Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[boatman61]

My sincere Thanks to the Mod's for letting this run.. and the other one where I'm playing with Sailingfarmer..
Not on topic I admit(Boats and Sailing) but great fun for all that..
Beats the hell out of WBB and cats...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Warby12

Hi Stu, (pls forgive me, I haven't been following this thread but it is veeeery long )
So you are saying there is no causation link with co2 emissions and this warming?

It depends on what the meaning of the word "this" is
Is it currently warming when you factor out El Niño/La Niña effects?
Is the Holocene still in a cooling trend?

Anyhoo:
I am saying that there almost certainly is some causative link between CO2 emissions and "global temperatures" change (in quotes, because we could debate the reliability of the data and even the validity of the concept at great length).

This whole debate is about the magnitude of that link compared to little understood and studied natural cycles; the clearly strongly negative nature of overall long term climate feedbacks; the likelihood of the predicted "catastrophic anthropogenic warming" and cost/benefit analyses of proposed solutions.

(With constant side tracks to expose the lies and distortions so beloved of the alarmists which seem to be swallowed whole by some here).

[robert sailor]

Who but a knowledgeable scientist could really know and be able to have a reasonable view on the subject? It's beyond most people's basic knowledge base, including mine.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Kinda backs up my 'Bad Science' if you think first before the next cut and paste...
Water takes more energy to heat up.. it also cools a lot faster..

No, Water has a greater specific heat than oil. So it requires more energy transfer in OR outto change temperature by a certain amount up or down. If it worked the way you suggest, I could create a perpetual motion machine by coupling water and oil containers of different temperatures.

hence the scorching days and bitter cold nights in the desert.. no stability.

The temperature difference in deserts is a different matter. Low humidity does mean that the air cools faster at night than in more humid environments, but more important are the lack of cloud cover at night and the greenhouse effect of water. The lack of water in the air means that there is much less greenhouse effect retaining the heat radiated from the surface.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

No, Water has a greater specific heat than oil. So it requires more energy transfer in OR outto change temperature by a certain amount up or down. If it worked the way you suggest, I could create a perpetual motion machine by coupling water and oil containers of different temperatures.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]


The temperature difference in deserts is a different matter. Low humidity does mean that the air cools faster at night than in more humid environments, but more important are the lack of cloud cover at night and the greenhouse effect of water. The lack of water in the air means that there is much less greenhouse effect retaining the heat radiated from the surface.

Perpetual motion is old hat.. just need a stream

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My sincere Thanks to the Mod's for letting this run.. and the other one where I'm playing with Sailingfarmer..
Not on topic I admit(Boats and Sailing) but great fun for all that..
Beats the hell out of WBB and cats...

Damn, I haven't been following that other one. Must drop by and see what you have been stirring up

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

Benign as in not harmful.



Not really.

The basic [B].....................

............... No overall changes in energy transfer rates through the atmosphere are poorly understood and measured. But they sure are predicted by the alarmists.

Originally Posted by StuM

A slight benign warming in accordance with basic physics.

Which basic physics were you thinking of?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Who but a knowledgeable scientist could really know and be able to have a reasonable view on the subject? It's beyond most people's basic knowledge base, including mine.

I studied at the university for seven years and earned two degrees, including three of those years majoring in biology and chemistry. I didn't become a scientist, but I do have more knowledge on the subjects than most GW believers and alarmists. No government funding received by us, so I can tell it like it is.

I also earned a bachelors in political science, so I have a basic understanding in how all of that crap works.

But to those folks on the opposite side of the debate.... I'm probably still considered to be just another knuckle dragging idiot.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Perpetual motion is old hat.. just need a stream

And an external energy source like the sun

OK, let's call it a "perpetual motion machine without external energy inputs" or a machine that defies the first or second law of thermodynamics.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

And an external energy source like the sun

OK, let's call it a "perpetual motion machine without external energy inputs" or a machine that defies the first or second law of thermodynamics.

Actually it would be interesting to see that at work.. same volume containers of course..

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by StuM

And an external energy source like the sun

OK, let's call it a "perpetual motion machine without external energy inputs" or a machine that defies the first or second law of thermodynamics.

You mean that big bright thing in the sky that screws up the zero sum energy arguments?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Which basic physics were you thinking of?

The absorption and emission of IR radiation by CO2 molecules.

The absorption is due to vibrations of molecules. When a vibration causes change in charge distribution (or dipole moment to be more specific) the IR radiation is absorbed.

Generally, hetero-polar molecules, like H2O and CO2, have permanent dipole moment. The external oscillating electric field in this case perturbs the Hamiltonian and causes IR absorption.
CO2, which is a linear molecule, has four fundamental modes of vibrations. Symmetrical stretching, asymmetrical stretching and two degenerate scissoring modes, in planes perpendicular. The symmetric stretching mode in CO2 does not produce or absorb any IR, as it does not cause change in dipole moment, but other modes do change charge distribution causing absorption of IR.

Is that basic enough for you?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by StuM

The absorption and emission of IR radiation by CO2 molecules.

The absorption is due to vibrations of molecules. When a vibration causes change in charge distribution (or dipole moment to be more specific) the IR radiation is absorbed.

Generally, hetero-polar molecules, like H2O and CO2, have permanent dipole moment. The external oscillating electric field in this case perturbs the Hamiltonian and causes IR absorption.
CO2, which is a linear molecule, has four fundamental modes of vibrations. Symmetrical stretching, asymmetrical stretching and two degenerate scissoring modes, in planes perpendicular. The symmetric stretching mode in CO2 does not produce or absorb any IR, as it does not cause change in dipole moment, but other modes do change charge distribution causing absorption of IR.

Is that basic enough for you?

Otherwise known as the greenhouse effect.

So is there any reason to think it will not continue as more co2 is released into the atmosphere?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My sincere Thanks to the Mod's for letting this run.. and the other one where I'm playing with Sailingfarmer..
Not on topic I admit(Boats and Sailing) but great fun for all that..
Beats the hell out of WBB and cats...

+1 I agree that this topic is interesting and timely. If we can stop using the words "you" and "idiot" then we have a chance at reasonable discourse and increase in knowledge.

One thing that i believe hurts the ability to understand the issues is the difficulty in comprehending the relative "scale" of things. Many people believe incorrect concepts because their good hearted nature makes them. But more often it's because they don't understand the scale of things. For example, how much oil has been pulled out of the ground and burned since we started using oil as an energy source? It's probably a little over a trillion barrels. That's a huge number. But what can we compare that with to get an idea of the scale? Well that's about the same as the volume of water in Lake Tahoe along the California/Nevada border. When you think of it as a percentage of all the water in the world it's an insignificant volume. And it makes it easier to understand why the huge BP off shore oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago was never going to cause the apocalypse predicted by many.

Likewise, the daily consumption of oil is bandied about in units of millions of barrels per day and that sounds like an enormous number. But looked at another way it sounds sort of unexciting. The planet burns about 2 liters of oil per day per person.

When we measure things with a relative "ruler" instead of a fixed measuring stick it becomes easier to understand what is really happening and hopefully make us question wild speculation about how much impact there really can be for any specific activity. So when someone throws out a value in the millions or billions as having a global impact we should try to compare that number on a global scale to better understand whether it seems significant or not.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

+1 I agree that this topic is interesting and timely. If we can stop using the words "you" and "idiot" then we have a chance at reasonable discourse and increase in knowledge.

One thing that i believe hurts the ability to understand the issues is the difficulty in comprehending the relative "scale" of things. Many people believe incorrect concepts because their good hearted nature makes them. But more often it's because they don't understand the scale of things. For example, how much oil has been pulled out of the ground and burned since we started using oil as an energy source? It's probably a little over a trillion barrels. That's a huge number. But what can we compare that with to get an idea of the scale? Well that's about the same as the volume of water in Lake Tahoe along the California/Nevada border. When you think of it as a percentage of all the water in the world it's an insignificant volume. And it makes it easier to understand why the huge BP off shore oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago was never going to cause the apocalypse predicted by many.

Likewise, the daily consumption of oil is bandied about in units of millions of barrels per day and that sounds like an enormous number. But looked at another way it sounds sort of unexciting. The planet burns about 2 liters of oil per day per person.

When we measure things with a relative "ruler" instead of a fixed measuring stick it becomes easier to understand what is really happening and hopefully make us question wild speculation about how much impact there really can be for any specific activity. So when someone throws out a value in the millions or billions as having a global impact we should try to compare that number on a global scale to better understand whether it seems significant or not.

That's pretty different from this guys calculations... and that just the Petroleum
In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.2 This total includes about 0.34 billion barrels of biofuels.

Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy six trillion,eight thousand
nine hundred forty five billion,nine hundred ninety eight million gallons,
give or take a few trillion. It will be safer to take instead of give. That's how much.