Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
For the TNCR scientists
Topic Started: Feb 17 2017, 08:26 AM (1,377 Views)
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
(and everyone else, of course)

Is there anything to what this guy says?

http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

Quote:
 
Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Published on February 9, 2017

Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)



Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.


Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

****

Dr. Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist with extensive experience in the chemical industry, encompassing manufacturing, laboratory management, analysis, waste management, dangerous goods and household chemistry. He currently has a media profile in The West Australian newspaper and on Today Tonight. For a sample of his work visit www.drchemical.com.au
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Mikhailoh
Feb 17 2017, 08:26 AM
Quote:
 

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

I had an uncle who taught meteorology at the Naval Academy and worked as a scientist at Woods Hole for a number of years. He went on arctic expeditions to study weather. He knew weather. He used to ask that first question. He blamed the sun. And he was a guy born and raised in Boston, he knew the question was heresy.

And the second question needs a question mark.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The article sounds like BS to me.

Scientists do look at the sun. A lot. For instance, they study the cycle of solar flares and its influence on climate.

Quote:
 
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

What does our energy production have to do with that? The sun is the source of the energy, and the amount of solar energy reaching the earth is much higher than our energy production.

Quote:
 
Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

Also sounds like BS to me. That number may be true if you'd heat the air to 4000˚C and then turn off the sun, but the sun is shining constantly, so even a very small temperature difference will eventually heat the water.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
He's assuming the warming occurs through conduction rather than radiation. It's a deeply ignorant piece.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Is there anything to what this guy says?

No.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

Well of course compared to tncr posters the guy is ignorant. Who isn't?!

But at least he is willing to ask the question.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
Well of course compared to tncr posters the guy is ignorant.

Compared to an average Imperial second year chemistry undergraduate he's ignorant. Actually probably even a first year could spot the problems with his calculations.

Quote:
 
But at least he is willing to ask the question.

Because no one has ever considered the extent to which variation in the sun causes variation in temperatures on Earth before.

Edit: Btw. that was literally the first google hit, there are many many papers on the subject. If you bothered to look you'd see that scientists have been 'asking the question' continuously for the last 50 years. It's just that you don't like the answer.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The author is a political candidate for the Christian Democrat Party in Australia

As far as I can tell, they're a fringe political party in New South Wales.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Moonbat
Feb 17 2017, 10:58 AM
even a first year could spot the problems

Because no one has ever considered the extent to which variation in the sun causes variation in temperatures on Earth before.

Quote:
 
no one

ever


Yes, exactly, that is the kind of rant that ruins the good work of real scientists.

Of course the first year will spot the errors.

The second year will understand that is how progress is made.

And the tncr will jam it down his throat.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 
The second year will understand that is how progress is made.


No dude, second years don't think progress is made by people who don't have a basic grasp of the subject matter. There's a reason they actually bother studying.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I haven't done any actual science since I graduated in 1985, and even I can see the flaw in the reasoning.

If this guy's actually got a doctorate in Chemistry, then he's being deliberately misleading, or as we say in the old country, lying.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Moonbat
Feb 17 2017, 11:24 AM
Quote:
 
The second year will understand that is how progress is made.


No dude, second years don't think progress is made by people who don't have a basic grasp of the subject matter. There's a reason they actually bother studying.

You're right.

It goes Rote, Understanding, Application and Correlation doesn't it?

So the above article is really for the fourth year.

Or for tncr.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Copper
Feb 17 2017, 12:10 PM
You're right.

It goes Rote, Understanding, Application and Correlation doesn't it?

So the above article is really for the fourth year.

Or for tncr.
We did puzzles like that in High School physics - they would present some dodgy half-baked argument, and we'd have to find the flaws.

There was one where they suggested towing icebergs to the Indian ocean or something to save the fuel used in freezing them.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catseye3
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
There was one where they suggested towing icebergs to the Indian ocean or something to save the fuel used in freezing them.


Sarah Palin was all over this, but she was shouted voted down.

"I shall now begin to speak of purple, which exceeds all the colors that have so far been mentioned both in costliness and in the superiority of its delightful effect." -- Vitruvius, De architectura, 1st century BC.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Explain this, then:

According to NASA, the current CO2 level is 400 ppm. During the late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than 4,000 ppm. There were no oil wells. There were no automobiles, factories burning coal, etc. Yet with 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today, the planet was locked in an Ice Age that lasted for more than one million years.

Two hundred million years later, during the Jurassic period, CO2 levels were 2,000 ppm. There were no oil wells. There were no cars, no factories burning coal..... yet with CO2 levels 5 times higher than today, during the end of the Jurassic period, the planet was again locked in an Ice Age.

So here's my question: If CO2 causes the planet to heat up, why was there an Ice Age at the same time that CO2 levels were 5 and 10 times higher than today?

Secondly, if burning fossil fuels is the cause of increased CO2 levels, why were CO2 levels 5 and 10 times higher during eras millions of years long that had no fossil fuels - or humans, for that matter - to generate CO2?
Edited by Larry, Feb 17 2017, 04:02 PM.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Here's what I think - I think those of you who enjoy gazing at your navels and telling yourself you're smarter than other people will attempt to dismiss this problem in your theory, when it seems quite obvious that neither man nor CO2 has a damned thing to do with climate change.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
It's good to know Larry will always be here to give the counterpoint. It's all about balance :juggle: :smooch:
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Larry
Feb 17 2017, 04:00 PM
Explain this, then:

Secondly, if burning fossil fuels is the cause of increased CO2 levels, why were CO2 levels 5 and 10 times higher during eras millions of years long that had no fossil fuels - or humans, for that matter - to generate CO2?

Obviously when we invent time travel we send all the CO2 back there.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Hell, if they invent travel to go back in time, I'd rather go back two thousand years to check out Larry's empty tomb story than waste my time going back to the Age of the Flintstones.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Feb 17 2017, 04:00 PM
Explain this, then:

According to NASA, the current CO2 level is 400 ppm. During the late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than 4,000 ppm. There were no oil wells. There were no automobiles, factories burning coal, etc. Yet with 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today, the planet was locked in an Ice Age that lasted for more than one million years.

Two hundred million years later, during the Jurassic period, CO2 levels were 2,000 ppm. There were no oil wells. There were no cars, no factories burning coal..... yet with CO2 levels 5 times higher than today, during the end of the Jurassic period, the planet was again locked in an Ice Age.

So here's my question: If CO2 causes the planet to heat up, why was there an Ice Age at the same time that CO2 levels were 5 and 10 times higher than today?

Secondly, if burning fossil fuels is the cause of increased CO2 levels, why were CO2 levels 5 and 10 times higher during eras millions of years long that had no fossil fuels - or humans, for that matter - to generate CO2?
Here's what they have to say at SkepticalScience.
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
So what you're saying is, real scientists don't have an answer to my question?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Nope, that's not what I'm saying.
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Don't have to say it, the evidence provided speaks for itself.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Nunatax
Feb 18 2017, 04:10 AM

Those guys are so negative about everything.

I like warm weather, I think most people prefer warm weather.

They don't even mention that. Or the millions of other great things about changed climate.

They do mention one of the "myths" is that it is "not bad". Their proof that it is bad is that they can't think of anything good. Hahahahah
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Number of single sentence replies claiming the source has no answers: 2
Number of replies ridiculing the source: 1
Number of replies containing even the slightest attempt at addressing the points:0

Another productive day at TNCR.
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4