Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I don't.

I use the concentration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (100 ppmv or 0.01%) to find the total amount of energy that it can account for, based on solar irradiance.

I then use that amount of heat that anthropogenic carbon dioxide can account for, under the worst possible conditions, to determine how much it will heat the troposphere and oceans. That's why I use the specific heat capacity of the air instead of the specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide. It is the entire troposphere which is heated, not just the carbon dioxide.

The problem is you're taking solar irradiance into account, but using only a partial value for the CO2.

The whole point of assessing CO2 - or any greenhouse gas - is radiative forcing. It's no use in applying a 1:1 relationship between the amount of CO2 and heating as you're doing, because greenhouse gasses behave differently depending on their concentration. The relationship is logarithmic, IIRC.

In other words, it's not the amount of CO2 that's the issue - it's what the CO2 does and how it reacts in concentration that's important.

Why not use one of the many formulas available for calculating this effect? Wiki is bound to have one or two.

Great thread, though most of the stuff you guys have posted has flown right over my head. Consequence of not paying close enough attention in school. . One of these days I'm going to have to sit down and learn all this stuff once and for all instead of learning little bits and pieces here and there, it really is quite interesting.

Originally posted by DjSharperimage

Originally posted by neo5842
This is what we need, though in my simple understanding of the mathematics here, i would like to see, how sunspots would change things when added to the equation, though i understand its not possible to see with any degree of accuracy because of how random they can be from year to year, though i do understand the 11, 80 (and so on) year cycle, but still not predictable. As far as i am aware they contribute the largest amount of energy attributed to the heating and cooling of the planet, and for that reason it can take up to 800 years for the CO2 to follow with its increase. Leading to many to conclude that the earth is in a state of cooling rather than warming as a result of the sun's relative inactivity for the past 9 years or so. Please correct me if i am wrong. However like i said i would like to see how things look after sun spots are taken into consideration.

IT IS NOT CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IT IS CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) !!!!!!
will you people please!!!!! learn your table of elements!!@!!!!!

I am so sorry for quoting you again, but i have been watching lectures all day, form some of the top scientist in the world, and so far every single on of them have used the terms CO2, and Carbon dioxide. These are some pretty intellectual people, so i was wondering, what is you qualification? and is it in the science of Global climate? and if so would you stand on stage and question these guys with the comment you made earlier in the day. Just wondering about that, as i did think you were quite rude in your statement considering not one person has even mentioned carbon monoxide or CO. Thank you.

your logic is all wrong. from 280 ppm to 387 ppm is a 38% increase from pre-industrial. if that same 38% percent increase stayed the same, for the next hundred years (which it won't), it would equal 532 ppm. the amount of pollution now being put out on a global scale, is so much more massive than it was say in the 1930's. billions of more people, tens of millions of more machinery being run by burning fossil fuels, hundreds of billions of tons more coal being burned. the output of CO2 now is much more enormous than anyone can imagine.

Anyone who strives to such lengths to prove their thesis, regardless of their position, is granted an A+ in my book. Good job "Redneck", good job indeed

reply to post by TheRedneck


Sorry TheRedneck, but you debunked yourself before you even started.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun....

This statement is 100% inaccurate and throws all of your calculations out of whack. Your entire topic is false.

1) Your calculations don't include geothermal radiation (Heat released from Earth's core).

2) You didn't calculate how heat from geothermal radiation causes oceans to heat, and also loose their ability to absorb CO2 and heat.

3) Your calculations do not include heat emitted from the devices creating the CO2.

4) Your calculations don't include the starting temperature of the CO2 when it is released.

5) None of your calculations have anything to do with how CO2 effects weather changes, and how weather changes and humidity effects temperatures.

...I can go on and on with holes in your calculations...

The point of using math is to get accurate measurements. Once you start using estimated figures, and forget to include important variables, your entire reason for doing the math is meaningless.

Rule number one with physics, and measurements:

Any measurement you make without knowledge of it's uncertainty is completely MEANINGLESS..

If your margin of error (uncertainty) is larger than your conclusion than your measurement is meaningless.

MIT Lecture about uncertainties:



[edit on 2-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I said in the beginning that if he was to focus on CO2

He should stick with CO2 and not include the Ocean and the entire atmosphere.



[edit on 12/2/2009 by die_another_day]

reply to post by ALLis0NE

1. True; I did not include geothermal radiation. The reason I did not is that it is minimal compared to the energy coming from the sun. If this were not so, then we would not see temperatures drop during the night, nor drop during winter months.
   
   
2. as mentioned, the radiation from geothermal sources is insignificant compared to solar irradiation. That applies to geothermal energy received by the oceans as well.
   
   
3. Compared to geothermal heating, industrial heating is even more insignificant. Check earlier in the thread for an examination of airplane jet engines contribution.
   
   
4. Compared with industrial heating, initial temperatures of the carbon dioxide are even more insignificant.
   
   
5. What carbon dioxide properties are you talking about that affect weather patterns? The only property I know of is that carbon dioxide is (supposedly) responsible for more of the observed temperature variations than is possible at present levels.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/2/2009 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
True; I did not include geothermal radiation. The reason I did not is that it is minimal compared to the energy coming from the sun...

Compared to geothermal heating, industrial heating is even more insignificant. Check earlier in the thread for an examination of airplane jet engines contribution...

Compared with industrial heating, initial temperatures of the carbon dioxide are even more insignificant...

What carbon dioxide properties are you talking about that affect weather patterns? The only property I know of is that carbon dioxide is (supposedly) responsible for more of the observed temperature variations than is possible at present levels.

TheRedneck

Wow Redneck. Isn't this sentiment a deviation from where you talk about how wind farms are going to have impacts on weather patterns? I mean you now have quite a significant list of 'elements' you have deemed unworthy to be part of your 'equations'. Yet you would argue that wind farms potentially could impact the weather. Do you see the conflicting terms here? I do.

reply to post by Animal

Isn't this sentiment a deviation from where you talk about how wind farms are going to have impacts on weather patterns?

First of all, I never made such a statement about wind farms. I have asked whether it is feasible to consider the possibility that removing energy from the prevailing wind patters would have a severe effect, and I have suggested that perhaps a study of such might be in order, but I have never stated that it would have a severe impact. I actually think wind farms are a great idea; I question how much of our total energy need they are capable of supplying.

Secondly, it is much easier to disprove than to prove. To use your subject, I cannot prove that wind farms have no impact on climate, because to do so I would have to include all of the potential variables in that regard. However, I can prove an impact by simply showing one impact, without considering the other variables.

That is essentially what most of the complaints here have been about. In my calculations, I was not interested in obtaining an exact temperature that a certain percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would create; instead, my purpose was to show that those assumptions already presented by others were incorrect. In that vein, I did fudge some of the variables... I fudged them against myself, in that inclusion of these variables would make the final maximum temperature increase due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels even less than what I calculated. It is called being conservative and while it is of little use in proving that something will happen, it is of great use in disproving predictions that something will happen.

Examples: I used 100% attenuation of the sunlight coming into the Earth, with no release of that energy. In actuality, carbon dioxide will not absorb 100% of the energy that it encounters. It will absorb energy it encounters of certain narrow bands of the frequency spectrum only; the rest will pass right through it. It will also re-emit that energy back into radiation, but in my calculations I made the assumption that no release of radiation would happen, meaning the carbon dioxide would simply continue to soak up energy and heat the surrounding system.

I also did not include the upper atmosphere, which releases heat directly into space through conduction, nor did I include land masses as part of the system to be heated. both of these variables would, if included, increase the amount of energy required to raise the temperature, and thus lower the final maximum temperature difference that could be obtained.

Now, certain components such as geothermal heating were left out. These were omitted simply because their effect would be self-evident to be insignificant. The major source of energy coming into the planet is from the sun. There is no serious debate about this. If geothermal energy were sufficient to heat a planet, then we would see planets much farther form the sun than ours with warmer climates. This is obviously not the case.

I have often said that mathematics does not lie, but it will only answer the questions posed to it. It would appear that some here are interested in changing the question posed.

No matter. The information is there, and the fact that such extremes are being made to debunk it is only proof that I have succeeded. Proof is in the eyes of the beholder, and if one wishes to ignore the calcs I present, then that is their choice.

Fact, however, is absolute.

TheRedneck

reply to post by die_another_day

OK, let me put it this way... can you heat a pan full of water without heating the water itself? Can you heat salt in a glass of salty water without also heating the water it is dissolved in? Can you heat one area of water in a bathtub without heating all of the water in it?

Of course not. Heat flows.

The source of the heat is carbon dioxide, yes. But more will be heated by that carbon dioxide than itself. I could go back and rework the calculations to only include the carbon dioxide, and it would probably show thousands of degrees of temperature rise. But what would that prove? It is not possible to confine that heat to the carbon dioxide alone.

No, the main source of heat sinking on the planet, the oceans, as well as the troposphere containing the carbon dioxide, are the only things I included. As I mentioned in my last post, the land and outer atmosphere are excluded to make the final temperature rise even more than it should be. But there is a limit to what I will fudge in order to fit someone else's desires.

Energy coming in from the sun is calculated over a period of 100 years. That figure is then adjusted to allow for the incidence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is 100 ppmv, or 0.01% of the atmosphere itself. That energy is then applied to the source area (the troposphere) and the oceans (the major heat sink) to determine a conservative figure for a maximum temperature rise.

I should point out that the energy requirement of the troposphere is itself negligible compared to the energy requirements to heat the oceans. Had the troposphere not been the source of the heat, I would have dismissed it as insignificant as well and used the oceans alone.

TheRedneck

reply to post by JayinAR


I beg to differ i think Al Gore accounts for at least 20% of the CO2 ever listened to his speeches? That is if you can stay awake long enuff.
Man made global warming is garbage created to make money through carbon credits. If carbon credits worked so well how come in the UK there carbon footprint increased after they started there program!

reply to post by TheRedneck


So what is your objective here?

To prove that industrialization has no significant impact on the greenhouse effect?



Btw, everything is significant (important to calculations), using the ocean in your heatsink made CO2 insignificant (quantity wise).




I think what you calculated is that in 100 years, the sun cannot increase the overall temperature of all the water of the ocean by more than 0.01K

[edit on 12/2/2009 by die_another_day]

Climategate: CRU Adjustments Are 80% of Climate Change Temperature Increases

Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

______beforeitsnews/story/0000000000000736

reply to post by die_another_day

So what is your objective here?

To prove that industrialization has no significant impact on the greenhouse effect?

Not exactly, but close: to prove that industrial carbon dioxide has no significant contribution to Global Warming.

Btw, everything is significant (important to calculations), using the ocean in your heatsink made CO2 insignificant (quantity wise).

No, not really. Assume for a moment that you poured a gallon of alcohol into the ocean. Does that change its ability to hold heat? Yes. Will it make a difference in any oceanic calculations? No. That gallon of alcohol is insignificant compared to the mass of the ocean.

The ability of the troposphere to hold heat is about 0.0002% of the ability of the ocean to hold heat. Therefore it is insignificant compared to the ocean, and was only included because it was the source of the heat energy being calculated. And yes, because of this, the ocean's heat sink ability makes the heat energy contributed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide insignificant. But the concept underneath this is correct: the earth will warm as a whole, not 20° in the atmosphere and -10° in the ocean, and not 1000° in carbon dioxide and 5° in nitrogen. That is simply not the way heat works.

I think what you calculated is that in 100 years, the sun cannot increase the overall temperature of all the water of the ocean by more than 0.01K

How about: In 100 years, heat absorbed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide at present levels from solar irradiation cannot warm the oceans more than 0.1°K? I think that would be a little more accurate.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hmm.. Some nice data you got going on here. But! one thing is missing in the calculations regardless

You left out man.

If you do math, you should know that you effect everything by being here.

by a factor of 1!

just sayin!

reply to post by TheRedneck

No, not really. Assume for a moment that you poured a gallon of alcohol into the ocean. Does that change its ability to hold heat? Yes. Will it make a difference in any oceanic calculations? No. That gallon of alcohol is insignificant compared to the mass of the ocean.

I am not here to debunk you im just pointing out some facts and physics here.

So let me do what you have and see the result.

If I lob a stone into a lake does that effect the lake?

This is also known as the butterfly effect, regardless of the "magnitude" of the result the result will be the same.

You have indeed effected the lake by a factor of 1 by intervention of the stone into the lake

If you add humans into the eco system it will change by a factor of ONE by the very fact HUMANS are here

also called human activity.

So everything that changes on earth "more so with us being the apex of our tree" will have an effect of 1

that is basic math and you can not debunk that.

Well you can try...

The world is indeed heating up, may not be as much as they "say" it is but it is.

Man gives off HEAT him self more life "warm blooded" = more heat

the mass of life on the planet would or should be a factor in your model.

Human activity would indeed produce heat via actions. as it is all relitive to energy and matter.

does CO2 matter? Nope do humans ? Yep

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Byrd

I also believe that you are modeling an atmosphere with even distribution of CO2 throughout it. This would not be correct, since it and a number of other gases (methane, notably) are actually heavier than oxygen and nitrogen and water vapor. It's not evenly distributed vertically just as it's not evenly distributed horizontally.

Other than this being similar to the concern you had over distribution patterns, I fail to understand what you are saying. Of course any distribution is going to be in three dimensions, but CO2 will remain closer to the ground rather than aloft due to its density. Short of detecting the exact carbon dioxide level for every strata (which then begs the question of how thick to make each strata; 1 mm, 1 m, 1 km?) and totaling all those together (integration will not work without a mathematical curve to analyze, and atmospheric layers tend to be more chaotic than mathematical), I fail to see what you are suggesting. If that is your suggestion, then I respectfully submit that the average is exactly that: an average which already takes into account any local deviations.

It tosses the model off kilter. You'd want to find out the distribution close to the ground and not the average. The Earth's atmosphere goes up to over 5 miles above the planet... but most of the CO2 is near the ground. When you figure in that extra 4.5 miles where there's relatively little CO2, things start to go out of whack.

Taking the night side out of your calculations also skews it. We have coal based electrical plants that run 24 hours a day (same with factories, cars, and many other things. Cows on factory farms don't shut off for the night. Forests and the ocean absorb less CO2 when it's cold or when it's night.

The total amount of carbon dioxide present does fluctuate; however we are discussing averages based on much longer periods than a single day and night. These daily differences will even out over a period of years. It is always night somewhere on the globe, and always daytime somewhere else.

You can simplify it like that, yes, but that and the "flat disk" model throw your results off.

The earth isn't a simple disk; the land variations and the ocean currents are a very dynamic "weather engine."

In more technical terms, you are discussing noise, rather than trends.

Nooo... I'm discussing dynamic analysis.

Oh, and I did complete higher mathematics. 4.0 GPA

Whoa!! I'm totally impressed! I *really* struggle with math (but am stubbornly determined to learn), and have to go whimper at my husband to check my figures when I'm doing complex modeling. I can stumble through stats, and calculus, but Lie algebras and advanced topology just make me want to go lie down and have a good whimper.

reply to post by 13579

Ummmm, does that mean we need Cap & Trade for humans instead of CO2?

OK, as long as we get to trade off Al Gore.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


hehe well yeah in a way.. I do not mean to sound silly yet it does the way you put it LOL

What i am adding is not the CO2 problem "if there is one" im just talking about factors in regards to effects.

You base yours on math, i base mine on physics.

Do you humans affect the climate of the earth? Yep

How? Being here.

Look around you

and we all know work produces Heat .. we been working our butts off for a good while now and mostly working our butts off in the past 200 years.

but being here is my point.

cuase and effect.

we effect Every aspect of being here just by being here.

that is proven in qutom physics