The Final Globe Earth v Flat Earth Debate

[calmac_man]

12 hours ago, Orraloon said:

That touches on something that I haven't yet seen explained adequately. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?

Most of the climate change/global warming discussion seems to be focused on CO2. Every time we burn one mole of a hydrocarbon we produce 1 mole of CO2 but we also produce another 2 moles of H2O. I believe water vapour has a bigger green house effect than CO2? As you say there is far, far more water vapour in the atmosphere than there is CO2. The amount and distribution of water vapour is much more variable than CO2. A lot of that water vapour is in the form of clouds which reflect heat as well as help to trap heat in. This must be very unpredictable and difficult to measure. Why is so much of the focus on CO2 when water vapour would seem to me to be much more important? 

 

 

 

Technical point first - doesn't the ratio of CO2 to H2O produced not depend on the particular hydrocarbon burned? I'm assuming that it's different for methane than octane, for instance.

The main thing that determines the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is the temperature. Generally speaking a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture. If you add water vapour to the atmosphere without increasing the temperature, it just falls back out of the sky pretty quickly - IIRC, within days. One way we see this is in the evening, when the air cools, excess moisture forms as dew or ground frost.

I'm not actually sure what happens to the water produced in most fossil fuel combustions. I'm guessing that in coal, oil and gas fired power plants in comes out as vapour, but I've no idea, nor am I sure how it comes out in cars. I know the IPCC aren't concerned about it though as they don't cover it in the ARs.

Exactly how water vapour will behave in an atmosphere with more CO2 is, I think, the main source of uncertainty in models. If it leads to more clouds then it would likely have a cooling effect. At the moment global temperatures are sitting nicely near the centre of the models, but it's fairly early days and there could be significant feedback loops. 

[calmac_man]

3 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Of all the contributers to this thread I only see one that is has no doubt and is 100% certain, remarkably enough he doesn't really do science.

This "doubt" thing is exploited to muddy the waters, and sadly a lot of people fall for it.

Some things are certain, some near certain, some probable, some uncertain. As you'll doubtless know from having read them, the IPCC are very clear throughout their reports how sure they are about what they say. Whether possible - which is in most of it - they're basing those assessments on probabilities from evidence.

So the bits that are certain - CO2 is the key greenhouse gas - though it's much less common than water vapour, water vapour tends to be regulated by temperature too, while CO2 regulates temperature; CO2 has risen by about 40% since the start of the industrial revolution, with most of that coming since 1970; that increase is almost entirely attributable to human activity.

The bits that are near certain: global air and ocean temperatures have risen since the start of the industrial revolution, with most of it coming since 1970; an increase in global temperatures is causing changes in climate systems.

The bits that are probable: without a huge reduction in human GHG emissions, global temperatures will continue to rise, causing rises in sea levels and more extremes of weather.

The bits that are uncertain: how much will temperatures rise if GHGs continue to rise; how much will sea levels rise; what will be the impacts on weather in specific regions.

If you want to disagree with that, you better have evidence at least as good as that on which the IPCC reports are based.

[calmac_man]

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Coz it is in a long term equilibrium?

And if you notice we are at the bottoming out of a recent ice age / cold curve and just on the way back up the historical temp scale...

It is going to go to 22C no matter what we do or do not do because that is what it always does...cycle after cycle over millions of years. In fact 22C is the earths default temp looking at the graph. It is the temp the earth likes to be at... most.  We are in a massive dip in temp while moaning about global warming. It is going to get hotter no matter. But the scale is millions of years. What is the point?  It puts all these hysterical CO2 claims into some perspective...

If the temperature is going to 22 degrees in a million years time, that's not something I'm worried about.

If the temperature is going to 17 degrees in 80 years time, that's something I'm very worried about.

If the temperature is going to 17 degrees in 80 years time because of human actions, that's a cause for the world to get together and sort it - which is what's happening, regardless of contrary opinions on the internet.

[Eisegerwind]

12 minutes ago, calmac_man said:

Technical point first - doesn't the ratio of CO2 to H2O produced not depend on the particular hydrocarbon burned? I'm assuming that it's different for methane than octane, for instance.

The main thing that determines the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is the temperature. Generally speaking a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture. If you add water vapour to the atmosphere without increasing the temperature, it just falls back out of the sky pretty quickly - IIRC, within days. One way we see this is in the evening, when the air cools, excess moisture forms as dew or ground frost.

I'm not actually sure what happens to the water produced in most fossil fuel combustions. I'm guessing that in coal, oil and gas fired power plants in comes out as vapour, but I've no idea, nor am I sure how it comes out in cars. I know the IPCC aren't concerned about it though as they don't cover it in the ARs.

Exactly how water vapour will behave in an atmosphere with more CO2 is, I think, the main source of uncertainty in models. If it leads to more clouds then it would likely have a cooling effect. At the moment global temperatures are sitting nicely near the centre of the models, but it's fairly early days and there could be significant feedback loops. 

Worryingly, you've assumed wrongly. The ratio of co2 and h2o will be the same for any alkane. This is basic fundamental stuff.

[calmac_man]

13 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

That's fascinating, and gives some authority to a niggling feeling I've had for some time. The scientific method is wide open to abuse. Thanks for the link.

And yet, is there any branch of science under more attention than climate science? Over time and through scrutiny AGW theory hasn't weakened one iota, in fact it is firming up. 

[calmac_man]

2 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Worryingly, you've assumed wrongly. The ratio of co2 and h2o will be the same for any alkane. This is basic fundamental stuff.

Methane: CH4 + 2xO2 = CO2 + 2xH2O + heat.

Octane: 2xC8H18 + 25xO2 = 16xCO2 + 18xH2O + heat.

So for methane there are two moles of water for ever mole of carbon dioxide; for octane there are nearly equal moles of water and carbon dioxide. This is because, as the hydrocarbon gets longer, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen atoms changes.

You're right, this is fairly fundamental stuff. I did it in O Grade Chemistry. Please tell me this isn't your job or anything.

 

[Eisegerwind]

5 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Worryingly, you've assumed wrongly. The ratio of co2 and h2o will be the same for any alkane. This is basic fundamental stuff.

Shit, apologies. The ratios will be different for different alkanes, had to get pen and paper out. Anyway it's still basic fundamental stuff that we shouldn't make assumptions about.

[calmac_man]

12 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

He did show that Newton was wrong, even though Newtonian mechanics still works on most scales. It's not that Newton was right, it's just that the results of his wrongness still work ...

That's a great way of putting it. For slow moving lumps of carbon like ourselves, monkeys in shoes, Newtonian physics explains our lives just fine.

Saying it hurts when we jump from a high thing because mass curves spacetime isn't terribly useful information.

[calmac_man]

10 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Up until a few years ago I would have agreed that that is probably correct but now I'm a little less sure of that. I would need more convincing that we have a system in place that can measure the temperature of a planet to a sufficient degree of accuracy to be able to to say that the planets temp has increased by, say, 0.2 degrees in the last decade, or whatever the number is. 

I'm sure it would be possible to do this, but how much data would we need to have sufficient confidence in the level of accuracy? And how reliable is the data? That's the bit I would need more convincing of.

Each of the last three years has been the warmest recorded. Given the number of different organisations taking different measurements in different ways and getting the same results (or close enough), it doesn't look like there's cause to doubt the data. Measuring temperature isn't a particularly complex thing to do, at least not for organisation who land spaceships on comets or create the coldest place in the universe in a lab, so the range of uncertainty is small.

Climate scientists like those at NASA, the Met Office and the NOAA have become much more confident in the past few years about AGW.  

[calmac_man]

4 hours ago, phart said:

The 22C come from the "Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum" a huge warming event 55 million years ago. Which coincidentally helped bring about conditions for our ancestors to thrive.

The models don't predict that and it's considered analogous to current day events, in fact it's barely understood at all, but of course "the science is settled".

Saying Science is settled is another one of those "offensive" remarks that folk have been whining about in this thread.

 

Saying the science is settled reflects the fact that, on the fundamentals, the science is settled. The predictions are a different matter.

Nobody has a problem with accepting the science is settled on any number of incredibly complex areas of science. The science is settled on whether you can send music, see things, heat your dinner and kill things using the same time of wave. Nobody takes the hump with that.

In my opinion there are two main reasons for climate change scepticism and denial (they're different things).

The first is that responding to climate change requires a collective response, led by government, across the globe. That sits very badly with a lot of people. There were objections to controlling CFCs to protect the ozone layer; I imagine they would be a million times louder in the age of social media. It also requires limitations on individual freedoms like flying, driving, having a big hoose and lining the walls with three-bar fires, and it means making sacrifices to benefit people in Bangladesh and Vietnam. It's antithetical to the politics of a lot of people, and I genuinely respect that. 

The second reason is that people don't like the people who are saying that humans are changing the climate. A self-appointed cadre of elitists, speaking in terms nobody else can understand, most of whom have clearly green, left of centre politics, and have always been happy to tell other people how to live their lives from the comfort of their ivory towers. Superior sunsofbitches. Like me, for instance, only with qualifications.

There's maybe a third thing, that some people can't accept that knowing vastly less than someone else is a barrier to having an opinion. I don't have a scooby about trade and the impact Brexit will have on it, or the best way to organise hospitals, or what to do about North Korea. I'll leave those things to people who know a helluva lot more than me. It seems that on the internet, a little knowledge is a licence to believe anything.

Climate science is really only a live political issue in the USA, probably because of the nature of their politics. There are plenty of sceptics and deniers elsewhere in the world, of course, but there are very, very few mainstream political parties representing that view. Even here, the Tories are by European standards pretty right wing for a centre-right party, and they've introduced some of the strongest climate legislation and policies around.

And with that, I'll bid you goodnight. 

[calmac_man]

26 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Shit, apologies. The ratios will be different for different alkanes, had to get pen and paper out. Anyway it's still basic fundamental stuff that we shouldn't make assumptions about.

Amen bud 

[ParisInAKilt]

Trust in government, they are looking out for us all. 

[biffer]

12 hours ago, phart said:

The 22C come from the "Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum" a huge warming event 55 million years ago. Which coincidentally helped bring about conditions for our ancestors to thrive.

The models don't predict that and it's considered analogous to current day events, in fact it's barely understood at all, but of course "the science is settled".

Saying Science is settled is another one of those "offensive" remarks that folk have been whining about in this thread.

 

However, there is such a thing a settled science.

[biffer]

6 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Trust in government, they are looking out for us all. 

Who suggested that?

[ParisInAKilt]

24 minutes ago, biffer said:

Who suggested that?

Some of Calmac mans last post had shades of that. 

[biffer]

30 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Some of Calmac mans last post had shades of that. 

No, he said it required a collective government response. That doesn’t mean we all have to place our trust in government. It just means there are some things we need to get government to do. 

[ParisInAKilt]

17 minutes ago, biffer said:

No, he said it required a collective government response. That doesn’t mean we all have to place our trust in government. It just means there are some things we need to get government to do. 

More and more I tend not to agree with that. 

[thplinth]

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=17190

The average global temperature is...impossible to measure and harder to calculate than you might think. While GISS and RSS and UAH and GHCN might be a confusing jumble of letters to most people, there are people pushing for global taxes, global courts and individual carbon budgets based on these data sets. So let's roll up our sleeves and take a look at the concept of "average global temperature."

[thplinth]

This is not only about a cycle on a scale of millions of years, there are cycles within cycles at lower scales.

This is the ice core data...just on the 'recent past'. There is a very clear pattern there that is obviously independent of man made CO2 and where are we on the curve today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

This is also interesting...

"The last 3 million years have been characterized by cycles of glacials and interglacials within a gradually deepening ice age. Currently, the Earth is in an interglacial period, beginning about 20,000 years ago (20 kya)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Cycles within cycles within cycles...

Edited September 29, 2017 by thplinth

[biffer]

The first graph demonstrates the milankovitch cycles, which I mentioned earlier, pretty well. Three different cycles to do with the earth’s orbit which have periods of about 100,000, 41,000 and 23,000 years. The first and last of those have a definite effect on climate; the first changes the eccentricity of the orbit, i.e. its ‘ovalness’, so at times in our orbit of the sun we’re closer and other times further away, this leads to climate changes, and the last is the precession of the axis of rotation of the earth i.e. which way it points at what time of year, so it changes the point we reach winter in the orbit - so when you have winter when we’re a bit further away, it’s colder. The understanding of the impact of the 41k cycle, which is the change in the angle of the axis of rotation is not so well understood, but it’s hypothesised that it encourages more ice sheet formation when it’s at less of an angle, which will also have a climate effect, more ice meaning higher albedo and colder temperatures.

[biffer]

Second graph is a bit weird, has the 41k cycle marked over one and a half million years, unless it’s suggesting the variation in the line over that time is indicative of that cycle, although I wouldn’t have thought it’d be particularly visible on that scale.

edit - ok, having read a wee bit, I understand what it’s saying now. There seems to have been a change from dominance of the 41k cycle to the 100k cycle about a million years ago, the reasons for which are unclear. 

 

Also so if you dig into those articles a wee bit, it agrees with what I was saying earlier about feedback cycles amplifying the effects of the changes caused by initial changes from external causes. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by biffer

[ParisInAKilt]

59 minutes ago, thplinth said:

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=17190

The average global temperature is...impossible to measure and harder to calculate than you might think. While GISS and RSS and UAH and GHCN might be a confusing jumble of letters to most people, there are people pushing for global taxes, global courts and individual carbon budgets based on these data sets. So let's roll up our sleeves and take a look at the concept of "average global temperature."

Been following the Corbett report for awhile now. His Chomsky video actually annoyed me at first because it challenged my views on him and the world but on repeated viewings it was hard to disagree with it. 

[mariokempes56]

11 hours ago, neilser said:

To get some idea of how the Mercator projection map of the world distorts the reality, the image below is what a football would look like:

 

#kin hell man - footballs are flat as well ??

[thplinth]

I like these alternative theories because they challenge people to really think about why they prefer one theory over another.

The current 'expansion tectonics' guy is a geologist who did his master and phd in the subject. 

It is an hour and a half but interesting.  There is serious stuff he cannot explain (mass creation) but wow I find it curious that it collapses into a smaller sphere as you gradually take out the newer rocks.

There is actually a theory that could explain it - changing gravitational constant - leading to a slowly expanding earth. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by thplinth

[Eisegerwind]

On 09/27/2017 at 2:05 AM, calmac_man said:

I can see what you're saying. It's always worth challenging what we know and how we know it.

What, in my opinion, is a waste of time is demonstrating clearly to someone why their idea is definitely wrong, only for them to ignore everything you've said and carry on regardless. Flat earthers don't have an answer to how triangulation shows the curve of the earth, or how you can see beyond the horizon as you gain height, or any one of the things I put in my long posts. 

And the things the do have answers for are mental. For instance, their only explanation for gravity that doesn't see people in Australia slidims-2. At this rate we'd be past the speed of light within a single year. That's maths that anyone can do. We know that's not possible, but just in case it is, if we were doing that speed we wouldn't be able to see things below is because the light couldn't reach our eyes.

It's a worrying trend of our time that people seem to increasingly be believing in things that are manifestly stupid. And it doesn't matter how often their ideas are trashed, or that they have no answers, they just scream "conspiracy!" and carry on regardless.

I'll end with this: there was a time when the Islamic culture led the world in philosophy, science and art. For a whole bunch of historical and theological reasons they regressed into unquestioning obedience and the celebration of faith without doubt. We live in a time when half of the people in the richest, most powerful country in the world believe the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old, and now they've elected a barely functioning cretin who said climate change is a hoax invented by China, and he doesn't exercise because that uses up your energy. What happened to Islamic culture has happened to the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Ottomans and many others. Civilisations fall when they abandon reason for absolute bullshit and we're no different from those who have gone before.

'cause I'm really old I like to do a bit of mental arithmetic  to stave off dementia.

So without the aid of a net or calculators or computers I have deduced we are currently travelling at 30 times the speed of light. (based on the 6000 years God botherer existence and not taking into account the god botherer fact that light doesn't have a speed and just is).

TARAAA......?..

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Eisegerwind
arithmetic maths is pushing it a bit.