Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Pete in Panama]

That and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, principally.

In fact it was Svante Arrhenius (of chemical rate theory fame*) who was the first to write about the potential warming effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere, around 1900. So the basic idea has been around for ages. Oxygen, nitrogen and argon have no dipole in the molecule to couple to IR electromagnetic radiation, so they are transparent to IR. But CO2 and water do have dipoles and do absorb. Radiation in the visible range reaches the Earth's surface from the sun, where it is absorbed and warms the ground. Warm objects emit IR radiation. So that is what the surface of the Earth re-radiates upward. At night this radiation goes out through the atmosphere into space, balancing the energy of the incoming radiation from the sun. Gases that absorb in the IR intercept this radiation from the surface and re-emit it in random directions. So instead of going straight out, it bounces around in the atmosphere for a long time - more retained heat. With water vapour, there is an equilibrium between evaporation from the oceans and rainfall. If due to CO2 the atmosphere warms a bit, that equilibrium moves a bit, since warmer air can accommodate more water vapour before it starts to condense. (You can look up graphs of saturated vapour pressure vs. temperature). The effect is that the warming due to CO2 alone is amplified by water vapour.

The are other measurements that confirm this is going on. I read recently that there is a trend to decreasing temperature in the upper atmosphere. This is consistent with the model. Since the exit of heat is delayed by the greenhouse gases, it reaches these high altitudes more slowly than before, so the lower atmosphere heats up while the upper atmosphere gets colder.

Obviously, collecting all these measurements over time is a complex business, as are the atmospheric models that have been constructed to predict the effects, but the evidence is pretty clear now.

It has certainly convinced almost all governments, the motor industry, the fossil fuel industry (in which I used to work) and the insurance industry. I read the Financial Times and every day now there is at least one article on some aspect of the changes we will need to make to the way we meet our energy needs. One day it may be the geopolitics of lithium mining and refining, another the changes to electricity grids to support more distributed power generation, or the pros and cons of carbon permit trading systems......it's a constant drumbeat now.

The days when climate change was just the concern of a few lefties in bobble hats are long gone. It's on us, and huge changes are afoot. It may be more apparent to me in London than to you in Panama, if that is where you are. Also from my background I'm perhaps more au fait with the issues of the energy transition. But it's real, it's transnational and it's very big.


* Optional extra nerd-out :-
Arrhenius equation: rate constant, k = A.exp(-Ea/RT), where Ea is the activation energy of the rate limiting step. (A is a proportionality constant, known simply as the "pre-exponential factor", which in practice relates to the probability of the molecules being correctly oriented to react in each encounter.)

There's a lot you're getting into and later we can explore it all, but in your first word you seem to be agreeing w/ the concept that the earth is warming. Please confirm you're saying that the earth is warming. Are you also saying that the earth is warming because of the greenhouse effect?

 

[Pete in Panama]

My response was to say that your concern is an irrelevant derail, since the OP stipulates to AGW and poses an entirely different question. I understand that you want to debate AGW...

That's where we may be going wrong. I have no interest in debating AGW. My situation is that while I don't understand how the greenhouse effect can heat up the earth, at the same time there are a lot of very good people who swear by it. What I'm trying to find out is how it could be true.

If you're available, please help me out and tell me if you understand that the earth is heating up because of the greenhouse effect. If so, I'd be grateful if you could also go over my reasoning on why I consider this impossible and tell me what I'm missing.

 

[Copernicus]

That's where we may be going wrong. I have no interest in debating AGW. My situation is that while I don't understand how the greenhouse effect can heat up the earth, at the same time there are a lot of very good people who swear by it. What I'm trying to find out is how it could be true.

If you're available, please help me out and tell me if you understand that the earth is heating up because of the greenhouse effect. If so, I'd be grateful if you could also go over my reasoning on why I consider this impossible and tell me what I'm missing.

Pete, you are asking me to explain basic science to you, but that information is available all over the internet. CO2 has been known as a greenhouse gas since 1859. The science is not new or controversial. We can measure the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and nobody is surprised that it traps heat in the atmosphere and is a major cause of global warming. You say you are interested in finding out how the greenhouse effect can heat up the atmosphere. But you want me to explain it to you rather than just read simple, clear explanations on an EPA web site that explains it far better than I could. Here:

Basics of Climate Change​

Do you want me to go to that page, summarize the information, spend time explaining it to you here and maybe provide you with diagrams that you can find on that page? I just don't see how that is worth my time or yours.

Clearly, you've been in these debates before and haven't been convinced by others. I have no idea why, but I am loathe to spend more time trying to convince you how your interpretation of the basic science on that page doesn't work for you. I urge you to ask people with greater knowledge of the subject than I have what it is that you are missing. Those are the ones with the expertise in the subject matter.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Pete, you are asking me to explain basic science to you, but that information is available all over the internet. CO2 has been known as a greenhouse gas since 1859. The science is not new or controversial. We can measure the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and nobody is surprised that it traps heat in the atmosphere and is a major cause of global warming. You say you are interested in finding out how the greenhouse effect can heat up the atmosphere. But you want me to explain it to you rather than just read simple, clear explanations on an EPA web site that explains it far better than I could. Here:

Basics of Climate Change​

Do you want me to go to that page, summarize the information, spend time explaining it to you here and maybe provide you with diagrams that you can find on that page? I just don't see how that is worth my time or yours.

Clearly, you've been in these debates before and haven't been convinced by others. I have no idea why, but I am loathe to spend more time trying to convince you how your interpretation of the basic science on that page doesn't work for you. I urge you to ask people with greater knowledge of the subject than I have what it is that you are missing. Those are the ones with the expertise in the subject matter.

When you say something to the effect that we got "global warming" it sounds like you're saying that the earth is heating up. Some say that it's not the entire earth but rather a small part of the earth that's heating. Have you thought about this? For me this is an important distinction.

 

[Copernicus]

When you say something to the effect that we got "global warming" it sounds like you're saying that the earth is heating up. Some say that it's not the entire earth but rather a small part of the earth that's heating. Have you thought about this? For me this is an important distinction.

When you say "some say...", who does the "some" refer to, and why do you believe what they tell you? Unless you can be more specific, I have no idea what you are talking about. The average (i.e. mean) temperature of the surface of the Earth is increasing. The people who say that are scientists who have measured and calculated it. See this chart:

Climate Change: Global Temperature​

You can look these facts up. I didn't do the science, so why ask me about something that you can easily verify yourself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say something to the effect that we got "global warming" it sounds like you're saying that the earth is heating up. Some say that it's not the entire earth but rather a small part of the earth that's heating. Have you thought about this? For me this is an important distinction.

Overall there is definite warming. Some areas are warming faster than others. Why is that an important distinction? Do you think that the areas getting the worst of it right now get any solace that it is warming less quickly at the equator?

 

[exchemist]

There's a lot you're getting into and later we can explore it all, but in your first word you seem to be agreeing w/ the concept that the earth is warming. Please confirm you're saying that the earth is warming. Are you also saying that the earth is warming because of the greenhouse effect?

Please don't waste my time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

View attachment 80397

Translation between the lines....

Means all the more more voters and taxpayers to gleefully fleece and milk.

 

[exchemist]

When you say something to the effect that we got "global warming" it sounds like you're saying that the earth is heating up. Some say that it's not the entire earth but rather a small part of the earth that's heating. Have you thought about this? For me this is an important distinction.

Yes. The surface and the lower atmosphere, i.e. the bits that affect the climate.

 

[Pete in Panama]

When you say "some say...", who does the "some" refer to, and why do you believe what they tell you? ...

The reason I say that the greenhouse effect cannot raise the temp of the earth (by the one-plus degrees since the industrial revolution everyone seems to agree on), is because of what we know what our middle school science class told us about how heat works:

• We know that it takes one calorie of heat to raise the temp of on gram of water one degree C.
• We know the mass of the earth is 5.9722x10^24 kg.
• We can guess that the average specific heat of the earth is around 800 cal/kg ⋅ C --not critical.
• The amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun is 173,000 terawatts.

All this tells us that if 100% of the suns energy was absorbed by the earth (100% greenhouse) then it would take about 10,000 years for the earth to heat up one degree. So we know the globe is not warming but it's possible that the biosphere or part of it is. I've seen some sources that say the ocean (the vast majority of the mass that's heating) is heating to a depth of some amount. Sources differ as to just how much.

This is basic. AGW advocates say the earth is heating because of the greenhouse. We know that's not true. It's possible that a part of it is. I'm trying to find out what part. So far I can't find an agreement. Maybe there is but I can't find it. Agreement on the main AGW premise means we have to have agreement on what mass is heating. You say AGW is correct. You tell me, what mass is heating?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Please don't waste my time.

No problem, I simply did not realize that you were excluding me from your posts. I'll be sure to avoid you in the future. Sorry about that.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yes. The surface and the lower atmosphere, i.e. the bits that affect the climate.

huh, we're still talking, I must have misunderstood something.

Thanks so much for clarifying this as it's an important point for me. I got into this w/ Copernicus above when I said...

...

• We know that it takes one calorie of heat to raise the temp of on gram of water one degree C.
• We know the mass of the earth is 5.9722x10^24 kg.
• We can guess that the average specific heat of the earth is around 800 cal/kg ⋅ C --not critical.
• The amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun is 173,000 terawatts.

All this tells us that if 100% of the suns energy was absorbed by the earth (100% greenhouse) then it would take about 10,000 years for the earth to heat up one degree. So we know the globe is not warming but it's possible that the biosphere or part of it is. I've seen some sources that say the ocean (the vast majority of the mass that's heating) is heating to a depth of some amount. Sources differ as to just how much.

This is basic. AGW advocates say the earth is heating because of the greenhouse. We know that's not true. It's possible that a part of it is. I'm trying to find out what part. So far I can't find an agreement. Maybe there is but I can't find it. Agreement on the main AGW premise means we have to have agreement on what mass is heating. You say AGW is correct. You tell me, what mass is heating?

--and for me the entire AGW premise rides on defining the mass we're heating. Please remember that a surface cannot be heated because in this universe all physical surfaces are connected to something that must be identified. Most of the earth is ocean. Heating the surface of the ocean will heat up at least the top part. My thinking is that an advocate for AGW would understand what part of the ocean is heating.

Have you ever thought about this?

 

[exchemist]

huh, we're still talking, I must have misunderstood something.

Thanks so much for clarifying this as it's an important point for me. I got into this w/ Copernicus above when I said...

--and for me the entire AGW premise rides on defining the mass we're heating. Please remember that a surface cannot be heated because in this universe all physical surfaces are connected to something that must be identified. Most of the earth is ocean. Heating the surface of the ocean will heat up at least the top part. My thinking is that an advocate for AGW would understand what part of the ocean is heating.

Have you ever thought about this?

Finally we get to it. Why the time-wasting run-around? If you genuinely had an issue with some of the science, you should have stated your difficulty up-front, so it could be addressed.

Yes, obviously it is the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the surface of the earth, in particular the seas and icecaps, that affects the climate, so that is the part of the earth that climate change science is concerned with. Surely you can't be so foolish as to imagine the entire volume of the earth, including the mantle and core, which are mostly at temperatures >1000C already, is what is meant?

A surface most certainly can be heated, which will transfer heat to an adjacent layer, whether land, sea or air. I found this for you after a 15 second internet search: Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content. It explains quite nicely the effect on the seas.

As a matter of fact, a good proportion of the predicted rise in sea level comes from pure thermal expansion of the water. The melting of the icecaps merely makes it worse.

If you have any other reasons for scepticism about the climate change issue, let's have them, clearly stated and out in the open, please. I'll do my best with genuine questions of science, but I do not have the patience for silly games.

 

[wellwisher]

Alright, here is another test of your competency. Do you know if they have confirmed that CO2 levels have been increasing? How do they know that or why don't they know that? If it is increasing how can they possibly tell that the CO2 is from man?

Natural climate change cycles also show changes in natural CO2. I do not deny the importance of CO2.

CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water. If we heat the oceans from below or from above, CO2 will be released by the oceans, if there are saturated; shells and limestone. We do not have the monitors in place below the ocean to factor this out. CO2 is also released by volcanoes on the surface as well as by all animal life. Soil Bacteria also release CO2. Swamps are noted for CO2 and methane. Bacteria do better in warmer water, so any extra heating; natural or manmade, will make natural bacteria CO2 output go up.

That and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, principally.

In fact it was Svante Arrhenius (of chemical rate theory fame*) who was the first to write about the potential warming effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere, around 1900. So the basic idea has been around for ages. Oxygen, nitrogen and argon have no dipole in the molecule to couple to IR electromagnetic radiation, so they are transparent to IR. But CO2 and water do have dipoles and do absorb. Radiation in the visible range reaches the Earth's surface from the sun, where it is absorbed and warms the ground. Warm objects emit IR radiation. So that is what the surface of the Earth re-radiates upward. At night this radiation goes out through the atmosphere into space, balancing the energy of the incoming radiation from the sun. Gases that absorb in the IR intercept this radiation from the surface and re-emit it in random directions. So instead of going straight out, it bounces around in the atmosphere for a long time - more retained heat. With water vapour, there is an equilibrium between evaporation from the oceans and rainfall. If due to CO2 the atmosphere warms a bit, that equilibrium moves a bit, since warmer air can accommodate more water vapour before it starts to condense. (You can look up graphs of saturated vapour pressure vs. temperature). The effect is that the warming due to CO2 alone is amplified by water vapour.

The are other measurements that confirm this is going on. I read recently that there is a trend to decreasing temperature in the upper atmosphere. This is consistent with the model. Since the exit of heat is delayed by the greenhouse gases, it reaches these high altitudes more slowly than before, so the lower atmosphere heats up while the upper atmosphere gets colder.

Obviously, collecting all these measurements over time is a complex business, as are the atmospheric models that have been constructed to predict the effects, but the evidence is pretty clear now.

It has certainly convinced almost all governments, the motor industry, the fossil fuel industry (in which I used to work) and the insurance industry. I read the Financial Times and every day now there is at least one article on some aspect of the changes we will need to make to the way we meet our energy needs. One day it may be the geopolitics of lithium mining and refining, another the changes to electricity grids to support more distributed power generation, or the pros and cons of carbon permit trading systems......it's a constant drumbeat now.

The days when climate change was just the concern of a few lefties in bobble hats are long gone. It's on us, and huge changes are afoot. It may be more apparent to me in London than to you in Panama, if that is where you are. Also from my background I'm perhaps more au fait with the issues of the energy transition. But it's real, it's transnational and it's very big.


* Optional extra nerd-out :-
Arrhenius equation: rate constant, k = A.exp(-Ea/RT), where Ea is the activation energy of the rate limiting step. (A is a proportionality constant, known simply as the "pre-exponential factor", which in practice relates to the probability of the molecules being correctly oriented to react in each encounter.)

CO2 is not a one way valve. The sun radiates in the entire EM spectrum, which means the sun also give off IR that excites the atmospheric CO2, during the day; keeps out some IR heat. Thermal windows can keep in heat or keep out heat. If the IR energy levels of CO2 are fully excited during the day, by the sun, CO2 become like a sponge that is saturated, allowing new heat to enter or escape like a saturated sponge, will drip water as fast is it absorbs. By late night, the CO2 tightens up to the trickle of earth heat loss; compared to solar.

The water in the atmosphere is more important to climate, than the one trick pony of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Water exists in the atmosphere as solid, liquid and gas. When clouds cover the sky; tiny droplets of water, this blocks the sun and the surface can cool within seconds as a cloud passes by. Go outside and prove this to yourself. Warmer global temperatures means more water can dissolve in the atmosphere, for a larger cooling cloud affect.

Clouds are connected to low pressure. These are related. As water condenses from the vapor phase, it lowers its partial pressure contribution, in the atmospheric gases. During high pressure, when most of the water is a gas, water vapor acts in the same way as CO2. It too has absorption in the IR, that keeps it as a gas; high pressure. Water can even sublime from ice into the gaseous state at the poles; longer IR.

CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%; deserts to rain forests. CO2 is more or less uniform due to entropy. Water can be very regional on the earth; Sahara to the Amazon, which makes it harder to model in real time, since averages do not do water justice, like it can with CO2.

Water condensing from vapor, is the power behind hurricanes. Solar energy is stored in water vapor; hydrogen bonding potential within water vapor. The rapid condensation of billions of gallons of water per second, lowers the partial pressure of water vapor in the local atmosphere. These huge low pressure systems; Cat 4-5 hurricanes, vacuum in air and the water condensation cools million of square miles of surface. Flood although terrible have a cooling affect on the local surface.

Have you even been in a hail storm, where the colder thundercloud tops chill water into ice, that then falls to the surface to cool the surface. Ice reflects solar energy and heat back into space. The ice in ice ages creates a cascading reflection affect; colder and colder, with more CO2 absorbed in the colder water.

If the ice caps were to melt, the thermal gradient between the equator and poles would drop. In the USA, February begin the tornado season where cold air in the Rocky Mountain; from winter, come down the mountain and clashes with the warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. As the season changes to summer, this gradient lessons. It become more about the amount of water in the warmer atmosphere leading to regional thunderstorm.

Melting the poles should make the clash between warm and cold fronts less drastic, since the cold fronts would be cool fronts and hot saturated air. The warmer temperature will then mean the main thermal gradient will become more skewed between the surface and upper atmosphere; thunder storms and hail.

 

[wellwisher]

Finally we get to it. Why the time-wasting run-around? If you genuinely had an issue with some of the science, you should have stated your difficulty up-front, so it could be addressed.

Yes, obviously it is the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the surface of the earth, in particular the seas and icecaps, that affects the climate, so that is the part of the earth that climate change science is concerned with. Surely you can't be so foolish as to imagine the entire volume of the earth, including the mantle and core, which are mostly at temperatures >1000C already, is what is meant?

A surface most certainly can be heated, which will transfer heat to an adjacent layer, whether land, sea or air. I found this for you after a 15 second internet search: Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content. It explains quite nicely the effect on the seas.

As a matter of fact, a good proportion of the predicted rise in sea level comes from pure thermal expansion of the water. The melting of the icecaps merely makes it worse.

If you have any other reasons for scepticism about the climate change issue, let's have them, clearly stated and out in the open, please. I'll do my best with genuine questions of science, but I do not have the patience for silly games.

The wild card about the ocean rising, is the earth's gravity is not uniform everywhere on the surface. This make it possible to have the ocean rise in some places, and drop in others.

If you think about it, the earth is larger around the equator than around the poles; distance from center of gravity. This means the ocean level is higher at the equator; distance from center of gravity, but is still at sea level. Gravity and centrifugal forces play a role in sea level, so the higher equatorial ocean does not cascade to the lower level poles. Maybe it does to some extent; north and south currents. If the poles melt and these current still happen science may need to go back to the old drawing board. Let us wait and see.

If we ignore these factors it will be easier to run the sea is rising scam, by fixating at one place; ignore other data. As a scientist who is a generalist, instead of specialists, I like to look at the bigger picture, and not fixate on any one trick specialty pony like CO2. That research is important too, but this is not enough for me.

 

[exchemist]

The wild card about the ocean rising, is the earth's gravity is not uniform everywhere on the surface. This make it possible to have the ocean rise in some places, and drop in others.

If you think about it, the earth is larger around the equator than around the poles; distance from center of gravity. This means the ocean level is higher at the equator; distance from center of gravity, but is still at sea level. Gravity and centrifugal forces play a role in sea level, so the higher equatorial ocean does not cascade to the lower level poles. Maybe it does to some extent; north and south currents.

If we ignore these factors it will be easier to run the sea is rising scam, by fixating at one place; ignore other data. As a scientist who is a generalist, instead of specialists, I like to look at the bigger picture, and not fixate on any one trick specialty pony like CO2. That research is important too, but this is not enough for me.

"Not even wrong", as Pauli might put it. Just rambling ballocks.

If the mean temperature of the ocean rises, there will be a net expansion, so it will take up a bigger volume overall. All this crap about the equator, variations in g etc is quite irrelevant.

 

[Alien826]

I did a bit of research and found this article.

Rising Waters: How NASA is Monitoring Sea Level Rise

Our global sea level is rising at a faster and faster rate-impacting communities along coastlines worldwide. From space, planes, and ships, @NASA is #SeeingTheSeas while studying the causes and effects of our rising waters.

www.nasa.gov

It seems that NASA takes all kinds of things into account when measuring mean sea level, gravity being just one of them. No mention of a scam for some reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural climate change cycles also show changes in natural CO2. I do not deny the importance of CO2.

CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water. If we heat the oceans from below or from above, CO2 will be released by the oceans, if there are saturated; shells and limestone. We do not have the monitors in place below the ocean to factor this out. CO2 is also released by volcanoes on the surface as well as by all animal life. Soil Bacteria also release CO2. Swamps are noted for CO2 and methane. Bacteria do better in warmer water, so any extra heating; natural or manmade, will make natural bacteria CO2 output go up.

You are making the classic science deniers mistake of thinking that because you do not know something that no one can know. And limestone? Seriously? Now you are just telling everyone how little you know. What makes you think that limestone can be a source of CO2? Instead of telling everyone how scientifically illiterate that you are you should be asking questions. Politely asked questions will be answered. Remember to be polite. Ignorance and arrogance will be laughed at.

CO2 is not a one way valve. The sun radiates in the entire EM spectrum, which means the sun also give off IR that excites the atmospheric CO2, during the day; keeps out some IR heat. Thermal windows can keep in heat or keep out heat. If the IR energy levels of CO2 are fully excited during the day, by the sun, CO2 become like a sponge that is saturated, allowing new heat to enter or escape like a saturated sponge, will drip water as fast is it absorbs. By late night, the CO2 tightens up to the trickle of earth heat loss; compared to solar.

Okay, so you do not even know how the Greenhouse Effect works. Why didn't you say so? Once again, you just told everyone that understand this that you are scientifically illiterate. Please ask questions politely and properly when you have no clue.

The water in the atmosphere is more important to climate, than the one trick pony of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Water exists in the atmosphere as solid, liquid and gas. When clouds cover the sky; tiny droplets of water, this blocks the sun and the surface can cool within seconds as a cloud passes by. Go outside and prove this to yourself. Warmer global temperatures means more water can dissolve in the atmosphere, for a larger cooling cloud affect.

Clouds are connected to low pressure. These are related. As water condenses from the vapor phase, it lowers its partial pressure contribution, in the atmospheric gases. During high pressure, when most of the water is a gas, water vapor acts in the same way as CO2. It too has absorption in the IR, that keeps it as a gas; high pressure. Water can even sublime from ice into the gaseous state at the poles; longer IR.

CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%; deserts to rain forests. CO2 is more or less uniform due to entropy. Water can be very regional on the earth; Sahara to the Amazon, which makes it harder to model in real time, since averages do not do water justice, like it can with CO2.

Water condensing from vapor, is the power behind hurricanes. Solar energy is stored in water vapor; hydrogen bonding potential within water vapor. The rapid condensation of billions of gallons of water per second, lowers the partial pressure of water vapor in the local atmosphere. These huge low pressure systems; Cat 4-5 hurricanes, vacuum in air and the water condensation cools million of square miles of surface. Flood although terrible have a cooling affect on the local surface.

Have you even been in a hail storm, where the colder thundercloud tops chill water into ice, that then falls to the surface to cool the surface. Ice reflects solar energy and heat back into space. The ice in ice ages creates a cascading reflection affect; colder and colder, with more CO2 absorbed in the colder water.

If the ice caps were to melt, the thermal gradient between the equator and poles would drop. In the USA, February begin the tornado season where cold air in the Rocky Mountain; from winter, come down the mountain and clashes with the warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. As the season changes to summer, this gradient lessons. It become more about the amount of water in the warmer atmosphere leading to regional thunderstorm.

Melting the poles should make the clash between warm and cold fronts less drastic, since the cold fronts would be cool fronts and hot saturated air. The warmer temperature will then mean the main thermal gradient will become more skewed between the surface and upper atmosphere; thunder storms and hail.

I have to quit. It is just one example after another that you do not understand the science at all along with an arrogant position based upon a strong Dunning Kruger effet.

Please ask questions politely and properly. If you don't know which questions to ask people can even give you suggestions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Not even wrong", as Pauli might put it. Just rambling ballocks.

If the mean temperature of the ocean rises, there will be a net expansion, so it will take up a bigger volume overall. All this crap about the equator, variations in g etc is quite irrelevant.

Wild science denial along with almost total scientific illiteracy is all that we see. Now I have done a gravity survey where on measures how gravity changes from place to place. I do not know how he thinks that local variations in gravity can help his claims. One thing that we had to do was to regularly check at a base station how the gravity changes due to the Moon and the Sun. The feature that we were looking for was over a billion years old. It was first discovered due to the gravity high that it created. I bring this up because it shows that though the Earth's surface gravity can vary it does not change over time. Since we do not see it to vary a change in the local gravity would be headline news.

New Insights into North America's Midcontinent Rift - Eos

The Midcontinent Rift has characteristics of a large igneous province, causing geologists to rethink some long-standing assumptions about how this giant feature formed.

eos.org

And as a chemist how bad would AGW have to be for limestone to become a source of CO2? I cannot draw the appropriate formula but the reaction would be

CaCO3 = CaO + CO2

I have a feeling that it might have to just a wee bit warmer for that to happen.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Finally we get to it. Why the time-wasting run-around? If you genuinely had an issue with some of the science, you should have stated your difficulty up-front, so it could be addressed.

Yes, obviously it is the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the surface of the earth, in particular the seas and icecaps, that affects the climate, so that is the part of the earth that climate change science is concerned with. Surely you can't be so foolish as to imagine the entire volume of the earth, including the mantle and core, which are mostly at temperatures >1000C already, is what is meant?

A surface most certainly can be heated, which will transfer heat to an adjacent layer, whether land, sea or air. I found this for you after a 15 second internet search: Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content. It explains quite nicely the effect on the seas.

As a matter of fact, a good proportion of the predicted rise in sea level comes from pure thermal expansion of the water. The melting of the icecaps merely makes it worse.

If you have any other reasons for scepticism about the climate change issue, let's have them, clearly stated and out in the open, please. I'll do my best with genuine questions of science, but I do not have the patience for silly games.

Interesting discussion, and my thinking is you don't know what mass is heating --iow how much of the ocean and how deep in the land is being heated. Important facts:

• Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10 18 kg
• Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10 21 kg

--which means the mass of the ocean is almost a thousand time that of the atmosphere which means we can ignore the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere if the heating/cooling of the ocean is connected.

To me, the entire AGW narrative can only make sense if we've identified the mass that's heating. If you know please share. If you don't know then please consider that your belief is something that you don't know what it is may be heating from the greenhouse. IOW, if your understanding is tenuous then let's be clear about it.