Global change

Discuss Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, Geology, Math, Technology

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Global change

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Not making judgments yet, but the character of the gross domestic product and and global temperature change have the same character and change at the same time.

If you take out the Solar fluctuations they are spot on.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/ ... 201312.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sb1ihgap_PE/T ... .48+AM.png

Carbon dioxide, if it were the cause, wouldn't cause fluctuations.

So, there are bunches of lies on both sides of the arguments, as demonstrated by there being arguments for so long.

Instead of CO2 causing heating, I think heat, from burning fuels causes heating, flying in the face of common ill-wisdom.

User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Global change

Post #2

Post by Talishi »

Willum wrote: Instead of CO2 causing heating, I think heat, from burning fuels causes heating, flying in the face of common ill-wisdom.
The Moon’s surface temperature, averaged over a long period, is about -76C. If it had an atmosphere and was able to spread the heat it receives from the Sun out evenly over its surface, it would be just below freezing at -0.5C. The Earth is at the same average distance from the sun as the moon is. If CO2 did not cause heating, but burning fuels as you claim, then the pre-industrial temperature of the Earth would have been near freezing.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Global change

Post #3

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 2 by Talishi]

I do like the way you think - but water vapor is 40x times more powerful a green house gas then CO2. Measured by a broader absorption spectrum, and disperses the energy into many other energy efficient "pockets."

Water vapor is also much more prevalent than CO2. 6 times more common in the driest desert, 20 times more prevalent on average, and 80 times more prevalent in the tropics.

Your numbers are off a bit off though, without the water vapor the temperature is expected to be about -40 C. Without an atmosphere about -80C.

CO2 absorbs and emits from the same frequency. And just remember CO2 concentrations have essentially not hanged: From 280 ppm to 400 ppm is 0.012%, water vapor has also changed, by about 2% or 800 ppm, yet, nothing.

Still another interesting fact, the polar melting has all occurred in the Northern hemisphere, with indeterminate results in the Southern.

Heat and weather on Earth flows from equator to pole. If heat is released in the Northern Hemisphere, and 90% of it is, it is very reasonable to see results only in the North.

With CO2, evenly distributed all over the Earth we would expect effects, melting, everywhere.

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Global change

Post #4

Post by Excubis »

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

CO2 creates more water vapour. CO2 warms an area which in turn evaporates more water. The greenhouse effect is not only accumulative but also compounding as CO2 concentrations increase more water evaporates. Also on Earth the concentration of water vapor changes greatly and dramatically in hours, due to weather. Rain and snow are such events, due to gravity and temp. (not surface but in atmosphere specifically the troposphere). Also melting will never be uniform across the planet, why, once again weather.

Also this
With CO2, evenly distributed all over the Earth we would expect effects, melting, everywhere.
is not actually true, although this was previously the common 'wisdom'. The AIRS data from NASA shows it does not mix easily nor is CO2 evenly distributed. Check out the maps and data for yourself http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/

Just so it is an easier find http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news/1
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/images/52

Add on edit, the "fluctuations" you mention are consistent according to weather not annual average global temperatures. This has not fluctuated and every year it gets warmer. Fact not conjecture it is warmer every year and the one and only consistent coalition is industrialization that has occurred specifically the use of fossil fuels, but there are other contributors, such as Chlorofluorocarbons and others.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Global change

Post #5

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

Well your point about CO2 not being evenly distributed is, it is true, but irrelevant. It would have to be distributed in the Northern Hemisphere, where all the melting is occurring. Small uneven distribution means nothing when compared to the effect that heat is transported from equator to pole, and measureable effects, (the state change of the Earth from melting ice is quantifiable, and proportional to sea level rise.)

As to this feedback: From what I have seen of you, you can write down a generic feedback equation, from unity to infinity, with and kind of amplification constraint.

What you see immediately, is that the thing causing the feedback- -either CO2 or water vapor, or something else, is irrelevant. The little change causes a bigger one.

Therefore, you change CO2 an insignificant amount and it has this change, then larger changes in water vapor must have similar effects.

In short, I am sure you agree there is propaganda on both sides of the argument. Feedback is just one of those more easily dismissed.

If I am wrong about this mechanism, it should be easily and mathematically pointed out... and if you can do this, I will concede the point immediately.

As it is, you will find water vapor should induce more climate change on a daily basis, than CO2 could do in its lump sum change.

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Global change

Post #6

Post by Excubis »

[Replying to post 5 by Willum]

Sorry weather and global warming are not the same. Due to weather patterns the 'melting' will not occur in the saturated areas. Also I will add global warming is 70 years old not 2 decades, yes the name changed but the original hypothesis and subsequent theory of the rise of use of fossil fuels in conjunction with industrial globalization that the rise in the amount of CO2 will cause a greenhouse effect. The 'propaganda' as I see it is a lack of understanding of the history of climate science, just because it was not mainstream does not mean it is not true. Such instance that many American rallied behind in the same manner have been conclusively verified and actually were even then. Events like leaded gas, asbestos, cigarettes ect... all have the same historical trend in the USA. I will break it down:

1) Scientists through observation and experiment conclude substance A may result in adverse effects in public health. This substance A is in common use.
2) Warning ignored "Scientists get things wrong." true and understandable. Little to no public knowledge is gained.
3) Over time data grows to show the warning was true or not. If false it basically fades away and people have another "See scientist's get stuff wrong.". Yet in many cases the data shows yes the A substance is having an actual correlation to negative environmental effects.
3) Rest of the developed world begins to take measure to restrict the substance. Economists and politicians in the USA say little or disregard the science.
4) Much of the developed world takes action to ban, outlaw, or implement social programs to counteract the negative effects.
5) Some politician begins in the USA start to champion this cause, it is met with partisan politics and all around skepticism because doing anything about it may hurt the US economy, the cost benefit isn't worth it. Hmm who do these economist work for?
6) Only when rich people in the USA become scared does the anti propaganda end and actual action is taken.

This has been true for every one of these environmental/health issues caused by a widely used 'thing'. GM once indicated they would go bankrupt if leaded gas outlawed, I wonder who owned the patents on leaded gas? and CFC's? Yes Dupont who held 38% of GM back in the 40's and the US federal goverment forced DUpont to sell it's shares. These situations repeat themselves consistently throughout US history. Time to catch up, Al Gore is not global warming neither are all the supposed 'climate scientists' in the states that have sprung up since. Yes there is propaganda, but the science is old and has been for sometime internationally verified, why because in the 19 century it was predicted and guess what it has come true, this is the only way to truly ascertain validity in science, prediction.

History summed up here, I do not debate the science, it is sound old, established, predictive, and experimentally verified over 100 years ago of the effects of CO2 and climate, not weather but climate. https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Global change

Post #7

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

You reply has nothing to do with the OP, and I am not confusing climate with weather.
Here is some more succinct data:
Image

Image

The premise is, and by visual inspection, Solar output + fossil fuels energy release is proportional to temperature change.

Also, since 90% of fossil fuels are burned in the North, we should see the effects there.
One effect is polar melting, which is occurring markedly in the North Pole, and indeterminately in the South Pole.

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Global change

Post #8

Post by Excubis »

Willum wrote: [Replying to Excubis]

You reply has nothing to do with the OP, and I am not confusing climate with weather.
Here is some more succinct data:
Yes you are.
The premise is, and by visual inspection, Solar output + fossil fuels energy release is proportional to temperature change.

Also, since 90% of fossil fuels are burned in the North, we should see the effects there.
One effect is polar melting, which is occurring markedly in the North Pole, and indeterminately in the South Pole.
No, the concentration of CO2 is actually more concentrated at the equator, and often near large forested areas. Why, thermodynamic principles. The warming in the atmosphere it transported by weather to the equator. Heat does not stay put, that is why all heat is technically speaking radiation, as in it radiates (travels) away from it's source. Since CO2 is a excellent heat trap it follows same physical thermodynamic mechanisms.

Also I was not taking point of OP but to the point made that CO2 was evenly distributed and the idea of water causing global warming. These are both not true on Earth, water condenses as it cools, very very little makes it to higher elevations in our atmosphere. The two major natural physical states of water on Earth is liquid and solid(ice) this does not allow water to stay as a vapour because of the natural means of condensation that Earth allows for water. Although technically true water vapour is an even stronger heat trap than CO2 but luckily on Earth water vapour condenses and falls back down as ice and liquid water. The goldilocks zone is well known by most and much of this zone has to do with water being able to condense as a liquid, it does not have the same effect on Earth as CO2, since it's natural state on Earth is not a gas, and liquid water does not trap heat easily the is why it changes states readily to dissipate this heat energy. Blah blah.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8900
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Global change

Post #9

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

Water is 40x more powerful green house gas. View it's absorption/emission spectrum, it also transports energy across its spectrum, so it competes with CO2 AND absorbs approximately the same amounts of energy at that spectrum. To be clear, water absorbs strongly everywhere in the IR, due to weak absorption, and concentration, and it distributed that energy fairly equally over its spectrum. (As per Beer's Law.)
So what happens is: CO2 absorbs then emits in it's own narrow spectrum.
Water absorbs in CO2 spectrum, but then emits in the most energetically favorable spectrum. So it is very very much more powerful than CO2.

This is ignoring condensation effects.

I am not confusing weather with climate.
An insignificant increase in CO2 globally, is also an insignificant amount on the equator. Water vapor has also increased by 800ppm average globally.

So, the problem is, water is ~80x more concentrated at the equator/tropics. IT is trapping far more heat. Remember, there don't need to be clouds in the air for there to be lots and lots of water in the air.

CO2's "even" distribution means climate effects should be the same over the globe. They aren't - most of it is in the Norther Hemisphere.

Condensation, though true, is non-sequitur, as a again, water vapor is on average 20x more concentrated than CO2 on average, (80x in the equator where it is most important).
Condensation is a separate effect that does not compete with CO2.

Viewed another way: Can you heat your home with insulation? No, the climate should be more stable. Which is definitely not what we see.

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Global change

Post #10

Post by Excubis »

Willum wrote: [Replying to Excubis]

Water is 40x more powerful green house gas. View it's absorption/emission spectrum, it also transports energy across its spectrum, so it competes with CO2 AND absorbs approximately the same amounts of energy at that spectrum. To be clear, water absorbs strongly everywhere in the IR, due to weak absorption, and concentration, and it distributed that energy fairly equally over its spectrum. (As per Beer's Law.)
So what happens is: CO2 absorbs then emits in it's own narrow spectrum.
Water absorbs in CO2 spectrum, but then emits in the most energetically favorable spectrum. So it is very very much more powerful than CO2.

This is ignoring condensation effects.

I am not confusing weather with climate.
An insignificant increase in CO2 globally, is also an insignificant amount on the equator. Water vapor has also increased by 800ppm average globally.

So, the problem is, water is ~80x more concentrated at the equator/tropics. IT is trapping far more heat. Remember, there don't need to be clouds in the air for there to be lots and lots of water in the air.

CO2's "even" distribution means climate effects should be the same over the globe. They aren't - most of it is in the Norther Hemisphere.

Condensation, though true, is non-sequitur, as a again, water vapor is on average 20x more concentrated than CO2 on average, (80x in the equator where it is most important).
Condensation is a separate effect that does not compete with CO2.

Viewed another way: Can you heat your home with insulation? No, the climate should be more stable. Which is definitely not what we see.
1) CO2 is no even as I said and supported.
2) There is a difference between the energy density of liquid water and water vapour.
3) Sorry but read http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html
4) I am not saying it does not contribute, it does.

Why wouldn't there be fluctuations? All reactions such as these are probabilistic not ideal, due to the chaotic systems at work, fluctuations will always occur as they always have, otherwise there would be no difference in ice cores, they would be one solid layer not multiple ones. same goes for geology. All natural Earthly systems fluctuate, only in the lab under ideal or controlled conditions do these reactions find a precise equilibrium, not in nature. This goes for all quantized spectras and chemical reactions. These reactions are not governed naturally by limits since one cannot know all conditions in the system nor control them.

Fluctuations always occur even when the level of CO2 was far above current levels, that is natural state on Earth for climate, weather, geology, life, ect..... all change. fluctuate, and evolve. Climate has never not fluctuated only the very recent time 20k years roughly has been one of the most stable in climate and weather according to all natural sciences such as climatology, geology ect....
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

Post Reply