Sigh.
Even NASA opens its account with an erroneous argument about CO2 concentration and temperature.

The temperature of the Ordovician Period was an Ice Age. What was atmospheric CO2 concentration? 4400 parts per million or 12 times what we have today. If there is a direct correlation between CO2 concentration and mean temperature, which as I understand it is the central plank of the case for anthropogenic global warming, then it's blown clean out of the water by an analysis that goes back further than the 650,000-800,000 years worth of ice core samples which are most commonly referenced.

And the Ordovician period isn't even the highest CO2 concentration we've come across.

When it talks about the global temperature reconstructions done by computer and mentions predicts based on them, they forget to mention the fact that the margin of error on all of their reconstructions is actually far larger than the rises they are predicting and that if you extrapolate further than they're willing to, beyond 50 years or so, they graphs become absurd.

Climate study is a young science, with more holes in it than in more established branches of science. The stakes are very high and the proponents of both sides are ridiculously shrill and not above bullshitting to make their case.

And when supposedly august organisations like the IPCC actually engage in bullshitting to get across a point that is so serious you wonder why they have to resort to it, if the science is as complete as they claim it is.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 20:55, 1 reply)

Now I never got the impression they said that temperature is only a function of CO2 levels and nothing else,
but you seem like someone who knows a thing or two.

Let me throw a crazy idea at you just now. A few years ago I calculated that the amount of energy used by mankind every year is enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's entire atmosphere by 0.1 degrees by direct heating. Obviously some of that will be radiated into space but still, it is some indication of just how much impact we could potentially have on the world.

This was calculated from annual world energy production, the volume of the Earth's atmosphere and the specific heat capacity of air.

If there is any validity to my reasoning here, even Nuclear Fusion isn't going to save us.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:02, closed)

Oh I think that it's well established that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas
but it is the bogeyman the climate change activists have chosen to be the poster-child of their campaign. Despite both methane and water being far larger contributors to the greenhouse effect. However, nobody is entirely sure of the mechanisms behind methane and water (as I mentioned with the 10 degree change that happened in 50 years, probably involving the water cycle but they don't know what) so they tend to leave those to one side and go "oh look CO2, we understand that, let's focus on this" despite, as I've mentioned, even a tiny amount of change in the natural water cycle rendering moot one entire century's output of industrial CO2.

Now I'm not saying we can't have an impact on the world, clearly we can. But I myself wouldn't like to say just how much of the warming we're seeing is down to industrial CO2 and how much is a by product of deforestation of the planet or increasing the earth's natural albedo by paving it in concrete but climate change proponents ARE sure, they're evangelically sure and I'm afraid I don't yet share their confidence. I would like that level of certainty, to be sure, but by the shrillness of their arguments thus far and the actions of even those you would think we could trust to be fair and unbiased I can't shake off the suspicion that somewhere corners are being cut.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:15, closed)

I was just wondering what you thought of the idea
that we might cause global warming just by using a lot of energy, even without emissions, if our usage habits continue to grow exponentially at the current rate.

As someone who tinkers with PC cooling solutions, I know from first-hand experience that the more power you put through any given system, the hotter it gets. But I never heard anyone mention this as a particular cause for concern.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:21, closed)

Well, you're in good company
Because Steven Hawking himself calculated the amount of warming caused by consumption of energy by electrical gizmos and concluded that there will (or should) be detectable warming just from that alone. Though I'm not sure he's willing to part with his wheelchair and computer just yet....

But I don't know if it was to civilisation-destroying levels as you're suggesting. I suppose the thing to do would be to look at other energy-generating phenomena for comparison, such as not necessarily eruption laval spills and the like. If anything such as that has contributed more energy to the atmosphere without a massively deleterious effect on life on earth then it's probably not going to be a cause for concern.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:30, closed)

Interesting...
I'm willing to donate all of my carbon credits to Hawking anyway.

The obvious difference between human energy consumption and a volcanic eruption is that an eruption is a calamitous event whereas human consumption is continuous. Another difference is that humans are actually generating power, whereas lava was already hot from the creation of the Earth. But it's worth looking at.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:35, closed)

I mentioned not eruption level spills
I'm thinking of more miniature flood basalt type affairs where there's been continuous outpouring of lava, and therefore heat, over a long period of time.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:42, closed)

If it's been continuous for millions of years it won't be a worry,
it might make the Earth warmer than it would otherwise have been but it would be in thermal equilibrium by now.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:47, closed)

The trick would be to find a geological event like that
that wasn't a full-on flood basalt, because they tend to induce mass extinctions due to pollution and blocking out the sun, that sort of thing.

We'd need to look at the geological record for such an event that had life existing throughout it to measure it's effect on climate and possible extinction rates.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to break off from this discussion now as it's nearly ten and I still haven't had dinner this evening. But feel free to reply and I'll get back to it when I can.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:54, closed)

Okay where'd he go?
The guy I was just composing a reply to, to the effect that methane is 20 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2 and has more than doubled in concentration in the atmosphere over the last 200 or so years?
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:38, closed)

back button, back button, copy paste!
it's worth sharing anyway... NOx is also pretty nasty, too.

I've got the figures now for volcanoes. Human annual world energy production is about 5 x 10^11 gigajoules (at 15.8 Terawatts x 24 hours x 365.25 days = 138502.8 TWh).

A volcano is about 24 megatons which is 10^8 gigajoules

So human energy use is about 5000 volcanoes a year...

HOLY SHIT.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:45, closed)

Yes but a lot of that energy that we're generating
we're using. It is dissippated mechanically in a multitude of ways. Unless the figure you have there is specifically for energy we are pumping into the atmosphere after we've used the bulk of it for something else.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:49, closed)

First Law of Thermodynamics, mate,
heat is work and work is heat. It doesn't get "used up".
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 21:51, closed)

As I understand it when, say, the internal combustion engine
burns fuel for energy and uses this to produce motion, there's energy that's converted to work and energy that just is wasted for want of a better word. Of the energy that produces work, this is dissipated in other ways. Again, as I understand it, not all of that energy will make it into the atmosphere. If it did, would this not mean that we had stumbled upon "free" energy?

I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make or whether this is the appropriate rebuttal.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 22:00, closed)

all mechanical energy will eventually be converted to heat by friction.
energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Eventually all power used is dissipated into the surroundings in the form of heat, unless it drives an endothermic chemical reaction and gets turned back into chemical energy again.

If your PC draws 200W of power from the mains, for instance, it will be putting out 200W of heat as well.

But if that surprises you, this will surprise you even more.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 22:06, closed)

you're right and wrong...
All energy dies eventually go to heat (vibration of molecules), but your assumption that the temperature of the earth will increase has a key flaw, that the earth is a closed system. In reality, most of the extra energy that we produce will also be lost to space as radiation. There will be a change in the equilibrium point, but it will be small.
Think of it like a fridge, our energy use is like putting a bulb in the fridge, greenhouse gas build up would be like opening the door (not a great analogy, but hopefully the intent is clear?
apologies for erroneous worda, this is done on my phone
(Hill Dog loves planes, Tue 6 Dec 2011, 18:34, closed)