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
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 #11

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

Hi Ex-among the many things I have been a scientist is one of them.

Water's phase transition is a powerful means of heat transferral. But, water vapor, here I'll call it humidity, is 20x more prevalent in the air than CO2. It is 30x more prevalent in the tropics.
In ppm CO2 is 400 (during daytime) and water is 12000 ppm. This is without clouds or condensation. It is 40x more powerful, even when you can't see it!

It's transformation from solid to ice may be used as a very quantifiable metric for the energy change of the Earth.

However, it is still not part of the OP. The OP has the graphs, from universities that show pretty plainly that Sun + Heat released from fossil fuel is proportional to temperature fluctuations.

Water contributes much much much more than CO2. That is the point.

Why don't we leave CO2 for a bit and discuss/find a way to rule out the OP premise.

The idea being, I don't think you can.

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 #12

Post by Excubis »

Willum wrote: [Replying to Excubis]

Hi Ex-among the many things I have been a scientist is one of them.

Water's phase transition is a powerful means of heat transferral. But, water vapor, here I'll call it humidity, is 20x more prevalent in the air than CO2. It is 30x more prevalent in the tropics.
In ppm CO2 is 400 (during daytime) and water is 12000 ppm. This is without clouds or condensation. It is 40x more powerful, even when you can't see it!

It's transformation from solid to ice may be used as a very quantifiable metric for the energy change of the Earth.

However, it is still not part of the OP. The OP has the graphs, from universities that show pretty plainly that Sun + Heat released from fossil fuel is proportional to temperature fluctuations.

Water contributes much much much more than CO2. That is the point.

Why don't we leave CO2 for a bit and discuss/find a way to rule out the OP premise.

The idea being, I don't think you can.
Because it is not actually correct, yes you are stating technically correct data but not how climate works nor global warming. The more CO2 the warmer it gets the more water vapour we have that is a given due to the nature of CO2 and water. The increase of CO2 directly correlates to the increase of water vapour and temp. rise, I never said anything against that at all. This is actually well known for anyone who studies or is up to date with the science behind global warming. The exception I take to your conjectural post is that CO2 is not the issue, it is, even your initial charts you posted show a rise in temp when fossil fuels begin to be used, hmmmmm. No can't be the CO2 burning fossil fuels produce which in turn causes more water vapour, a rise of global mean temperatures, and denser cloud cover.

You stated CO2 was evenly distributed, it is not, easy to find that it is not, NASA releases maps daily on CO2 concentrations. The melting occurs due to weather patterns since it is warmer, jet streams and oceanic currents move this heat around but since it follows thermodynamic principle as all matter does, all hot things wish to be cold. http://climatekids.nasa.gov/polar-temperatures/ sorry but anyone cliaming to have been a scientist but doesn't know the information in the link is well being either ignorant , outright lying, or ill informed. Make sure you actually read the link.

So what water contributes more, there is more water vapour because of the rise of CO2. pretty simple. Yes other factors do play a part as I stated CFC's being one that is rarely talked about in global warming, such as R22 and the new standard 410A which both are far more efficient heat traps, both are fluorocarbons but one is a HCFC the other HCF which does not damage the ozone.

The idea that the CO2 is insignificant is wrong, dead wrong the correlation is concise what is not is the actual effects overtime that will occur to this planet. This is only to do with the chaotic nature of the systems at work on Earth, we can say what will happen just not the time it will take due to these systems that exist. The only reason this water vapour increase is due to the greenhouse gases we release by the literally ton loads worldwide daily. Such things as Biomass energy crap is yet another contributor to this problem. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ing-worse/
Probably can't see it but it may be found elsewhere.

Water vapour contributes to global warming, yes, but this is due to CO2 and other greenhouse gasses we produce, sorry you are dead wrong, without the CO2 and others the water vapour would not be an issue. This is really common knowledge in climate science, if it wasn't hotter there would not be more water vapour to begin with. All matter is trying to cool down, not heat up, sorry very basics of thermodynamics, same goes for our planet, if it is not cooling that's because of outside influences such as living organisms, geological events, or asteroid/comet impacts. Oh and this warming is happening quicker than any we can identify from geology and ice core samples, please refute that...........no one has, no skeptic of global warming has yet, why, because natural release due to events like I stated are accompanied with counter, it's and draws this warming or cooling out. All data correlates to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth's orbit, this has been verified through all geological data available. Very well established science: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexpl ... aal_svar1/
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n ... o2769.html
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keeli ... sea-level/
"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 #13

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

Oh, great, so I bring up something novel, new even, and you are going to dismiss it because of existing data?

Not even going to question this new presentation?

You speak of the CO2 correlation: Which is there certainly, trend-wise, what you are ignoring is that as temperature goes up and down, the Sun's energy goes up and down, as does fossil fuel consumption. There is a better correlation between these.

You are also neglecting that feedback does not care what is causing it. If there is more water due to CO2, which I grant for the sake of argument, this must increase the water vapor. An increase in water vapor has a much stronger feedback than CO2, since this would produce more water, then you have run-away or a new equilibrium.

It is obvious to the casual observer these are not observed.

So, rather than spout arguments about CO2, of which everyone is familiar, could you criticize the data presented?

I would really like to see if there is anything wrong with the proposal.

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 #14

Post by Excubis »

Willum wrote: [Replying to Excubis]

Oh, great, so I bring up something novel, new even, and you are going to dismiss it because of existing data?
Huh? What is new? Nothing you brought up is, at all. True may be new to you but it is not actually new.
Not even going to question this new presentation?
Huh? Question what that? The premise you offer was debunked years ago fully, I would suggest researching this. "Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming" http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... te-change/
Using this article since it is easier to understand or for a more technical approach but you will have spend $$ to read the entirety: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-0260-x
You speak of the CO2 correlation: Which is there certainly, trend-wise, what you are ignoring is that as temperature goes up and down, the Sun's energy goes up and down, as does fossil fuel consumption. There is a better correlation between these.
It does not work that way at all, Sorry. http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-glob ... smic-rays/
You are also neglecting that feedback does not care what is causing it. If there is more water due to CO2, which I grant for the sake of argument, this must increase the water vapor. An increase in water vapor has a much stronger feedback than CO2, since this would produce more water, then you have run-away or a new equilibrium.
Huh? Cause does not matter, really and you were a scientist, c'mon now. No due to condensation, life(plants, algae, ect...), and weather it would not runaway due to water vapour on Earth. I suggest reading up on a planet that has a runaway greenhouse effect as in Venus. This is due to the amount of CO2. http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venu ... se-effect/
It is obvious to the casual observer these are not observed.

So, rather than spout arguments about CO2, of which everyone is familiar, could you criticize the data presented?
Why, many already have, being a lazy researcher in no excuse especially in the Science and Tech. discussion area. This is old and has been fully debunked time and time again. Research https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ot-humans/
from 2007
I would really like to see if there is anything wrong with the proposal.
Solar flares do not cause global warming, CO2 does, yes water contributes but this is a after effect brought upon by the CO2. Sorry reality is reality no mater what we want to accept. Here are the facts, CO2 will always warm a system if it is exposed to light, so why would the Earth's system be any different.

Here is a question to what prior period was there an increase of CO2 in such a short time? Guess what never and those instance that did occur that do not even come remotely close in the speed in which this warming event is occurring were caused by volcanoes and they are accompanied by a ash cloud which blocks the light and therefore the CO2 released does not have the same effect until this cloud disperses but even then the warming takes a long time compared to what is occurring now.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

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 #15

Post by Talishi »

Willum wrote: You are also neglecting that feedback does not care what is causing it. If there is more water due to CO2, which I grant for the sake of argument, this must increase the water vapor. An increase in water vapor has a much stronger feedback than CO2, since this would produce more water, then you have run-away or a new equilibrium.
Water vapor as a greenhouse agent is mitigated by the increase of the Earth's albedo by the greater cloud cover.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

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 #16

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 15 by Talishi]

Good guess, but cloud albedo hasn't increased significantly.
Understanding why is easy enough -
How thick does a cloud need to be to have an albedo?
The area the clouds cover is the same, it is just the volume that has increased, and a fractional change in that doesn't change albedo. It's all about the first few meters of exposed surface.

With the temperature increase, the airs capacity to hold water increases, not in perfect balance but between the two, surface and increased dew point, it's a negligible effect.

The recession of ice is a very important loss of albedo, however. Imagine loss of major swaths of ice in the N. Hemisphere, where sunlight, instead of falling on highly reflective snow, is nearly perfectly absorbed by the ocean, and well absorbed by land.

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 #17

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

Well, since you quoted Scientific American, I'll reconsider your sage words!
Scientific American said something, and easily inspectable data contradicts it, well obviously Universities and modern researchers are wrong and "Cosmic Ray" pseudo-science is spot on!

I can read the propaganda, and you must admit, there is plenty on both sides, enough that any thinking person might want to investigate more - and certainly NOT take Scientific American, seriously.

Exubus, if you are going to be condescending, or not bother to engage your grey-matter, skip the post. I was taking your posts seriously.

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 #18

Post by Excubis »

Willum wrote: [Replying to Excubis]

Well, since you quoted Scientific American, I'll reconsider your sage words!
Scientific American said something, and easily inspectable data contradicts it, well obviously Universities and modern researchers are wrong and "Cosmic Ray" pseudo-science is spot on!

I can read the propaganda, and you must admit, there is plenty on both sides, enough that any thinking person might want to investigate more - and certainly NOT take Scientific American, seriously.

Exubus, if you are going to be condescending, or not bother to engage your grey-matter, skip the post. I was taking your posts seriously.
Hmm what about the paper, other articles, so where article comes from does not matter it is the source the article is based on. Propaganda hey over 100 years of experimentally valid conclusions that have been repeated consistently but nooooo it wrong. Yup propaganda not my fault the USA has been dropping the ball on informing the gen public about this for the last 100 years especially since much has been done at Universities in the US. Yup propaganda, I have refuted your claim completely using the work others other that has been fully scientifically verified. Sorry you can't take it Mr. Scientist. Yeah NATURE, SCRIPPS, NBI, .....and the other credentialed sites I posted are what greedy propagandists, as a real scientist I would like some of this $$ being thrown around that would be awesome. I was not condescending at all, why because all you have spouted is only propaganda with no hard experimentally verified data only some trend chart. The energy spectra released from solar flare activity does not in any way cause the warming we encounter, guess why the Ionosphere, if this type of heat energy did make it past that layer pretty much all life would die, sorry. The amount of energy in the smallest solar flare is enough to wipe nearly all life from the surface of the Earth without the Ionosphere. The electron density of this layer severely limits what energy makes it through to the surface.

You are like others a troglodyte, you are ill informed and lack enough understanding of the physics behind global warming. Yeah I could be like others and use vastly over technical jargon to attempt to confuse and mystify but I generally don't because there is no point if you have no grasp of the concepts. Solar flare activity does not cause global warming. I really do not care anymore, you are wrong completely your argument is old and outdated as most troglodytes points are, grrr awe grey matter isn't about what you agree with it is about what can be experimentally verified especially talking about spectra and energy quanta's that is physics not sociology, opinion means nothing in physics ever only hard verified data not a chart correlation of something that occur anyway even when no warming occurs at all, hmmmm such a solid connection. Guess there was no solar flares during ice ages or maybe that is what ended each one. Ummm nope. I wonder hmmmmmm yes I am being an ass, why you claim credentials to what intimidate me into accepting you incorrect point which I have shown through very solid sources to be utterly wrong.

Credentials vs. actual facts, the facts always win. Crank
"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 #19

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Excubis]

HI- the graphs posted are from credible sources, universities, not propaganda. Scientific American is good for imagination, not science.

What about applying your own mind to the information?
Because people who don't believe in climate change can post the same stuff with the same credentials, and they have been as well.

The only difference is the trend of the popular culture.
Today CO2 ers are in favor.
Five years ago CO2 was still disputed.
At some time, the glaciers weren't melting.
Ten years ago the climate wasn't changing.
Thirty years ago there was no warming.
Etc., etc..

and the bottom line is that the Earth's climate changes, the fall back of people denying climate change is simply what would happen, would happen with out us.

CO2 is fading in popularity now, in favor of more obscure or other green house gases.

However there is a truth out there. It doesn't change due to trends in science.

So, be a sheep, or try to get to the truth.

You can get there with basic science and observations. If you can get there at all.

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 #20

Post by Excubis »

[Replying to post 19 by Willum]

LMFAO ohhh i use scientific america once, what was the source of that article. No CO2 is not falling out of favour at all, that is conjecture propaganda, post source with facts that have been verified through repeat of he study.........you have not like all deniers. You are a crank nothing more. CO2 causes the warming we have now. Where did you get the idea or info. that climate wasn't changing 10 years ago please post sources, if you wish to claim scientific literacy within the field, please I await in anticipation for these experimentally verified reasons that CO2 is not the cause, please post this new information. The New Scientist article was from 2007 over 10 years ago hmmmmm. Crank nothing more. I access to the majority of physical journals, please post direct source to papers. Just like those who said the same about leaded gas, cigarettes, asbestos, ect... conjecture propaganda nothing more. Post actual sources for claims, please show through science that the science is wrong not spouting terms of things you have little understanding. Solar flares do not cause global warming.

When atoms are excited by full spectrum electro mag field they will drop to a lower energy orbit around the nucleus as a result and actually lose energy, this actually cause the opposite effect than warming it causes a cooling due to the change of electron to a lower electron orbit. Sorry that is well know physics for those who study such things. I am open to a discussion but you have portrayed an ignorance to the facts, I will not be nice about intellectually lazy people who claim correctness yet are entirely wrong. Off to measure such interactions on a graphene plane treated with a fluorescent coating , hmmm no I have no idea, I am a sheep, LMFAO. Crank :study:
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

Post Reply