Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

[ding]

Well, I have gone many days without hearing such a warning and I live quite close to the ocean. But, of course, global warming is taking place and as a result, sea levels are rising worldwide.

At the same rate they have been for the last 6,000 years. You projections of sea level rise tripling in ten years will be proven wrong by time. The catastrophic projections your cult makes and you believe are hysterical.

 

[Crick]

Your graphs have been proven false long ago.

No they have not. And you haven't done diddly squat for the last couple years but shoot off your unsubstantiated mouth. Let's see some actual evidence supporting your claims.

 

[westwall]

No they have not. And you haven't done diddly squat for the last couple years but shoot off your unsubstantiated mouth. Let's see some actual evidence supporting your claims.

Uh, yeah, they have.

 

[Crick]

Uh, yeah, they have.

Let's see if I can find any. I will do a search on "studies refuting global temperature data". Here's what I got (ignoring the sponsored links):

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records​

https://climate.nasa.gov › ask-nasa-climate › the-raw-tru...



Mar 25, 2021 — Ensuring the accuracy of Earth's long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking.
Missing: refuting ‎| Must include: refuting

• 
  

  World of Change: Global Temperatures​

  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov › world-of-change
  
  
  
  According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth ...

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface ...​

https://www.science.org › doi › science.aaa5632



by TR Karl · 2015 · Cited by 735 — Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that ...

People also search for​

global temperature graph 100,000 yearsaverage global temperature by yearglobal temperature history
how is global temperature measuredaverage global temperature last 10 yearsglobal temperature graph 10,000 years nasa

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about ...​

https://www.carbonbrief.org › factcheck-mail-sundays-...



Feb 5, 2017 — Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al) NOAA ...

People also search for​

global temperature graph 100,000 yearsaverage global temperature by yearglobal temperature history
how is global temperature measuredaverage global temperature last 10 yearsglobal temperature graph 10,000 years nasa

The truth about global temperature data | Ars Technica​

https://arstechnica.com › science › 2016/01 › thorough-...



Jan 21, 2016 — How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.

We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature ...​

https://blog.ucsusa.org › brenda-ekwurzel › we-fact-che...



Jul 21, 2017 — Independent peer-review of scientific research by qualified experts lies at ... NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data, ...

United in Science: We are Heading in the Wrong Direction​

https://unfccc.int › news › united-in-science-we-are-hea...



Sep 13, 2022 — As global warming increases, “tipping points” in the climate system ... Preliminary data shows that global CO2 emissions in 2022 (January to ...

WMO update: 50:50 chance of global temperature temporarily ...​

https://public.wmo.int › media › press-release › wmo-u...



May 9, 2022 — the Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update - May 22 ... capability was driven by the WMO co-sponsored World Climate Research Programme, ...
Missing: refuting ‎| Must include: refuting

Chapter 1 — Global Warming of 1.5 ºC - IPCC​

https://www.ipcc.ch › chapter › chapter-1



Mitigation studies focus on human-induced warming (that is not subject to internal climate variability), while studies of climate change impacts typically refer ...

Global Warming's Great Hiatus Gets Another Debunking​

https://insideclimatenews.org › News



Jun 4, 2015 — The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science this week, ... The “newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data ...

Well, sorry to say none of these support your claim in the slightest. In fact, several of them say you're full of shit. Why don't you just show us what you're talking about.

 

[ding]

Let's see if I can find any. I will do a search on "studies refuting global temperature data". Here's what I got (ignoring the sponsored links):

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records​

https://climate.nasa.gov › ask-nasa-climate › the-raw-tru...



Mar 25, 2021 — Ensuring the accuracy of Earth's long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking.
Missing: refuting ‎| Must include: refuting

• 
  

  World of Change: Global Temperatures​

  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov › world-of-change
  
  
  
  According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth ...

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface ...​

https://www.science.org › doi › science.aaa5632



by TR Karl · 2015 · Cited by 735 — Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that ...

People also search for​

global temperature graph 100,000 yearsaverage global temperature by yearglobal temperature history
how is global temperature measuredaverage global temperature last 10 yearsglobal temperature graph 10,000 years nasa

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about ...​

https://www.carbonbrief.org › factcheck-mail-sundays-...



Feb 5, 2017 — Global land/ocean temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley/UAE, and Cowtan and Way. Note that the old (pre-Karl et al) NOAA ...

People also search for​

global temperature graph 100,000 yearsaverage global temperature by yearglobal temperature history
how is global temperature measuredaverage global temperature last 10 yearsglobal temperature graph 10,000 years nasa

The truth about global temperature data | Ars Technica​

https://arstechnica.com › science › 2016/01 › thorough-...



Jan 21, 2016 — How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.

We Fact-Checked a Bogus "Study" on Global Temperature ...​

https://blog.ucsusa.org › brenda-ekwurzel › we-fact-che...



Jul 21, 2017 — Independent peer-review of scientific research by qualified experts lies at ... NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data, ...

United in Science: We are Heading in the Wrong Direction​

https://unfccc.int › news › united-in-science-we-are-hea...



Sep 13, 2022 — As global warming increases, “tipping points” in the climate system ... Preliminary data shows that global CO2 emissions in 2022 (January to ...

WMO update: 50:50 chance of global temperature temporarily ...​

https://public.wmo.int › media › press-release › wmo-u...



May 9, 2022 — the Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update - May 22 ... capability was driven by the WMO co-sponsored World Climate Research Programme, ...
Missing: refuting ‎| Must include: refuting

Chapter 1 — Global Warming of 1.5 ºC - IPCC​

https://www.ipcc.ch › chapter › chapter-1



Mitigation studies focus on human-induced warming (that is not subject to internal climate variability), while studies of climate change impacts typically refer ...

Global Warming's Great Hiatus Gets Another Debunking​

https://insideclimatenews.org › News



Jun 4, 2015 — The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science this week, ... The “newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data ...

Well, sorry to say none of these support your claim in the slightest. In fact, several of them say you're full of shit. Why don't you just show us what you're talking about.

I think global temperature reconstructions are crap. If you want to see what's going on with respect to climate, look at northern hemisphere ice cores. They show the unvarnished truth.

 

[Crick]

I think global temperature reconstructions are crap. If you want to see what's going on with respect to climate, look at northern hemisphere ice cores. They show the unvarnished truth.

And your reasons for believing either of those claims, particularly when all of mainstream science says no such thing? You're smarter than them? They're all in a conspiracy to lie to us in order to get wealthy off research grants? Scientists want to destroy the economy so everyone can go back to the stone age?

 

[ding]

And your reasons for believing either of those claims, particularly when all of mainstream science says no such thing? You're smarter than them? They're all in a conspiracy to lie to us in order to get wealthy off research grants? Scientists want to destroy the economy so everyone can go back to the stone age?

1. Ice core data does not have the errors associated with combining measurements from all around the world and are therefore more reliable.
2. Warming and cooling occur incrementally more in polar regions which make those readings more representative of warming and cooling trends.
3. Global temperature reconstructions do not show how much warmer the planet was in the past like the more reliable ice core data does.

 

[Crick]

​

1. Ice core data does not have the errors associated with combining measurements from all around the world and are therefore more reliable.

Temperature data from ice cores is regional. It is entirely possible (as in Greenland's cores, for instance) for temperature data from core to inaccurately reflect global trends. O18 in ice cores is just another proxy. If you want to determine the average temperature of the entire planet, a large and broad sample is superior to a single source.

1. Warming and cooling occur incrementally more in polar regions which make those readings more representative of warming and cooling trends.

Definition: INCREMENTALLY:

in regular increases, additions, or stages.​

"change occurs incrementally for most people"​

• MATHEMATICS
  
  in a way that creates a small positive or negative change in a variable quantity or function.
  

  ​

  
  Your statement is essentially meaningless. Why should changes at the poles be more incremental than the rest of the planet and why would that make it more representative of global temperatures than a collection of samples from all over the planet? For the last few decades the poles have been warming much faster than the rest of the planet and have probably been the least representative region.​

1. Global temperature reconstructions do not show how much warmer the planet was in the past like the more reliable ice core data does.

Temperature data from an ice core IS a reconstruction.

You have yet to provide an iota of evidence to support your claims. And as we all should know, just saying it doesn't make it so.

However, here is an article you might want to read. It tells me that some of the processes that you'd like to blame for global warming are the actual cause of the amplified warming at the poles making them the least representative region of the planet. It's not long. Do yourself a favor and read it.

NASA - What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth?

Researchers have found that energy in the atmosphere carried to the poles through large weather systems is causing accelerated warming.

www.nasa.gov

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your statement is essentially meaningless.

If only that statement sufficed to rebut so many around here as it would in any logical space. As with our politics, every day discussion continues to descend into a hollow exercise ranging from narcissism to nihilism.

 

[ding]

Temperature data from ice cores is regional. It is entirely possible (as in Greenland's cores, for instance) for temperature data from core to inaccurately reflect global trends. O18 in ice cores is just another proxy. If you want to determine the average temperature of the entire planet, a large and broad sample is superior to a single source.

From the most affected region of the planet from temperature changes which is why it's the best proxy for temperature changes.

 

[ding]

Your statement is essentially meaningless. Why should changes at the poles be more incremental than the rest of the planet and why would that make it more representative of global temperatures than a collection of samples from all over the planet? For the last few decades the poles have been warming much faster than the rest of the planet and have probably been the least representative region.

Because that is where the most INCREMENTAL changes occur. When the planet warms it warms the most in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

 

[ding]

Temperature data from an ice core IS a reconstruction.

You have yet to provide an iota of evidence to support your claims. And as we all should know, just saying it doesn't make it so.

However, here is an article you might want to read. It tells me that some of the processes that you'd like to blame for global warming are the actual cause of the amplified warming at the poles making them the least representative region of the planet. It's not long. Do yourself a favor and read it.

From six ice cores in the most affected region of the planet when warming occurs. You don't like this data because it shows climate fluctuations and warmer temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

 

[Crick]

From the most affected region of the planet from temperature changes which is why it's the best proxy for temperature changes.

There was a lesson to be learned from the information you just took in (that polar warming is amplified) but the statement immediately above here wasn't it.

 

[ding]

There was a lesson to be learned from the information you just took in (that polar warming is amplified) but the statement immediately above here wasn't it.

Can you state that in English please?

 

[Crick]

You had just (presumably) read an article to which I had linked which explained that warming at the poles was amplified by warm tropical air being carried northward. There was a lesson for you to learn: that sometimes the evidence doesn't all line up and when that happens its an indicator that we may not have the grasp on things we thought we did. But you chose to double down and tell us that giving weighted preference to a dataset that you had just been told did not match global trends was a good idea.

Shakes head...

 

[Grumblenuts]

I remain confident that intelligent conversation regarding climate change is entirely possible at a pedestrian level. I'd substitute "definitely don't" for "may not" in:

we may not have the grasp on things we thought we did.

But that shouldn't dissuade anyone. To the contrary. It should signal the clear need to keep testing our premises until we finally pin down that last pesky, seemingly intractable bug that's been gumming up the works the entire time,.. and smash it. Science!

In the meantime, we can still enjoy the odd pie fights.

 

[Pappadave1]

No ... the typical Indiana farmer plows his fields every year so the forest doesn't grow back ... 95% of the state is under agriculture, nothing natural about that ...

I agree with you about carbon dioxide's effect on the atmosphere, my point is that it's not the only thing that causes climate change, deforestation is an example where local climate can be changed ...

You haven't driven through southern Indiana lately, have you?

 

[Crick]

You haven't driven through southern Indiana lately, have you?

What are you saying about southern Indiana?

 

[Crick]

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

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.​

Article's from a couple of years ago. He makes a point I haven't ever seen discussed:

The atmosphere just can't hold enough heat to warm up the oceans.

Can anyone knowledgeable of thermodynamics point out any flaws in his reasoning?

The ocean is heated in several ways. It absorbs the visible light coming from the sun. IR backscatter from CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed in a thin layer at the ocean's surface. Some of that heat is mixed deeper but the major process here is that the warming of the very surface of the ocean prevents heat from lower depths from radiating away. And the ocean is heated by conduction and convection from the warm air. I'm afraid the author of this piece, Dr Mark Imisides, has zero experience with atmospheric chemistry or physics.

 

[jc456]

that warming at the poles was amplified by warm tropical air being carried northward

isn't that most often always the case? It isn't due to CO2, it's due to warm tropical air carried northward. You finally get it. No CO2 issue.