prediction. You don't know what will come.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, the climate has always changed.

Climate is usually defined as something similar to 'weather over a long time'. Since there is no such thing as a global weather, there is no such thing as a global climate. The phrase 'climate change' itself is a buzzword. It's meaningless. It can only be defined by itself.
littleendian wrote:
No, it hasn't signficantly changed since human civilization emerged (in the Holocene),

What is 'climate change'? Define it without using itself as a definition.
littleendian wrote:
so yes, climate change is a clear threat.

You can't even define it. Try.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 11:08
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Science doesn't "use" consensus, however there is a consensus about among people who dedicate their career to studying the climate (climate scientists) about anthropogenic climate change. Also their predictions check out with common sense: I know there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect every time I enter a car that's been parked in the sun, I know we are emitting additional CO2 through burning carbon previously stored underground, therefore we are contributing to a greenhouse effect which will have an effect on the climate.

Unfortunately the issue has been politicised. I share your view on socialism and I completely disagree with people like Naomi Klein. I believe there is nothing wrong with capitalism except that right now we are not taxing activities that have negative impacts on third parties like emitting additional CO2. Capitalism is fully capable of dealing with this issue, however right now the playing field isn't even, which is something that any believer in free markets will detest.

It's true that CO2 hasn't been measured for long enough, however CO2 levels before measurements began can be reliably reconstructed using all kinds of methods like using bubbles trapped in ice-core samples.

Whether 400 ppm is a tiny number or not doesn't say anything about the effect it can still have. A tiny virus can kill an elephant. Increasing CO2 from 280ppm pre-industrialization to 410 ppm today (and counting) can indeed have a significant effect on climate, even if the effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as concentrations increase.

Yes, plants are sensitive to temperatures as well as precipitation (lack thereof or too much of it). The changes seen here in Germany have so far allowed pests to more easily live through the warmer winters and have killed many trees. These kinds of ecosystem disturbances will get more frequent and we have no way of knowing whether or for how long the eco-systems will be able to cope or adapt because the climate change is happening so much faster than before due to our high speed of emissions compared to historic fluctuations in CO2.

Yes, we don't know what will come, but there are certain likelyhoods that climate science is giving us. And those don't look good and it would be wiser (and cheaper) to mitigate now rather than try to fix a broken planet afterwards.
24-01-2019 11:13
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
You can discount any definition I give you, but here's my attempt:

Anthropogenic climate change are the global changes and increasing extremity in weather patterns (climate) we are seeing and will increasingly see caused by human activities that emits greenhouse gasses like CO2 through e.g. burning coal for electricity or oil for transportation.

We are seeing those increasing extreme weather patterns here in Germany, last year we had crop failures of about 30% in Brandenburg, close to where I live. The winters have been changing and there is almost no spring anymore, it goes more or less straight from winter to summer.
24-01-2019 11:15
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Theology is a science, and it's their consensus, that God exists. God will take care of it, or not, nothing we can do about it...

The facts are, the nobody really knows, or has anyway of finding out, what climate conditions existed in the distant past (more than a few thousand years). We can only guess at what it was like, before and during, the last great ice age. Seems to me, very reasonable to believe it was much warmer, all year long, and higher CO2 levels, needed for large quantities for vegetation, to feed massive reptiles. Plants and reptiles do a lot better in a warm climate. Plants grow a lot better at much higher CO2 levels, than we currently have. This is just one point, that strongly defies the IPCC consensus. I group of people agreeing on something, doesn't make it so.
24-01-2019 11:16
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
About that scientific consensus thing, let me ask you a question:

Do you believe that tiny germs, bacteria and viruses and fungi, exist and that they can cause disease? Have you seen them? There is a scientific consensus that they exist, however. Your denial of anthropogenic climate change reminds me of someone who refuses to believe the science of germs because they haven't seen it for themselves.


Well, my friend, depending on your age you just might see climate change in action. I hope you're right and everything will continue as normal, but I'm afraid you're wrong.
24-01-2019 11:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
It is time to consider why it is not possible to do things like measure the temperature of the Earth again.

This is a statistical math problem. Statistical math is a wonderful tool for summarizing past or existing data. It's use of random numbers, however, inhibit the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. Thus, statistical math is incapable of predicting a summary.

In any summary, two numbers are produced as a final output: the data summary itself (based on averages), and the margin of error. This is the plus/minus number you see in a summary. This number is not calculated from the data, but from the possible variance of the data. In the case of temperature, that variance is the possible number of degrees that may change in a single fixed distance, say a mile. This will be an observed value. Personally, I have observed variances as steep as 20 deg F per mile. This usually happens during a fast moving cold front, or can be the result of a mountain wave compression in high winds. Variances can also occur due to changes in vegetation in a very short space as well.

To begin a summary, you must first select the data. Selection must follow a few simple rules to avoid a biased (and useless) summary. First, data must be selected by randN. This is the type of random number that drawing from a deck of cards uses. Once picked, a data point may not be picked again. If it is picked, it can only be picked once, not twice, not 0.7 times, but ONCE.

This requirement that data must be selected by randN means you cannot select from cooked data. The data must be selected from a raw source with no adjustments. That means you cannot 'adjust' for heat island effects, the type of weather prevalent, etc.

Time is significant. Storms move, the Earth spins, air moves, etc. The effects of time must be eliminated. That means the temperatures must all be read at the same time.

Location grouping is significant. The effects of a temperature in one area has little to do with the effects of temperature in another area, even nearby. An urban heat island effect is theorized, thus a lot of thermometers in cities will produce a possible biased result. This effect must be eliminated. Thermometers must be placed uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

The number of thermometers is significant. This number is used along with the observed possible variance to calculate the margin of error value. Thus, the first question to ask is how many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Fortunately, places like NOAA and NASA do document how many thermometer are used. The higher number is used by NASA and is roughly some 7500 thermometers spread across the Earth. These thermometers are NOT uniformly distributed. They are concentrated in cities and on roads (they must be serviced). For the sake of argument, however, I will assume they are uniformly placed.

The surface of the Earth is 197 million square miles. Spreading 7500 thermometers across this surface results in one thermometer for every 26,662 square miles. This is approximately the size of West Virginia or South Carolina. In other words, it is one thermometer for the entire State of West Virginia.

Since the observed possible variance can be as steep as 20 deg F per mile, the result of any summary using this number of thermometers produces a margin of error that is essentially the widest spread of temperatures ever observed as the high and low temperatures on Earth. This effectively means the summary is nothing more than a wild guess.

Thus, the NASA data is manufactured. So is the NOAA data. So is the IPCC data. So is any data that claims to be the temperature of the Earth. We have no idea if the Earth is cooling, warming, or just staying the same.
24-01-2019 11:24
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Theology is a science, and it's their consensus, that God exists. God will take care of it, or not, nothing we can do about it...


No, theology is not an empirical science like climate science is. It might be some kind of philosophy, but certainly not empirical science.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The facts are, the nobody really knows, or has anyway of finding out, what climate conditions existed in the distant past (more than a few thousand years). We can only guess at what it was like, before and during, the last great ice age. Seems to me, very reasonable to believe it was much warmer, all year long, and higher CO2 levels, needed for large quantities for vegetation, to feed massive reptiles. Plants and reptiles do a lot better in a warm climate. Plants grow a lot better at much higher CO2 levels, than we currently have. This is just one point, that strongly defies the IPCC consensus. I group of people agreeing on something, doesn't make it so.

We don't know, but science can tell us what is (very) likely to have happened in the past through all kinds of geological records. There are people who study this stuff all their lives and there is a consensus among them what is likely to happen in the future. We can never know anything for sure, all life is probabilities, and based on those we must make informed decisions.
24-01-2019 11:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
Science doesn't "use" consensus, however there is a consensus about among people who dedicate their career to studying the climate (climate scientists) about anthropogenic climate change.
Paradox. You say science doesn't use consensus, then you depend on consensus for 'climate science'. Which is it, dude?

Science doesn't use consensus. Climate 'scientists' aren't. They deny science and mathematics, just like the Church of Global Warming does.
littleendian wrote:
Also their predictions check out with common sense:
\
Science is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. The power of prediction can only exist in a closed functional system like logic or mathematics. A theory of science must be formalized into that closed system to gain the power of prediction, which comes with the formal proof. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. What is the equation of 'climate change'? For that matter, what is the definition of 'climate change'? Remember, you can't define a word with itself.
littleendian wrote:
I know there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect every time I enter a car that's been parked in the sun,

Cars (and real greenhouses) work by reducing heat. Specifically, they reduce convective heating from inside the structure to the outside air. Carbon dioxide does not reduce heat. It is part of the convection of open air. It has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

To warm the Earth, you must have additional energy. CO2 is not an energy source. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You are trying to heat an already warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. You cannot heat anything using a colder substance. Heat does not flow backwards. You are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You are also trying to reduce the radiance from Earth while increasing the temperature of the Earth. This violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The 'greenhouse effect' model violates existing laws of physics. These theories have not been falsified. They are still in force.

littleendian wrote:
I know we are emitting additional CO2 through burning carbon previously stored underground, therefore we are contributing to a greenhouse effect which will have an effect on the climate.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.
littleendian wrote:
Unfortunately the issue has been politicised.

It is nothing but politics and religion. There is no science in it.
littleendian wrote:
I share your view on socialism and I completely disagree with people like Naomi Klein. I believe there is nothing wrong with capitalism except that right now we are not taxing activities that have negative impacts on third parties like emitting additional CO2.

You disagree with socialism but you want to tax producers of CO2? Why? You seem to be arguing another paradox.
littleendian wrote:
Capitalism is fully capable of dealing with this issue, however right now the playing field isn't even, which is something that any believer in free markets will detest.

Capitalism IS the free market. It IS the playing field. You can't kill the free market, even if you drive it underground. Price discover is what determines prices on the free market. There is not other force that works. Price controls always fail. They are an element of socialism as well.

Taxing 'evil magick gases' is price controls.

littleendian wrote:
It's true that CO2 hasn't been measured for long enough, however CO2 levels before measurements began can be reliably reconstructed using all kinds of methods like using bubbles trapped in ice-core samples.

Nope. Ice is permeable to CO2.
littleendian wrote:
Whether 400 ppm is a tiny number or not doesn't say anything about the effect it can still have.
It has absolutely none, zero, nada. It is incapable of warming the Earth.
littleendian wrote:
A tiny virus can kill an elephant.
CO2 is not a virus.
littleendian wrote:
Increasing CO2 from 280ppm pre-industrialization to 410 ppm today (and counting) can indeed have a significant effect on climate, even if the effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as concentrations increase.

It doesn't decrease at all. It simply has no capability to warm the Earth. It is zero.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, plants are sensitive to temperatures
No, they are not.
littleendian wrote:
as well as precipitation (lack thereof or too much of it).
The are sensitive to available water, since they use it to make their food.
littleendian wrote:
The changes seen here in Germany have so far allowed pests to more easily live through the warmer winters and have killed many trees.

What change has taken place in Germany? I think you will find historic weather data hasn't changed outside its usual variance. That stuff is recorded back to WW2 (records before that time were destroyed).
littleendian wrote:
These kinds of ecosystem disturbances will get more frequent and we have no way of knowing whether or for how long the eco-systems will be able to cope or adapt because the climate change is happening so much faster than before due to our high speed of emissions compared to historic fluctuations in CO2.

You don't know the historic fluctuations of CO2. Argument from randU fallacy.
littleendian wrote:
Yes, we don't know what will come, but there are certain likelyhoods that climate science is giving us.

Science isn't a casino. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Probability math is incapable of prediction. Like statistical math, it uses random numbers. They are imported from another Math Domain, and take away the inherent power of prediction in mathematics where they are used.
littleendian wrote:
And those don't look good and it would be wiser (and cheaper) to mitigate now rather than try to fix a broken planet afterwards.

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager fallacy. Pascal once tried to use it to entice people to join Christianity. You are using it to entice people to join the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 11:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
You can discount any definition I give you, but here's my attempt:

I will look seriously at any attempt.
littleendian wrote:
Anthropogenic climate change are the global changes and increasing extremity in weather patterns (climate) we are seeing and will increasingly see caused by human activities that emits greenhouse gasses like CO2 through e.g. burning coal for electricity or oil for transportation.

This definition is defining 'climate change' as 'global changes'. You are defining the phrase with itself. Defining a word with itself is not a definition.
littleendian wrote:
We are seeing those increasing extreme weather patterns here in Germany,

No, you are imagining it.
littleendian wrote:
last year we had crop failures of about 30% in Brandenburg,

Too bad. Not an indication of anything changing except for the weather for that year within normal variances.
littleendian wrote:
close to where I live.
Pretty area, Brandenburg.
littleendian wrote:
The winters have been changing and there is almost no spring anymore, it goes more or less straight from winter to summer.

Winter, spring, summer and autumn are everywhere on the Earth except the equator, where it doesn't make sense to describe seasons that way. You are discussing your personal perception.

Anecdotes are not used in science. Observations themselves are not part of science. They are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Each person interprets what their senses are telling them in a different way. Observations are evidence only. Anecdotal evidence is the least reliable of all.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 11:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Theology is a science, and it's their consensus, that God exists. God will take care of it, or not, nothing we can do about it...

The facts are, the nobody really knows, or has anyway of finding out, what climate conditions existed in the distant past (more than a few thousand years). We can only guess at what it was like, before and during, the last great ice age. Seems to me, very reasonable to believe it was much warmer, all year long, and higher CO2 levels, needed for large quantities for vegetation, to feed massive reptiles. Plants and reptiles do a lot better in a warm climate. Plants grow a lot better at much higher CO2 levels, than we currently have. This is just one point, that strongly defies the IPCC consensus. I group of people agreeing on something, doesn't make it so.


Theology is not a science. Consensus is also not used in science. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god, gods, or spirits. It is also not possible to prove whether any god, gods, or spirit does not exist.

Science does not discuss god at all. It is agnostic. Any theories about any god, gods, or spirits is not falsifiable.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. None. Zero. Nada.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 12:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
About that scientific consensus thing, let me ask you a question:

Okay.
littleendian wrote:
Do you believe that tiny germs, bacteria and viruses and fungi, exist and that they can cause disease?

Yes.
littleendian wrote:
Have you seen them?

Yes.
littleendian wrote:
There is a scientific consensus that they exist, however.

No. Science is not observation. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It does not use consensus. There is no such thing as a scientific consensus.
littleendian wrote:
Your denial of anthropogenic climate change reminds me of someone who refuses to believe the science of germs because they haven't seen it for themselves.

I have seen them for myself.
littleendian wrote:
Well, my friend, depending on your age you just might see climate change in action.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzwords have no action.
littleendian wrote:
I hope you're right and everything will continue as normal, but I'm afraid you're wrong.

I am right. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the rules of statistical mathematics, and the rules of probability mathematics say why. You can't just ignore these to favor your religion.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 12:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Theology is a science, and it's their consensus, that God exists. God will take care of it, or not, nothing we can do about it...


No, theology is not an empirical science like climate science is. It might be some kind of philosophy, but certainly not empirical science.

Neither is science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The facts are, the nobody really knows, or has anyway of finding out, what climate conditions existed in the distant past (more than a few thousand years). We can only guess at what it was like, before and during, the last great ice age. Seems to me, very reasonable to believe it was much warmer, all year long, and higher CO2 levels, needed for large quantities for vegetation, to feed massive reptiles. Plants and reptiles do a lot better in a warm climate. Plants grow a lot better at much higher CO2 levels, than we currently have. This is just one point, that strongly defies the IPCC consensus. I group of people agreeing on something, doesn't make it so.

We don't know, but science can tell us what is (very) likely to have happened in the past through all kinds of geological records.

Nope. Ice is permeable to CO2. There are even less ice cores than thermometers in the world today. All the ice cores combined do not tell us the temperature of the Earth, only the temperature at the core sample site.
littleendian wrote:
There are people who study this stuff all their lives and there is a consensus among them
what is likely to happen in the future.

Consensus is not used in science. Science does not have the power to predict. It can only explain, not predict. Only closed functional systems like mathematics or logic have the power of prediction.
littleendian wrote:
We can never know anything for sure, all life is probabilities, and based on those we must make informed decisions.

Science is not a casino. Pascal's Wager fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 12:37
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Dude, I'm not getting into all the details you opened up. I think there's a fundamental issue I'd like to address which might just be more helpful in clearing this up:

I'm not a climate scientist or expert in any relevant fields. I assume neither are you. So us discussing the details of climate science is really something that is only necessary if we have any good reasons not to trust what the people studying the matter professionally at universities and colleges tell us is the scientific consensus. What reasons do you have not to trust people like Jim Hansen?

About the "climate change religion" thing:

There is a difference between religiously believing something (blind faith) and having trust in the process of science and the things experts tell me because (1) they check out with common sense, (2) the basic mechanics of the thing working seem solid enough and (3) there is a conensus among the experts. Let me define "expert" for now as someone who holds a relevant degree like physics, climate science, geology etc.
24-01-2019 12:40
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
To warm the Earth, you must have additional energy. CO2 is not an energy source. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.


Don't play dense. Obviously the energy source is the sun, CO2 is trapping the sun's heat, increasing CO2 increases the amount of heat trapped.
Edited on 24-01-2019 12:40
24-01-2019 17:17
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
littleendian wrote:
To warm the Earth, you must have additional energy. CO2 is not an energy source. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.


Don't play dense. Obviously the energy source is the sun, CO2 is trapping the sun's heat, increasing CO2 increases the amount of heat trapped.


Please define heat, and then explain how you can trap it.
24-01-2019 17:19
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
I would if I could be sure that you don't keep asking for more and more definitions. Like if I define heat as "the amount of energy stored in matter", will you ask me to defined energy, matter, amount?
24-01-2019 17:26
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(84)
littleendian wrote:Okay, sorry, I asked in the wrong place, I didn't realize this was a deniers forum. I'll give you the scientific consensus, not because I hope to convince you guys, because deep down I assume what you're actually doing is resisting change, and no matter how much scientific consenus I give you, I'm doubtful that that will actually change. I'll correct what is written here for anyone else who might be reading this, because what you write is absolutely not the case. I can just hope you'll be the minority in future elections, otherwise we are truly ****ed.
If I were you I would worry that I'll go down as by far the most globally destructive group of human beings who ever lived.

So, consensus is how truth is defined? I'm convinced that my generation is one that had the most positive impact on the planet that ever lived. We've cleaned up pollution in the US to the point that it has the cleanest air and water in the industrialized world. Life spans and health are better than ever. Extreme poverty is at the lowest levels ever. We've overcome the holocaust that occurred in the mid-20th century and haven't had a global war in generations. The planet is greener (more trees) than ever. What's not to like?
littleendian wrote:Yes, you can reasonably estimate global average temperatures.

OK. I like using satellite data since, but it only goes back a few decades. I'm wary of thermometer data since we have global coverage for only the last century, and the fact the UHI influences it a lot. Ocean data is only consistent for a few decades.
Basically, we have reasonable estimates for only a few decades. Any claims going back further are suspect.
littleendian wrote:Yes you can reasonably estimate the global atmospheric CO2 content.

Yes, but only for a few decades.
littleendian wrote:Yes, both are rising. In case of CO2 to levels that we haven't seen in millions of years.

Perhaps, but it was much higher during most of the time that life existed on the earth.
littleendian wrote:Yes, both are rising because of human action plus any positive feedbacks that are already triggered.

Possibly true but cannot be proven. Positive feedbacks are especially unproven since global temperatures are rising no faster than the theoretical 1.1 C of increase per doubling of CO2. You would have to assume that 100% of all warming is caused by CO2 and none by other natural forces. That is bad science.
littleendian wrote:Yes, you can make something that is presently alkaline more acidic by adding CO2.

As a chemist, we would say that adding acid to a base is neutralizing it. Once pH gets below 7.0 and becomes an acid, then adding more acid makes it more acidic.
littleendian wrote:Yes, a major share of our emissions is ending up in the oceans, making them more acidic.

The oceans are buffered, so adding acid has very little impact on pH. There are limestone deposits thousands of feet thick that need to be dissolved before the ocean stops buffering itself. As mentioned above, you can only make an acid more acidic. If anything, you are neutralizing the oceans.
littleendian wrote:Yes, that can have an effect on the life-forms living in that more acidic environment.

Not until all the buffering agent is dissolved. It would take millions of years for that to happen.
littleendian wrote:No, by providing the example of a single measuring point varying in pH in California somewhere does not show that PH is not rising as a global average.

The graph showed 2 data points in California, but unfortunately there is very little global pH data. The point of the graphs was to show the large natural variation in daily pH that life deals with just fine.
littleendian wrote:Yes, there is some argument to be made for an initial positive effect on the growing seasons or CO2 fertilization, but there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that in the whole an atmosphere with more heat (energy) will cause more severe weather (droughts, floods, heat waves, strong snows) that will have in total a very negative impact on agriculture and society.

CO2 has a very positive impact on growing seasons and plant life. Satellite data shows that the earth has greened significantly in the last 30 years. Scientific and paleo climate show that more heat causes more precipitation and less extreme weather. History shows that colder times (such as the Little Ice Age) are much worse for extreme weather than warmer times. Current data shows that the warming is causing no increase in droughts or storms.
littleendian wrote:And yes, because I know that will come as well: Yes, the climate has always changed. No, it hasn't signficantly changed since human civilization emerged (in the Holocene), so yes, climate change is a clear threat.

I disagree. Here's a reconstruction from a Greenland ice core for the last 10,000 years. The big threat historically is cooling. Warm periods have always been a boon to humans.
24-01-2019 17:34
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
littleendian wrote:
I would if I could be sure that you don't keep asking for more and more definitions. Like if I define heat as "the amount of energy stored in matter", will you ask me to defined energy, matter, amount?


That's the first question I've asked you. By the way, that is not heat.
24-01-2019 18:05
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Okay, so you have a clear definition of heat in your head. Why do you need my definition then, just work with yours. Otherwise your asking for definitions is just distraction from the main argument, isn't it.
24-01-2019 18:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so you have a clear definition of heat in your head. Why do you need my definition then, just work with yours. Otherwise your asking for definitions is just distraction from the main argument, isn't it.


Nope, if were going to have a conversation, we should all be on the same terms.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. How do you propose to stop or "trap" heat? There is ALWAYS heat. You cant trap it, stop it, or slow it.

Greenhouses REDUCE heat. Now you need to explain how CO2 reduces heat to make the earth warmer.
24-01-2019 18:45
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so you have a clear definition of heat in your head. Why do you need my definition then, just work with yours. Otherwise your asking for definitions is just distraction from the main argument, isn't it.


Nope, if were going to have a conversation, we should all be on the same terms.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. How do you propose to stop or "trap" heat? There is ALWAYS heat. You cant trap it, stop it, or slow it.

Greenhouses REDUCE heat. Now you need to explain how CO2 reduces heat to make the earth warmer.


Okay so lets not talk about heat since we don't agree on the definition. Lets talk about the amount of energy in the atmosphere. Do you agree that the sun is sending energy in form of electromagnetic waves towards the earth? Do you agree that to some extent this energy gets reflected back (in different wavelengths) by the surface of the earth? And that some of that reflected energy will again get reflected by the atmosphere? And that, depending on the composition of said atmosphere, more or less of it can get "trapped" in this way in the atmosphere? If you don't agree, then why is the temperature of the surface of the earth not at the temperature of space (close to absolute zero)? And that increases in CO2 will reflect back more energy from the sun back to the earth?
Edited on 24-01-2019 18:47
24-01-2019 19:17
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so you have a clear definition of heat in your head. Why do you need my definition then, just work with yours. Otherwise your asking for definitions is just distraction from the main argument, isn't it.


Nope, if were going to have a conversation, we should all be on the same terms.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. How do you propose to stop or "trap" heat? There is ALWAYS heat. You cant trap it, stop it, or slow it.

Greenhouses REDUCE heat. Now you need to explain how CO2 reduces heat to make the earth warmer.


Okay so lets not talk about heat since we don't agree on the definition. Lets talk about the amount of energy in the atmosphere. Do you agree that the sun is sending energy in form of electromagnetic waves towards the earth? Do you agree that to some extent this energy gets reflected back (in different wavelengths) by the surface of the earth? And that some of that reflected energy will again get reflected by the atmosphere? And that, depending on the composition of said atmosphere, more or less of it can get "trapped" in this way in the atmosphere? If you don't agree, then why is the temperature of the surface of the earth not at the temperature of space (close to absolute zero)? And that increases in CO2 will reflect back more energy from the sun back to the earth?


This is why you must first understand heat. It is the flow of thermal energy. It ALWAYS flows from hot to cold, never the other way in which you are trying to convince me of.
24-01-2019 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
Dude, I'm not getting into all the details you opened up. I think there's a fundamental issue I'd like to address which might just be more helpful in clearing this up:
There really is nothing to clear up.
littleendian wrote:
I'm not a climate scientist or expert in any relevant fields. I assume neither are you.

I am an aircraft pilot, mechanic, and designer. I do this as a hobby. My line of business is to build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace use. I am enough of an expert in physics and meteorology to do these things. There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist'. Those claiming a climate 'science' degree are not scientists. They deny science and mathematics. My argument is not based on my credentials. They are based on existing theories of science and mathematics.
littleendian wrote:
So us discussing the details of climate science
There is no such thing as climate 'science'. Science has no theories about something it can't quantify or define.
littleendian wrote:
is really something that is only necessary if we have any good reasons not to trust what the people studying the matter professionally at universities and colleges tell us is the scientific consensus.
Science does not use consensus. False authority fallacy. No university, government agency, society, or academy owns science.
littleendian wrote:
What reasons do you have not to trust people like Jim Hansen?
The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the rules of statistical mathematics.
littleendian wrote:
About the "climate change religion" thing:

There is a difference between religiously believing something (blind faith) and having trust in the process of science and the things experts tell me because (1) they check out with common sense, (2) the basic mechanics of the thing working seem solid enough and (3) there is a conensus among the experts.

None.

You are:
1) assuming that your model is the 'common sense'. This is no different from any believer in any religion.
2) the basic mechanics of the thing seems solid enough is a subjective term, interpreted by you the same as any other believer in any other religion.
3) Religions are based on consensus. That is the only place besides politics that you see consensus used. The 'experts' are nothing more than the priests of a religion.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The initial circular argument for the Church of Global Warming is that the Earth is warming. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and the start and end points of the 'warming' are undefined, leaving the phrase 'global warming' itself undefined. It is a meaningless buzzword...and a religion.
littleendian wrote:
Let me define "expert" for now as someone who holds a relevant degree like physics, climate science, geology etc.

Science is not a degree or a credential. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No university or government agency owns science. A credential does not make an expert.

Let's take a simple example that everyone can appreciate, the driver's license. There are plenty of drivers out there with driver's license. This is a credential issued by a State that declares you an expert enough to drive a car safely. Any cursory look at the horrible drivers out there and the accident rate makes my case for me.

I've known guys with university degrees in electronics that didn't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. I've known guys with programming degrees that couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. I've known many a physicist that hasn't practiced science in literally decades. I've known aircraft mechanics that hold the certification, but can't repair a simple reciprocating engine, install a radio, properly time a magneto, or know how to clean a jet engine impeller. I've known pilots that get lost as soon as they lose sight of the airport, even with GPS and VOR navigation aids on board. I've had to go rescue some of them. There are surgeons that are more butcher than surgeon. Lawyers that are so bad at presenting their case, they actually help their opponent.

You are making a false authority fallacy. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not any credential or 'expert'.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 20:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
To warm the Earth, you must have additional energy. CO2 is not an energy source. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.


Don't play dense. Obviously the energy source is the sun, CO2 is trapping the sun's heat, increasing CO2 increases the amount of heat trapped.


It is not possible to trap heat. Not even a real greenhouse can do that.

You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The only way for the Sun to heat the Earth is by radiant heating through space. This is also the only way for Earth to cool by heating the space around it by radiance. Therefore, your argument is about radiance.

To 'trap heat', as you describe, the radiance of Earth must necessarily be reduced. At the same time, the temperature is increasing.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.
Where:
SBconstant is a constant of nature, effectively converting the equation to our units of measurement,
emissivity is a percentage (0 to 100%), a measured constant representing Earth's ability to radiate or absorb light,
temperature is deg K,
radiance is W/sq meter.

If you reduce radiance, temperature MUST go down. Everything else is a constant.
If temperature increases, radiance MUST increase. Everything else is a constant.

In other words, radiance is proportional to temperature, NEVER inversely proportional.

You can't reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.
If emissivity is reduced, absorptivity is reduced with it. They are the same number. If emissivity is reduced, the Earth is absorbing less light from the Sun, and will be COLDER, not warmer.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 20:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
I would if I could be sure that you don't keep asking for more and more definitions. Like if I define heat as "the amount of energy stored in matter", will you ask me to defined energy, matter, amount?


'Heat' is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law states that entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system. That system must be closed. In other words, no energy sources or sinks from outside that system may be considered.

Entropy is simply the randomness of a system.

In terms of energy, that means energy must always dissipate from concentrated areas so that it is uniform throughout the system. You can never gather uniformly distributed energy into a concentrated form without using energy from outside that system (which changes the system).

This gives a direction for the flow of thermal energy (what we measure as temperature) as it moves from place to place. This flow, which we call heat, is always from hotter areas (concentrated energy) to colder areas (areas with less thermal energy), until thermal energy is uniform throughout the system (everything is the same temperature), and heat stops.

Heat is like the current in a river. It is not the water itself, but the flow. Like a river, there is only a flow if there is a drop in potential (for a river that is altitude, for heat, that is a difference in temperature), and some form of coupling between the two regions (a path to flow through).

If there is no path, there is no flow. There is no heat. Thermal energy remains where it is in the system, and entropy does not change.

Heat MUST flow from hot to cold. It never flows from cold to hot. You can't heat the already warmer surface of the Earth using a colder gas in the atmosphere. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance.

Any attempt to 'trap' heat simple is not possible You can't trap a current. You can reduce it though.
You can't trap thermal energy either. There is always heat. There is no such thing as a perfect thermal insulator.

Thus, blankets and coats work by reducing heat. Same with real greenhouses (which reduce convective heating). CO2 does not reduce heat. It conducts heat better than most gases in the atmosphere, and it is part of the open atmosphere, and part of the convection taking place in the atmosphere. It is also radiant, just like any mass in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so you have a clear definition of heat in your head. Why do you need my definition then, just work with yours. Otherwise your asking for definitions is just distraction from the main argument, isn't it.


Works for me. I will continue to correct any improper use of the word 'heat' you happen to use.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2019 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so you have a clear definition of heat in your head. Why do you need my definition then, just work with yours. Otherwise your asking for definitions is just distraction from the main argument, isn't it.


Nope, if were going to have a conversation, we should all be on the same terms.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. How do you propose to stop or "trap" heat? There is ALWAYS heat. You cant trap it, stop it, or slow it.

Greenhouses REDUCE heat. Now you need to explain how CO2 reduces heat to make the earth warmer.


Okay so lets not talk about heat since we don't agree on the definition.

?? you just agreed to use his definition (which is the correct one BTW)! Now suddenly you want to try to redefine heat??? Which is it, dude?
littleendian wrote:
Lets talk about the amount of energy in the atmosphere.

The only energy to talk about is thermal energy, which is what we measure as temperature.
littleendian wrote:
Do you agree that the sun is sending energy in form of electromagnetic waves towards the earth?
Yes.
littleendian wrote:
Do you agree that to some extent this energy gets reflected back (in different wavelengths) by the surface of the earth?

No. A reflection is the same wavelength as the incoming light.
littleendian wrote:
And that some of that reflected energy will again get reflected by the atmosphere?

Yes. This is called 'scattering'. It's what helps to make the sky look blue instead of black.
littleendian wrote:
And that, depending on the composition of said atmosphere, more or less of it can get "trapped" in this way in the atmosphere?

You can't trap light in the atmosphere or anywhere else.
littleendian wrote:
If you don't agree, then why is the temperature of the surface of the earth not at the temperature of space (close to absolute zero)?
The temperature of space is not definable since there is no mass in space. Thermal energy requires mass.
The temperature of objects in space near the Earth (including any gases in space near the Earth), will reach a temperature of 250 deg F on the sunlit side, and minus 150 deg F on the shaded side. Absolute zero is minus 459.67 deg F.

The temperature of objects near the Earth is quite a bit higher than absolute zero!

Why are temperatures on the surface so much nicer than in space? Simply because the atmosphere has mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat it up and cool it down. Earth turns once every 24 hours. The atmosphere moves with it. The resulting pulsating source of energy from the Sun produces temperatures that are far more moderate than in space.

You bring up an interesting paradox concerning CO2. Like other objects in space near Earth, the ISS outer skin temperature can reach 250 deg F on the sunlit side. There is no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, nothing. It is open to space. Here on Earth, there is nowhere that reaches anywhere near 250 deg F during the day. If CO2 warms the Earth, why is the sunlit side of the Earth so much COLDER?

littleendian wrote:
And that increases in CO2 will reflect back more energy from the sun back to the earth?

Reflection isn't absorption. It is just light bouncing around. Nothing increases in temperature unless light is absorbed. That light must be within a range of frequencies as well. Other frequencies of light do not cause a change in temperature from being absorbed.

For absorption to convert light to thermal energy, that range of frequencies must be infrared or lower. Visible light produces very little heating. Absorption of visible light causes chemical reactions instead, such as photosynthesis in plants, or triggering cells in your retina.

Most of the energy radiated by the Sun is infrared light. A very narrow band is visible light. The Sun emits frequencies on up to X rays and on down to radio waves.

See quantum mechanics for details concerning photon absorption by molecules.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2019 09:54
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
Okay, so we agree that the earth's atmosphere has mass and it's energy content (heat, whatever, the thing you measure with a thermometer, define it any way you like) by the sun's emitted energy.

So even if you (apparently?) disagree with the measurability of about anything, what is your basis for denying that changing the composition of said atmosphere (the relative mass of different things floating around in it, like CO2) will not have an effect on the temperature/heat/energy-content of that atmosphere and adjacent entities (mostly ocean)?

Do you believe that industrialization, transport etc. emit CO2 into the atmosphere?

Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?
25-01-2019 14:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
littleendian wrote:
Okay, so we agree that the earth's atmosphere has mass and it's energy content (heat, whatever, the thing you measure with a thermometer, define it any way you like) by the sun's emitted energy.

No, we still don't agree on heat. Heat is not measured by thermometer. Temperature is measured by thermometer. Heat does not have to be hot or even warm. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place or object to another, always flowing from warmer to cooler, or even cold to colder. Think equilibrium.

So even if you (apparently?) disagree with the measurability of about anything, what is your basis for denying that changing the composition of said atmosphere (the relative mass of different things floating around in it, like CO2) will not have an effect on the temperature/heat/energy-content of that atmosphere and adjacent entities (mostly ocean)?

The sun warms the earth, the Earths surface warms the atmosphere and anything in it, and then that warmth is radiated into space at night. CO2 is not a heat source in any way and it can not warm anything that is warmer than itself. It can only help the earth cool the surface of the earth.

Do you believe that industrialization, transport etc. emit CO2 into the atmosphere?
Sure.

Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?

It seems to me you have bought into the doom and gloom as millions have. There is SO much bad info out there. I also think you see CO2 as pollution. It is NOT. It is necessary for life. Did you know that greenhouses pump in CO2 for better plant growth? Optimum is between 1000-2000 ppm, depending on what they are growing. My opinion....added CO2 can only HELP in trying to feed 7 billion people!

I have only scratched the surface of the basics here. ITN will be along shortly for the full classroom version.


Hey littleendian, thanks for sticking around and having a conversation. We've seen dozens like yourself come here and just repeat what they heard on the news last night and then disappear, probably off to somewhere more friendly to their opinions. Hang around for a bit. It'll blow your mind what you can learn here vs a classroom.
Edited on 25-01-2019 14:30
25-01-2019 14:56
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So even if you (apparently?) disagree with the measurability of about anything, what is your basis for denying that changing the composition of said atmosphere (the relative mass of different things floating around in it, like CO2) will not have an effect on the temperature/heat/energy-content of that atmosphere and adjacent entities (mostly ocean)?

The sun warms the earth, the Earths surface warms the atmosphere and anything in it, and then that warmth is radiated into space at night. CO2 is not a heat source in any way and it can not warm anything that is warmer than itself. It can only help the earth cool the surface of the earth.


It is certainly possible that energy radiated from the sun in one wave-length (visible light) can pass through the atmosphere without much interacting (e.g. reflection back to space) with the molecules there (e.g. CO2), hit the ground which then radiates the energy back up at different wavelengths (e.g. infrared) at which wavelength the electromagnetic energy does interact with CO2 more (i.e. being "trapped") thereby keeping more of the energy in the atmosphere depending on the composition of the atmosphere (e.g. increasing CO2 -> more energy stays in the atmosphere).

GasGuzzler wrote:
Is it true that we are now 7 billion humans, which could arguably be called a force of global scale if each contribute to these emissions, admittedly to different degrees?

It seems to me you have bought into the doom and gloom as millions have. There is SO much bad info out there. I also think you see CO2 as pollution. It is NOT. It is necessary for life. Did you know that greenhouses pump in CO2 for better plant growth? Optimum is between 1000-2000 ppm, depending on what they are growing. My opinion....added CO2 can only HELP in trying to feed 7 billion people!


True, there is a fertilizing effect, but that doesn't rule out that an increasingly extreme climate, which is what climate models predict, doesn't result in net harm. Plants need stable conditions, floods and droughts kill them no matter the CO2 fertilization.

By the way, how do you explain that those climate models run on historic data reproduce the historic measurements correctly? The models are shown the data from 1980 to 2000 and NOT the measured temperature data thereafter and they correctly reproduce the increase in global average atmospheric temperature? What would be the motivation of all those scientists to screw up the results? Each one of them could receive a Nobel price for showing that there is no climate change caused by human emissions.


GasGuzzler wrote:
Hey littleendian, thanks for sticking around and having a conversation. We've seen dozens like yourself come here and just repeat what they heard on the news last night and then disappear, probably off to somewhere more friendly to their opinions. Hang around for a bit. It'll blow your mind what you can learn here vs a classroom.

Thanks, I enjoy a lively discussion. So far there's been very little of the usual ad-hominem shit-show so often seen on the interwebs, which is really refreshing. I must say I completely disagree with about everyone I've talked to so far though, no hard feelings ;-)
25-01-2019 16:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
I'm starting my work day here and I'm buried with money to be made....so I'll have to be brief and just answer a couple...

True, there is a fertilizing effect, but that doesn't rule out that an increasingly extreme climate, which is what climate models predict, doesn't result in net harm. Plants need stable conditions, floods and droughts kill them no matter the CO2 fertilization.

Once again I think you've bought into the hype about extreme weather. We have excellent records of extreme events here in the United States. (you said you're in Germany, right?)Our hurricane records date back to the 1850s. I am a bit of a weather nut/nerd. The United States is one of the most wild weather prone areas in the world due to it's geographical location and features. I've have done a LOT of digging. Everything I can find actually points slightly in the opposite direction. There has been NO increase in droughts/floods/hurricanes/severe thunderstorms/snowstorms. However, it seems every time the weather does something amazing, it is headline news and buried in that story somewhere is "climate change".

But, we should actually back up a bit.....

Let's take a simple thunderstorm. Would you be able to explain how thunderstorm is more intense just because of a warmer Earth?

By the way, how do you explain that those climate models run on historic data reproduce the historic measurements correctly? The models are shown the data from 1980 to 2000 and NOT the measured temperature data thereafter and they correctly reproduce the increase in global average atmospheric temperature?

It is quite simple. If you started with fake numbers, you will end with fake numbers. It is all manufactured so they can be right and push the agenda forward.
Many will argue with ITNs position that global temp can not be measured. I tend to agree with him. For example, I drove to work this morning, about 30 miles. There is a calm wind today and high pressure...about 1025mb. I watched the temp go from -21F up to -12F, back down to -17F, then -12F as I arrived. No cold front/warm front...nothing moving except for me. You can do the same with ocean temps. Research some buoy readings and you'll find 4-d degree differences in just a few miles. (kms if you prefer)
Do some searching into NOAA. That is where the IPCC gets there numbers, and NOAA has been caught cooking the books. All the "data" is not data. It is all manufactured.
Thanks, I enjoy a lively discussion. So far there's been very little of the usual ad-hominem shit-show so often seen on the interwebs, which is really refreshing. I must say I completely disagree with about everyone I've talked to so far though, no hard feelings ;-)

Ha! We are NOT immune to shit shows around here!
25-01-2019 16:32
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
There has been NO increase in droughts/floods/hurricanes/severe thunderstorms/snowstorms. However, it seems every time the weather does something amazing, it is headline news and buried in that story somewhere is "climate change".

Germany here, Berlin. We've had warmer summers with long spells of little to no precipitation, which has triggered droughts in Brandenburg (area surrounding Berlin). Yield loss of about 30% last summer because of long period without rain. I keep hearing similar things about other regions.

These longer periods of unchanging weather (drought, flood) can be explained through changes in the Jet stream which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest (which is clearly visible in the temperature record which everyone here keeps discrediting but honestly I've not heard anything that convinces me that reasonable estimates of the average temperature of a region or even the globe cannot be made to reasonable accuracy given the right tools, I must say I suspect that when the data happen to indicate something people don't like it is easiest to just find a way to discredit the data source).

GasGuzzler wrote:
Let's take a simple thunderstorm. Would you be able to explain how thunderstorm is more intense just because of a warmer Earth?

Temperature is energy stored in matter. More energy stored in the atmosphere results in that energy getting released as stronger weather patterns.


GasGuzzler wrote:
By the way, how do you explain that those climate models run on historic data reproduce the historic measurements correctly? The models are shown the data from 1980 to 2000 and NOT the measured temperature data thereafter and they correctly reproduce the increase in global average atmospheric temperature?

It is quite simple. If you started with fake numbers, you will end with fake numbers. It is all manufactured so they can be right and push the agenda forward.

Okay, I opened a new thread in the first (General Discussion?) forum about the reasons so many people seem to mistrust climate scientists and/or the IPCC. Maybe you'd enjoy sharing the reasons for you believing that data was "manufactured" there...
Edited on 25-01-2019 16:39
25-01-2019 17:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
Germany here, Berlin. We've had warmer summers with long spells of little to no precipitation, which has triggered droughts in Brandenburg (area surrounding Berlin). Yield loss of about 30% last summer because of long period without rain. I keep hearing similar things about other regions.

It happens....everywhere. We had the hottest and driest decades on record here in the 1930s, followed by record rains in the early 1940s. Several hot and dry periods before and after that. Go try and find some ACTUAL RAW DATA(not adjusted) for any given locations. It will not match what you hear every day from "news" sources. Be careful of phrases like "hottest ever" or driest ever. Accurately reported would be "hottest on record". Then think about the big picture and realize just how short our records are.
These longer periods of unchanging weather (drought, flood) can be explained through changes in the Jet stream

How so?
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.
(which is clearly visible in the temperature record which everyone here keeps discrediting but honestly I've not heard anything that convinces me that reasonable estimates of the average temperature of a region or even the globe cannot be made to reasonable accuracy given the right tools, I must say I suspect that when the data happen to indicate something people don't like it is easiest to just find a way to discredit the data source).

Since we're talking weather, we'll go back to this...
Temperature where? The surface? 10 thousand ft? 20 thousand ft? 50? 60? Storms utilize temp differential through all levels, sometimes on up to 80 thousand ft. Why is only the surface temp important? Is "global temp" just the surface or the entire atmosphere? Can you REALLY measure the entire thing? It's always moving, always changing, and always trying to reach equilibrium....heating.

Temperature is energy stored in matter. More energy stored in the atmosphere results in that energy getting released as stronger weather patterns.

Do you know how that energy gets released? You have to condense that moisture out of the air. I'll give you and hint. It takes COLD air, and a lot of it. Think temp differential and think equilibrium.
25-01-2019 18:35
littleendian
★☆☆☆☆
(53)
GasGuzzler wrote:
These longer periods of unchanging weather (drought, flood) can be explained through changes in the Jet stream

How so?

The argument is that a smaller average temperature difference between north pole and adjacent regions towards the equator will yield "wobbling" jet-streams. All this is theory based on observations coupled with modelling but I have to say it makes sense to me.

GasGuzzler wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.

Yes, I guess the "big-picture" jet-stream gets weakened because of the smaller temperature gradient, but the local weather has more energy to work with and hence stronger winds when they do occur. I'm not saying all of this is figured out or that I understand all of these things, but I am saying that there is a good argument to be made that we should be concerned about the weather becoming more extreme based on what experts are saying.

I agree that we need to question the motives of said experts, and we need to ensure that we don't just blindly follow anything any "expert" tells us.

GasGuzzler wrote:
(which is clearly visible in the temperature record which everyone here keeps discrediting but honestly I've not heard anything that convinces me that reasonable estimates of the average temperature of a region or even the globe cannot be made to reasonable accuracy given the right tools, I must say I suspect that when the data happen to indicate something people don't like it is easiest to just find a way to discredit the data source).

Since we're talking weather, we'll go back to this...
Temperature where? The surface? 10 thousand ft? 20 thousand ft? 50? 60? Storms utilize temp differential through all levels, sometimes on up to 80 thousand ft. Why is only the surface temp important? Is "global temp" just the surface or the entire atmosphere? Can you REALLY measure the entire thing? It's always moving, always changing, and always trying to reach equilibrium....heating.


Okay, I agree that it seems like a pretty hard nut to crack to estimate the global surface temperatures. But that is why we have a science, climate science, that looks at these things. Until I've heard a good reason to disbelieve what an entire branch of science tells me, I'll go with: Yes, there are reasonable estimates, they may be off by a bit, but the trend is clear: Warming up.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Temperature is energy stored in matter. More energy stored in the atmosphere results in that energy getting released as stronger weather patterns.

Do you know how that energy gets released? You have to condense that moisture out of the air. I'll give you and hint. It takes COLD air, and a lot of it. Think temp differential and think equilibrium.

See above, we should really be talking about whether you distrust the climate science rather than us speculating about it. I've not heard many things from climate scientists that didn't make at least intuitive common sense to me, I just don't see any reason to doubt them.
Edited on 25-01-2019 18:38
25-01-2019 19:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
littleendian wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
These longer periods of unchanging weather (drought, flood) can be explained through changes in the Jet stream

How so?

The argument is that a smaller average temperature difference between north pole and adjacent regions towards the equator will yield "wobbling" jet-streams. All this is theory based on observations coupled with modelling but I have to say it makes sense to me.

GasGuzzler wrote:
which in turn can be explained by changing temperature differences between the Arctic and the regions adjacent to it towards the equator because the arctic warms faster than the rest

What you just described would allow for a weaker jet, weaker low pressure systems, and weaker storms.

Yes, I guess the "big-picture" jet-stream gets weakened because of the smaller temperature gradient, but the local weather has more energy to work with and hence stronger winds when they do occur. I'm not saying all of this is figured out or that I understand all of these things, but I am saying that there is a good argument to be made that we should be concerned about the weather becoming more extreme based on what experts are saying.

I agree that we need to question the motives of said experts, and we need to ensure that we don't just blindly follow anything any "expert" tells us.

GasGuzzler wrote:
(which is clearly visible in the temperature record which everyone here keeps discrediting but honestly I've not heard anything that convinces me that reasonable estimates of the average temperature of a region or even the globe cannot be made to reasonable accuracy given the right tools, I must say I suspect that when the data happen to indicate something people don't like it is easiest to just find a way to discredit the data source).

Since we're talking weather, we'll go back to this...
Temperature where? The surface? 10 thousand ft? 20 thousand ft? 50? 60? Storms utilize temp differential through all levels, sometimes on up to 80 thousand ft. Why is only the surface temp important? Is "global temp" just the surface or the entire atmosphere? Can you REALLY measure the entire thing? It's always moving, always changing, and always trying to reach equilibrium....heating.


Okay, I agree that it seems like a pretty hard nut to crack to estimate the global surface temperatures. But that is why we have a science, climate science, that looks at these things. Until I've heard a good reason to disbelieve what an entire branch of science tells me, I'll go with: Yes, there are reasonable estimates, they may be off by a bit, but the trend is clear: Warming up.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Temperature is energy stored in matter. More energy stored in the atmosphere results in that energy getting released as stronger weather patterns.

Do you know how that energy gets released? You have to condense that moisture out of the air. I'll give you and hint. It takes COLD air, and a lot of it. Think temp differential and think equilibrium.

See above, we should really be talking about whether you distrust the climate science rather than us speculating about it. I've not heard many things from climate scientists that didn't make at least intuitive common sense to me, I just don't see any reason to doubt them.

So much meat and potatoes, paradoxes, conflicting statements above. Just don't have time to dissect it right now and will do so later, but...

You used the words "no reason to distrust climate science".

As with all religions, the one common factor they all have is faith. I have no problem with any religion as long as I am not asked to support it and pay for it.
You have just so purely and perfectly demonstrated how and why "climate science" is a religion.
Edited on 25-01-2019 19:47
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Historic ocean acidification:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Ocean ph.4917-09-2019 00:40
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
How can more CO2 inthe air go into ocean?608-02-2019 03:46
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact