Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I've never seen Wikipedia as a reference in a peer reviewed journal. Maybe because anyone can edit it?Wait! This isn't a peer reviewed journal is it?
And from my perspective, your figures seem to say the sun doesn't put out enough energy, nothing about CO2.
I'm a Commercial Pilot. And I've spent 45 years in the troposphere. And it has changed.ISA+5 is the new ISA.

Just a quick point as it's late here but you've only included the total energy going into the extra CO2. The main heating effect of greenhouse gases is their ability to re-absorb energy emitted by the earth and transmit it back downwards. Some 50% of the energy emitted by the earth which is absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-transmitted downwards this way.

The re-transmitted 50% will then be once again emitted by the earth and 50% of that which is absorbed by greenhouse gases will be transmitted back down to the earth. This will happen over and over with the proportion of the total initial energy decreasing down to nothing (think two mirrors opposite each other with 50% attenuation).

edited out incorrect calculation.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Chris McGee]

Originally posted by TheRedneck

If you want to increase the amount of intercepted energy by 75%, then those calculations would be correct. That's still about 0.25°K per century temperature rise, and still conservative based on the assumptions... far below the cries of doom and gloom that are perpetuated in the media.

I will not dispute that part of the ecological pressure is toward greenhouse gases other than CO2, at least in word. Intent seems to disagree with you, however. The major political football is indeed CO2 Cap & Trade, not SO2 Cap & Trade, nor methane Cap & Trade. And, as stated before, my only concern over present environmental theories is the CO2 component. We agree on all of the other emissions; why would I take time to disprove something I agree with as to current outlooks?

This thread concerns carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide only. It finishes the debate on CO2 contributions to Global Warming, as stated, and nothing else. I stand with you on the other emissions you have mentioned.
TheRedneck

So you are saying that CO2 plays no part? whats about your statement in the OP:

It would require 102 times as much energy as is available to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years.

Although, by your math, the effect is dramatically minuscule there is a definable impact correct?

Simply multiply 100 years by 102 times the energy and POOF in 11000 some years you have a 1degree increase correct?

Well then add in the gasses I allude to and it is 27 time the 102 and POOF in 2000 years you have a 1 degree increase.

It all still sounds pretty harmless in these terms but that is assuming your predictions and math is all correct.

So you can assert you believe the impacts to me minute but not non-existent.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Helmkat

The Nobel will be sweet!

The Nobel Peace Prize has now been awarded to a terrorist (Yassir Arafat) and a fast-talking liar (Barack Obama). As such, I would not bother to go get the silly thing if it were awarded to me. I guess they could mail it.

The Nobel Prize is now just an Oscar for people who can't make a living pretending to be someone else.

But, thanks for the thought.

TheRedneck

I think there are Nobels for Science too...

I applaud your efforts in trying to do Math.

I suck at Math, so I give you props for trying.

My original post had some sarcasm attached, I know that can be problematic in this form of communication.

However if you honestly believe your calculations to be correct then you should not be using ATS as the forum to have your work Peer reviewed. I do have some -reservations- that your might not be as complete as you think.

Nice effort though.

"This thread concerns carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide only. It finishes the debate on CO2 contributions to Global Warming, as stated, and nothing else."

So you are saying CO2 has nothing at all to do with GW if GW exists? So if we remove CO2 numbers from........why bother.

Surely there is some news about aliens or crop circles to hold my attention.

Peace

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

That's your rebuttal?

"They've got bigger computers and they're smarter"?

Come on, at least try to rebut the calcs. Just saying "I don't believe it" isn't much of a rebuttal...

TheRedneck

I did call you out on your calculations and you simply passed it off as irrelevant because you couldn't be bothered to include ALL green house gasses.

And yes I will keep calling you on it because you presented your equations in the OP as the proof to end all debate yet you purposefully left out 75% of all green house gasses.

Im with you here mate if these calculations are to end the debate then surely you have to include all greenn house gases into the equation or your just using your calculations to suit your own beliefs

reply to post by die_another_day

1. I am including water only in the heat sink equations. If the increase in temperature is coming from carbon dioxide levels, as proposed by the IPCC, then water would not be applicable to calculate the amount of heat produced by a change on carbon dioxide levels. It would be applicable to calculate the energy required to change the temperature of the biosphere, as would all matter in that biosphere. The reason I did not include methane, SO2, etc. in that calculation was that their contribution would be insignificant.
   
   Animal is arguing that I should have included the heating contribution from all greenhouse gases. And I may just take him up on that, although I doubt he will like the result.
   
   
2. 0.01& is the same as 0.0001, just as 100% is the same as 1 or 50& is the same as 0.5.
   
   
3. I multiplied 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K by 1,000,000,000, not 1,000,000. The reason is that the result was in kJ/km³•°K. One km is equal to 1000 m, there fore one km³ is equal to 1000³ m, or 1,000,000,000 m.

Hope that cleared it up for you.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/1/2009 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by 4nsicphd

I've never seen Wikipedia as a reference in a peer reviewed journal.

Would you prefer I use textbook references that can only be verified by those with identical textbooks?

The only references I used Wikipedia for are physical constants and/or values not generally disagreed on. Please, if you believe those are wrong, feel free to refute them using a different source.

TheRedneck

Well if people really want to get super technical about things then people also need to include whether clouds create a positive feedback response or a negative feedback response.

If clouds produce a positive feedback response then that would be a basis for runaway warming or cooling. If clouds produce a negative feedback response then that means the climate is self regulating which means it doesn't matter what the hell we put in the air in a few years time the earth will cleanse itself and everything would be back to normal in it's normal cycle.

Now if you know the answer for fact that clouds produce a positive feedback response you need to call up CERN and the LHC and write up a paper on what you did to come to this conclusion, also don't forget to include your raw data and methods.

The CLOUDS9 Experiment that they are going to conduct at the LHC will be another step in the direction of figuring out whether or not the clouds produce a positive or negative feedback response.

And this is where the whole debate of run away warming will die a miserable death and also why there is so much confusion. The computer models that the climate "scientist" have programmed have cloud feedback set the positive. Where in actuality it is theorized that clouds produce a negative feedback response, based off of observations and data that has been collected.

Thanks for the math.
Your work is a good font for future works on the subject.
Again, THANK YOU!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by die_another_day

1. I am including water only in the heat sink equations. If the increase in temperature is coming from carbon dioxide levels, as proposed by the IPCC, then water would not be applicable to calculate the amount of heat produced by a change on carbon dioxide levels. It would be applicable to calculate the energy required to change the temperature of the biosphere, as would all matter in that biosphere. The reason I did not include methane, SO2, etc. in that calculation was that their contribution would be insignificant.
   
   Animal is arguing that I should have included the heating contribution from all greenhouse gases. And I may just take him up on that, although I doubt he will like the result.
   
   
2. 0.01& is the same as 0.0001, just as 100% is the same as 1 or 50& is the same as 0.5.
   
   
3. I multiplied 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K by 1,000,000,000, not 1,000,000. The reason is that the result was in kJ/km³•°K. One km is equal to 1000 m, there fore one km³ is equal to 1000³ m, or 1,000,000,000 m.

Hope that cleared it up for you.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/1/2009 by TheRedneck]

Oh ok, part 3 i just missed the k



I still don't get why you decided to add the ocean... Why not do the ground as well?

Realize this: CO2 is only a small greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is the most significant, but you can't stop that from happening right?

This is from the table that I have:

Contribution to global warming (excluding water):

CO2 50%. (Water can be 0-500% relative to CO2)

CH4, N20, O3, and CFCs can do the other 50%

CFCs are 10000-15000 more effective than CO2, it is 100% manmade, can't be destroyed, but we can stop it from increasing.






#2, I still don't get why you multiplied the amount of energy that reaches the sun by 0.01% which is the increase in CO2 levels.

What does that give you? It doesn't give you the amount of light trapped by CO2.







[edit on 12/1/2009 by die_another_day]

interesting s&f, i do not know what to believe anymore..

Your theory is flawed;

Its not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is causing global warming;

It is Carbon Monoxide (CO) which comes from burning fossil fuels;

I used to get these 2 elements mixed up alot when I was in the 5th grade;

Seems like the government or oil companies or TPTB switched the words and got everyone all confused;

I challenge you to use your formula again and replace Carbon Dioxide with Carbon Monoxide.....

[edit on 1-12-2009 by DjSharperimage]

reply to post by die_another_day


I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that your accusation that the calculations are faulty is a tad arrogant, since it is obvious that you don't even understand basic percentages:

0.01% is equal to 0.0001

When converting a percentage to a decimal number, you divide the value by 100 (move the decimal to the left by 2 places).

This is basic elementary mathematics, and if you are asking him why he converted 0.01% to 0.0001, I really don't think you should be accusing him of faulty calculations. Wouldn't the more logical conclusion be that you have a faulty understanding?

This was an amazing thread! S&F Too you!

reply to post by 4nsicphd


First a law professor now a commercial pilot? Excuse me? Just calling you out.

Are we now Lawman and Pro Pilot?

By the way OP, Followed your logic, did not confirm the numbers.

Will work through it later.

By the way, excellent S&F.

Oh and frack the people that think "normal" people cannot do the math.

Common sense and a little work is not that difficult.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by DjSharperimage


Catalytic converters convert CO to CO2, so since 1975 the issue they are talking about it mainly CO2...

Your Math is wrong, Also you can not explain the expansion of CO2 as it is a gas you need to use PV=NRT which is the en.wikipedia.org... When you talk about heat you also did not include any thermodynamic ratios or mathmatical constants. Also [K] = [°C] + 273.15. At any give time all the sun has to do is have a big fart and we all gone. All the earth has to do is shake her ass once and we are gone.

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by DjSharperimage

 

Catalytic converters convert CO to CO2, so since 1975 the issue they are talking about it mainly CO2...

A catalytic converter (colloquially, "cat" or "catcon") is a device used to reduce the toxicity of emissions from an internal combustion engine. First widely introduced on series-production automobiles in the U.S. market for the 1975 model year to comply with tightening EPA regulations on auto exhaust, catalytic converters are still most commonly used in motor vehicle exhaust systems. Catalytic converters are also used on generator sets, forklifts, mining equipment, trucks, buses, trains, and other engine-equipped machines. A catalytic converter provides an environment for a chemical reaction wherein toxic combustion by-products are converted to less-toxic substances.

How do you know these Catalyic Converters have been working at all?

Other than cars there are still other things that are creating more CARBON MINOXIDE (CO) (NOT CO2; THERE IS NO F'IN 2 IN IT FOREVER!!!!)
such as burning natural gas for heating, cooking, industrial companies, and also electric companies burning coal, and forest fires and etc....



[edit on 1-12-2009 by DjSharperimage]

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.