Thread: Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Originally Posted by James Cessna

Ha-Ha!

Now we know for certain you are blowing smoke, gmb!

In your strange way of reasoning, a global temperature increase of 3.0 deg-C (from your peer-reviewed paper) is exactly the same thing as a global temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C from the NASA GISS actual temperature plots.

... OK! … If you say so!

Most reasoned people will disagree with you, however!

Most "reasoned people" would not comically confuse Climate Sensitivity (the 3 C estimate) with observed change in global mean temperature over 40 years. I would suggest you start by looking up the definition of the former. You have a long way to go, and with the time you spend reading and propagating political opinion pieces on the topic, you might be able to learn quite a bit on the basics.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Primarily due to water vapor in our atmosphere...

You know what is coming next, do you not??
Wait for it.
.
.
.
.
.

"Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects ofwater vapor , peformed (sic) using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test ."

Originally Posted by James Cessna

I am very glad you asked these questions, Mannie.

Do you agree that the radiation emitted by the sun warms the surfaces of the land masses and the oceans?

Also, water vapor in the atmosphere is also a very powerful greenhouse gas.

In fact, water vapor has many more more absorption bands in the IR than does carbon dioxide.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 10,000 to 20,000 ppm, depending on the value of the relative humidity levels. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~390 ppm. Water vapor is 25X to 50X as effective as CO2 in heating the atmosphere and the surfaces of the earth as is CO2.

The contributions of CO2 as a "greenhouse" gas are small in comparison to the contributions that water vapor makes to "global warming".

How much water vapor is in the air at -18C when the warming initially started? You do not have to give an exact number. Rough guess would be fine.

Originally Posted by MannieD

How much water vapor is in the air at -18C when the warming initially started? You do not have to give an exact number. Rough guess would be fine.

You can easily calculate the answer from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.

Here this equation is for you to easily use.

I wll not do your work for you.

Derivation from state postulate

Using the state postulate, take the specific entropy, for a homogeneous substance to be a function of specific volume and temperature .[3]:508

During a phase change, the temperature is constant, so[3]:508

Using the appropriate Maxwell relation gives[3]:508

Since temperature and pressure are constant during a phase transition, the derivative of pressure with respect to temperature is not a function of the specific volume.[4][5]:57, 62 & 671 Thus the partial derivative may be changed into a total derivative and be factored out when taking an integral from one phase to another,[3]:508

Here and are respectively the change in specific entropy and specific volume from the initial phase to the final phase .

For a closed system undergoing an internally reversible process, the first law is

Using the definition of specific enthalpy, and the fact that the temperature and pressure are constant, we have[3]:508

After substitution of this result into the derivative of the pressure, one finds[3]:508[6]

This last equation is the Clapeyron equation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausiu...eyron_relation

Originally Posted by James Cessna

You can easily calculate the answer from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.

Here this equation is for you to easily use.

I wll not do your work for you.

We are waiting, Mannie.

Have you completed the calculation?

Actually, it is quite easy to do.

Just follow this example.

Derivation from state postulate

Using the state postulate, take the specific entropy, for a homogeneous substance to be a function of specific volume and temperature .[3]:508

During a phase change, the temperature is constant, so[3]:508

Using the appropriate Maxwell relation gives[3]:508

Since temperature and pressure are constant during a phase transition, the derivative of pressure with respect to temperature is not a function of the specific volume.[4][5]:57, 62 & 671 Thus the partial derivative may be changed into a total derivative and be factored out when taking an integral from one phase to another,[3]:508

Here and are respectively the change in specific entropy and specific volume from the initial phase to the final phase .

For a closed system undergoing an internally reversible process, the first law is

Using the definition of specific enthalpy, and the fact that the temperature and pressure are constant, we have[3]:508

After substitution of this result into the derivative of the pressure, one finds[3]:508[6]

This last equation is the Clapeyron equation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausiu...eyron_relation

Originally Posted by MannieD

You know what is coming next, do you not??
Wait for it.
.
.
.
.
.

"Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects ofwater vapor , peformed (sic) using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test ."

Established LONG AGO.
Here it is:


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wa...ies-d_162.html


Got anymore silliass crap to try to deflect from the complete failure to prove the primary edict of your entire wordlview?

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Established LONG AGO.
Here it is:

url]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html[/url]

Got anymore silliass crap to try to deflect from the complete failure to prove the primary edict of your entire wordlview?

Great response, Gork.

Have you noticed the only two things the "warmies" in this group are really good at are subterfuge and deception?

When it comes a basic knowledge of science and mathematics, they are very poor!

Originally Posted by Jonsa

It took a few decades to link smoking to cancer.

It'll probably take a few decades to link human emissions to climate change.

There is science that clearly demonstrates that increasing CO2 in a closed environment does increase temperature. There can be no dispute of this.

As for deniers, it is a counter intuitive position. Logic dictates that dumping billions of tons of CO2 into a closed environment must have an effect over time. Afterall, a closed system has only so much absorption capacity.

All that remains to be proven is to what extent human carbon emissions contribute to climate change.

For deniers to dismiss all the science done in this area, particularly when they don't have much grasp of the science in the first place is the equivalent of believing that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries. Can't shake faith with science no how.

You are mistaken, Jonsa.

You have been duped and carefully led down a path by well-connected corporatists and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and very misguided energy policies promulgated by the Obama administration.

"When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.

Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions.

The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed corporatists to convince them that in accepting the unproven view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence, righteousness and virtue. Instead, they are changing our national energy policy for the benefit of corporations and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and perhaps misguided policies [promulgated by the Obama administration].

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072360/warmists-we-cant-win-the-game-so-lets-change-the-rules."

Originally Posted by James Cessna

gmb,

Thanks for these reports.

However, their conclusions conflict greatly with the latest NOAA and NASA GISS temperature plots of changes in global surface temperatures from 1880 until the present. How do you explain these significant discrepancies?

By the way, you cannot assume just because a paper has appeared in the "peer-reviewed scientific literature", the information it contains is actually correct. Many peer-reviewed papers in many scientific journals actually disagree with each other, and their conclusions are not supported by the global temperature models that are presently used by NOAA and NASA.

The people in this group who support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming never provide any hard scientific data that conclusively supports this theory. All they can do is provide a chart from NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

This slight increase over a span of 50 years is not credible evidence of global warming.

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

James

If you are linking to a picture in "photo bucket" you should give the origin of the picture as a hyperlink

If however, you link directly to the source as many of us do - then the hyperlink is not required because it is embedded and easily visible when you hit the quote button

You should also be hyperlinking to the source of your material - if you have a difficulty with this please contact a moderator - this is not just about the rules of the board or even of academic veracity but about copyright

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

James

If you are linking to a picture in "photo bucket" you should give the origin of the picture as a hyperlink

If however, you link directly to the source as many of us do - then the hyperlink is not required because it is embedded and easily visible when you hit the quote button

You should also be hyperlinking to the source of your material - if you have a difficulty with this please contact a moderator - this is not just about the rules of the board or even of academic veracity but about copyright

Thanks!

I thought I did that, but I guess I did not ...

Here is the link for the NASA GISS global temperature chart.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

NASA attributes most of the global warming to natural causes (increasing solar activity, El Niño); not necessarily to man-made influences.

The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A publicly available computer program is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis.

The resulting temperature record is very close to analyses by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.

"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."