Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

donnay

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
42,534
Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can’t cause Global Warming

Published on February 9, 2017

Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

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.
http://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

I will add this:

Genesis 1:14 - (KJV)
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


Genesis 8:22 (KJV)
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
 
I think the writer got his information all wrong, nobody is saying that carbon dioxide alone would raise the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere. The argument with global warming is that more than normal CO2 in the air would cause the atmosphere to retain more heat from the sun and that heat retained would lead to increase in temperature would lead to increase global and ocean temps.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans sun, 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.

I knew he was wrong the moment I read that line, its a give away when a person starts off with a strawman argument and then proceeds to debunk that strawman. Nobody makes the argument he is making.
 
Global warming is mainly caused by north pole icecap melting, this is nothing new, climate changes..
The white ice reflects energy back to space, they act as reflective thermal blankets, lowering temperatures.
As the icecaps melt it decreases the amount of white surface area, and thus lowers the amount of energy reflected.
The melt that water is then added to ocean, which traps heat and doesn't reflect it.
So you end up with a self feeding cycle that will warm the planet.
In the end, even if the temps warmed enough to melt all of the icecaps, the planet will eventually stabilize itself at a higher temperature.
The planet will be fine, the people living in coastal areas and river plains will be fucked.
To that I say oh fucking well, don't live there, we know that climates change from historical records...
How many "sunken cities" and glacial ice damn flows do we have to discover to show that is a bad idea to live in those areas..
 
Man made global warming is absurd. There are so many reasons it cannot be true. The one I like to stress is the simple issue of what a tiny percentage of "damage" these microscopic organisms we call "humans" could do to this giant ball floating through space. Even if we wereto able to extract all the known carbon reserves in the earth and burned them all in a year it would do little more than make a bunch of short term emissions which would shortly (in geologic time) bee cleaned by natural processes. Most here don't even remember Valdez and the predictions of the damage that would last for hundreds of years. It's been a relatively short time since then but nature has cleaned up most of the damage...
 
Back
Top