Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 1
279
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+267 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Thanks to buddhasystem, I have decided to finish some calculations I started some time back. I am posting them here. The following will be used:
  • Due to charcter limitations, I will be avoiding the use of exponential expressions. I apologize for any difficulty this may cause; it causes me difficulty as well, but is an inherent weakness in the font systems used on the Internet and tends to cause confusion itself when used.
  • All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:
    • m = meter
    • cm = centimeter (0.01m)
    • km = kilometer (1000m)
    • g = gram
    • kg = kilogram (1000g)
    • J = Joule
    • kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)
    • W = Watt
    • s = second
    • °K = degree Kelvin
    Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.
  • The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangable for purposes of temperature variance.
  • All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.


It has been theorized that the use of antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.

All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of

r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km

A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²


We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):

1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²

1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)

175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s


That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:

100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s


We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:

175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr


Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2


Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:

V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³

V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³

V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³
= 8,694,154 km³


Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:

1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K

1.012 kJ/kg·°K · 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³·°K

1.2144 kJ/m³·°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³·°K


Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as
1,214,400,000 kJ/km³

1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ · 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ


But to be accurate, the troposphere is not the only thing warming up. It has been often claimed (correctly) that the oceans are a major heat sink. So let us now calculate the amount of energy required to raise the ocean temperature by a single degree Kelvin. The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values: 1,347,000,000 km³[8]. The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³·°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin:

4.186 J/cm³·°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K

4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³·°K · 1,347,000,000 km³
= 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°K


As before, since we are considering a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, this is equal to
5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ


We now add the values for the troposhpere and the oceans together to obtain the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of these two areas combned by a single degree Kelvin:

5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ + 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ
= 5,638,532,558,180,617,600,000 kJ


Now, remember from earlier calculations the total amount of energy that is available from the solar irradiance that can intercept anthropogenic carbon dioxide:

55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ


So if we know the energy required to raise a single degree, and we know how much energy can be intercepted by the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, we can calculate how many degrees of temperature rise could possibly happen. Remember, please, that we are making the following assumptions in these calculations:
  • We only include the energy required to raise the temperatures of the troposphere (where the carbon dioxide is) and the oceans (climatic heat sink). No energy calculations are included to this point for land masses or for upper atmospheric levels, each of which would, in reality, contribute in some way to the amount of energy required.

  • We are assuming that 100% of the available solar irradiance is being absorbed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This includes shortwave solar irradiation which is actually reflected back into space without being absorbed, and it also includes radiation that is absorbed through other means such as photosynthesis.

  • We are assuming 100% conversion of that intercepted energy by anthropogenic carbon dioxide into heat, and not calculating how much of that heat is dissipated back into space through emission.

All of the above are extremely comservative assumptions. Inclusion of them will only decrease the expected temperature increases due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Now, the actual calculation we have been waiting for:

Energy(required) / Energy(available) = Ratio

5,638,552,558,180,617,600,000 kJ / 55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ = 102.03


It would require 102 times as much energy as is available to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years.

In other words, if ALL of the solar irradiance that the antropogenic CO2 could intercept were converted into heat, and if it took no energy to warm the land masses and the upper atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would only warm by about 0.01°K in 100 years.

Ignorance denied.

Case closed.

Sleep well tonight. The sun will rise tomorrow.


TheRedneck

References:
  1. en.wikipedia.org...
  2. london-lez.org...
  3. science.nasa.gov...
  4. en.wikipedia.org...
  5. en.wikipedia.org...
  6. en.wikipedia.org...
  7. en.wikipedia.org...
  8. hypertextbook.com...


Edited for BBCode

[edit on 12/1/2009 by TheRedneck]

[edit on 12/1/2009 by TheRedneck]




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I just can't let all that work go to waste, so I'm going to bump this thread.

It makes to much sense also. There isn't enough energy on earth in order for man to raise the temperature just 1 Kelvin.

Good work if I was a Mod I would applaud you instead all I can do is star and flag the thread.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I just can't let all that work go to waste, so I'm going to bump this thread.

It makes to much sense also. There isn't enough energy on earth in order for man to raise the temperature just 1 Kelvin.

Good work if I was a Mod I would applaud you instead all I can do is star and flag the thread.


Ditto .

I am sat here gobsmacked becuase my pea sized intellect could not follow Any of the OP .

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mjtwelve]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Took me a while to go over and try to grasp all of the data here. Very interesting, I wonder if you should present this to a someone in the climate modeling profession.

Great Work,S&F

-E-



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
All I can say is "wow"

So much time and effort gone into this!

I have taken as much of it in as I can and you deserve star and flag!!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Very interesting numbers.

I am anxious to see who will show and try to prove your numbers wrongs.


BTW, what motivated you to crunch the numbers besides Buddhasystem?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
My thanks to everyone who has replied so far!

In answer to jam321: That is exactly what I am looking for, someone to debunk these calculations. As to why I did it, well, I wanted two things: to show exactly why I disagree with anthropogenic CO2-based Global Warming theories, and to finally get some real numbers into the debate here. I am personally tired of debating he said, she said, they said, so-and-so published this, whats-his-name published that. The answer to whether or not the theory is sound lies not in reading media reports, but in actually calculating and openly experimenting.

That said, I do plan on doing an experiment showing a comparison between CO2 levels and concrete coverage on localized warming as well. The only real problem now is money to set up the apparatus. If and when I do this, I will publish the full results for review here, along with a video of the experiment.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
well done!
This is what ATS should be all about...HARD FACTS.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



The only real problem now is money to set up the apparatus.


I'm not rich, but I would be willing to chip in a few bucks. Sure other members probably would too.

I think it would be money well invested.

Appreciate the thread.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Yep case closed.

Present your work and have your paper published.

The Nobel will be sweet!



+13 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat

The Nobel will be sweet!

The Nobel Peace Prize has now been awarded to a terrorist (Yassir Arafat) and a fast-talking liar (Barack Obama). As such, I would not bother to go get the silly thing if it were awarded to me. I guess they could mail it.


The Nobel Prize is now just an Oscar for people who can't make a living pretending to be someone else.


But, thanks for the thought.


TheRedneck


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

It has been theorized that the use of antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.


This statement is only true if the only source of human produced contributing factor were CO2 when in fact it is not.

There is also the following increases in green house gas levels attributed to humans:

Methane:
[pre-industrial]700 ppb [present]1,745 ppb [increase]1,045 ppb [forcing]0.48

Nitrous oxide:
[pre-indistrial] 270 ppb [present]314 ppb [increase]44 ppb [forcing]0.15

CFC-12:
[pre-industrial]0 [present]533 ppt [increase]533 ppt [forcing]0.17

CFC-11
[present]268 ppt [forcing]0.07

CFC-12
[present]533 ppt [forcing]0.17

CFC-113
[present]84 ppt [forcing]0.03

Carbon tetrachloride
[present]102 ppt [forcing]0.01

HCFC-22
[present]69 ppt [forcing]0.03
The Link

The Radiative Forcing of CO2 based on the numbers you used is: 1.46

The cumulative Radiative Forcing of those gases you left out of the equation is: 1.11

This would essentially increase your finding by 75%.

What would such an increase do to your figure?

Excellent thread by the way, a real pleasure to read and talk about.



[edit on 1-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Sir your math is impressive and well beyond my understanding. However if you feel that confident in your calculations I would suggest you try to publish your work in one of the respected scientific journals such as Nature. That way, your work would be under proper peer review and it can be seen whether or not your theory holds up to scrutiny. Frankly putting work of this magnitude on a site like this is not the best approach.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I agree it is nice to see some numbers. However I failed to see any calculations on the fact of the pollution decreasing the total volumn of the water in the oceans compared to the sludge we pump into it, plus the fact that the water evaporated into the sky and heats up and is returned into the oceans. There by having an effect towards those numbers as to how much energy is required to heat the ocean. Since its easier to heat the air. There is also the fact of the air being less abundant due to the fact that we are replacing air with CO@ molecules. So with more and more CO2 going into the air, and oxygen being spaced out more and more. Would it not also be easier to factor in the effect of heating air taking X amount of energy in a km^2 then say a mix of CO2 and O taking Y amount of energy. The total difference would be Z which would change due to the levels of the CO2 in the CO2/O mix would it not?

I do believe that you came to the right conclusion as to the fact that we are not fully (I say again ARE NOT FULLY) responsible. I do believe we are adding to the issue. However my theory is we are slowly falling into the sun with each passing year, thereby increasing how much solar radiation and heat actually passes to earth. I however have no numbers to back that theory and do not expect anyone to believe in it at this time.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

This statement is only true if the only source of human produced contributing factor were CO2 when in fact it is not.

My calculations, as stated, do not include other gases. My complaint with the environmental movements is pretty much restricted to their position on CO2. Other gases, which are indeed toxic at low concentrations, do not occur naturally (at least above trace levels), and do not contribute to the life cycle on the planet should be tightly regulated to the fullest possible extent that can be achieved with present technology. This regulation would have an impact on industrialization, but nowhere near as significant an impact as CO2 regulation, and it would actually help the ecology of the planet.

You are arguing outside the scope of the calculations shown.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


EDIT: Sorry, I didn't finish reading the page and didn't see Redneck's rebuttle.

Hey brother, I believe The Red Neck is only referring to CO2 because of the silly cap and trade bill.

Still, I can't really deny the evidence you present but that really isn'tthe issue here.

Nice work guys.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Protostellar]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Very nice work here.
I was watching a show on the discovery channel a few years back and they had some dude debunking this stuff and his numbers always stuck with me. I know you said you were tired of the he-said she-said debate, but I must admit, the guy made a pretty convincing argument and his conclusions were that mankind doesn't even account for 5% of the total CO2 emissions in the first place. Weathering of rock and volcanic activity were one and two in those regards and combined they accounted for almost 95% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Actually, I believe it was his contention that mankind only accounted for around 2%.

After that, we got the Al Gore climate push and I've seen a big shift in what the "official" numbers were. I've always just lumped it into the Political Propaganda category. All a ruse to tax the people for the very air they breathe. Greedy cuss'.

Anyhow, I appreciate the thread greatly. I'll be able to refer a few of the sheep I know to this excellently researched and presented thread for some scope on the issue.


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

If, as you say, I am arguing outside of the argument presented then the argument presented is fatally flawed and in no way suitable to "Finish This". So lets continue.

Redneck you say:


It would require 102 times as much energy as is available to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years.


The conclusion to your math is:
5.52629869 × 10 to the 19th power
Link

Which increased by 75% is:
9.67102271 × 10 to the 19th power
Li nk

What does this then do to the prediction that it would require 102 times the energy? Would that then become 27 times the energy?

You state:

My complaint with the environmental movements is pretty much restricted to their position on CO2.
Well lets have a look:

Pew Center for Climate Change

Climate Institute

US Global Climate Change Research Program
(Open Chapter #1 all the gases are clearly defined.)

IPCC

US EPA

These are just the first 5 I looked at and ALL of them talk about 'Green House Gases' and not merely CO2. They all define the issue as being based on the collective impacts of these gases not CO2 alone.

This highlights the crux of the environmental crisis. We are so trained to focus on specific details we often fail to see the whole picture and what the accumulation of ALL the elements adds up to.

And besides as you yourself state, the numbers just don't lie mate


Edited my sloppiness!


[edit on 1-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Well I'm glad you've solved that for us.

I wonder why some of the most powerful supercomputers on Earth are required to model climate change, if you can do it by hand on an internet message board? Especially since you got an entirely different answer, I guess you must be right though since your answer fits my preconceived belief.

/sarcasm



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



"V = V(tot) - V(earth)"?

I thought "V" was for Vendetta....





new topics
top topics
 
279
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join