It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Nobody read the IPCC UN climate reports... of course it was a few thousands pages... but eh... Even THEY reported that humans only account for a maximum of 7-8% (if i remember correctly) of ALL CO2 produced every year...
So all the CO2 nazis can come and lick my balls.
X(CO2) = 0.000380, Cp(CO2) = 0.839 J/g·°K
0.000380 · 0.839 = 0.00031882 J/°K
X(O2) = 0.209460, Cp(O2) = 0.918 J/g·°K
0.209460 · 0.918 = 0.19228428 J/°K
0.00031882 J/°K + 0.19228428 J/°K = 0.1926031 J/°K
contributed to the specific heat capacity of air
X(CO2) = 0.000280, Cp(CO2) = 0.839 J/g·°K
0.000280 · 0.839 = 0.00023436 J/°K
X(O2) = 0.209560, Cp(O2) = 0.918 J/g·°K
0.209560 · 0.918 = 0.19237608 J/°K
0.00023436 J/°K + 0.19237608 J/°K = 0.19261044 J/°K
contributed to the specific heat capacity of air
Present contribution - Pre-industrial contribution = difference
0.1926031 J/°K - 0.19261044 J/°K = -0.00000734 J/°K
link
Changes in phase of water, from ice to liquid to water vapor, affect the storage of heat. However, even ignoring these complexities, many facets of the climate can be deduced simply by considering the heat capacity of the different components of the climate system. The total heat capacity depends on the mass of the substance involved as well as its capacity for holding heat, as measured by the specific heat (the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by 1°C), of each substance...
The atmosphere does not have much capability to store heat.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Remember, the calculations in my OP show that 100 times as much CO2 increase as has been seen would still be only enough to produce a single degree of warming globally. When we get close to 10,280 ppmv carbon dioxide (100 times the increase seen), then I will join the move to artificially control it.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
That's your rebuttal?
"They've got bigger computers and they're smarter"?
Come on, at least try to rebut the calcs. Just saying "I don't believe it" isn't much of a rebuttal...
TheRedneck
Originally posted by Kailassa
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Nobody read the IPCC UN climate reports... of course it was a few thousands pages... but eh... Even THEY reported that humans only account for a maximum of 7-8% (if i remember correctly) of ALL CO2 produced every year...
So all the CO2 nazis can come and lick my balls.
I know a few folk who are deeply concerned about the environment.
I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige if that's your thing.
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 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
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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
The conclusion to your math is:
5.52629869 × 10 to the 19th power
...
Which increased by 75% is:
9.67102271 × 10 to the 19th power
...
What does this then do to the prediction that it would require 102 times the energy? Would that then become 27 times the energy?