Also note it's not #Anthropophagic. That's something else entirely which we'll talk about once the apocalypse is upon us.

"How much coal has to be burned to heat the earth 1 degree?"

Interesting question!

Naively, 1 kg coal ~ 3*10^7 J when burnt (link: https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/coalequivalent.htm). The specific heat of the atmosphere is about 1158 J/kg*C and there's about 5.14*10^18 kg of atmosphere, so the total heat capacity of the atmosphere is about 5.95*10^21 J/C. Using similar calculations, the oceans' heat capacity is about 5.30*10^24 J/C, which dominates the calculation. If we burned about 1.6*10^14 kg of coal and somehow achieved perfect heat transfer to the atmosphere and oceans, we'd have increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 degree, but the ocean would absorb it. It would take about 1000 times that amount of coal to increase the temperature of the atmosphere AND the ocean by 1 degree. We burn about 8bn tons of coal per year (link: http://science.time.com/2013/01/29/the-scariest-environmental-fact-in-the-world/), which is about 7*10^11 kg. So I guess we aren't burning enough to heat the atmosphere. Phew! (Well, there's all the gasoline and oil and natural gas and wood and so on...but I'm sure they don't matter.)

Of course, then we get into force multipliers. The primary effect of burning coal on Earth's temperature isn't actually the heat generated by the reaction, but rather the effect of the waste products on Earth's absorption of solar radiation. As you have astutely (and frequently) noted, the Sun is where most of our thermal energy comes from. But it's one thing to be bombarded with photons and quite another to capture the resulting heat. (This is the primary reason why the Moon is much colder than the Earth despite receiving the same amount of solar energy per unit surface area *and* having a lower albedo then the Earth.) Atmosphere is what captures the heat the Earth radiates after absorbing all those photons. So you see why the gases in the atmosphere might be important.

If you burn enough coal to pump ~4bn tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year over 40 years (170bn since the '70s per link: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html), plus whatever other side products might influence matters, it's enough to change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 20% (link: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). That isn't a large amount relative to total atmosphere, but the interesting thing is that CO2 absorbs heat from a different spectrum of radiation than water vapor--importantly, the 12-15 micrometer band, which is near the center of Earth's black body radiation spectrum. So this change is enough to have an effect, albeit not a large one.

But that triggers another force multiplier, because it upsets the water vapor equilibrium. People talk about water vapor being the dominant greenhouse gas, and they're right, but pumping water vapor into the air doesn't do anything because it just condenses right back out as rain. But raising the temperature by a small amount means a higher maximum amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which raises the temperature again, which raises the maximum again...this feedback loop decays reasonably quickly, but the result is an extra rise in temperature.



This is about the limit of my knowledge on the subject, and there are a billion complicating factors I haven't addressed, so I won't bother taking a strong AGW stance one way or the other. But I hope this discussion at least addresses some of the basic issues like why burning coal can influence, not the amount of solar energy we *get*, but the amount of solar energy we *keep*.

A special note for a special inanity: None of this requires that natural climate change does not happen. As BOG frequently notes, man did not cause the last ice age; but the fact that nature caused an ice age in the past does not mean CO2 and other byproducts of human existence aren't influencing climate in the present. If you never bring up that argument again, it'll be too soon, BOG.

We have to stop the cows farting... last night I dreamed of achieving this, but the only problem was they kept exploding. Very. Messy. I guess we're going to have to invent spindizzies - I can't wait to wave goodbye to NY...

@Chumbles Hehe. That's specifically mentioned on that wikipedia page as "livestock enteric fermentation..."

And if we invent the spindizzy that would be pretty cool. :-) I'm a bit more scared of us inventing the "city fathers", though.

@bog: "
"that also means that if there are too many greenhouse gases, the earth will become hotter, correct?" No. That doesn't follow. The temperature follows the amount of energy we get from the sun. Think of it this way - can you change the temperature of your house by changing the amount of gases you have? Can you heat your house by adding CO2? No. You need energy to heat your house."

ah, here lies the problem. you agree that ghg reflect heat, yet you don't think that more ghgs would lead to a temperature increase? if 20% of the earths atmosphere where co2, we'd have the same temperature (well, we'd be dead, but that's not the point now.)

@ Chumbles: Once you've sorted the cows, see if you can stop BOG farting out of his mouth.

*same temperature? with a question mark of course.

@fulhamish:

"Unfortunately, a certain hyperbole exists on both sides of the debate and I was being a little bit of what you describe as a troll in attempt to stir the pot a little. I think that, with respect, those on your side of the argument need to differentiate between ''scepticism'' and ‘’denial’’. Personally, as you know, I feel that there are increasing grounds for scepticism without classifying myself as a denialist. Such a position would be as anti-science as those who unreservedly follow the cult of anthropocentric climate change nee global warming."

my problem with you so-called "scepticism" is that you only ever show links to sites that try to disprove anthropogenic climate change and question the credibility of cimate scientist and never the other way around. i don't know much about climate science, to be honest, but i know enough about science that this is not the definition of "open-mindedness".

What "sceptics" get wrong is *this is not a debate*. There is no debate. There is a bunch of denial and foolishness, which deserves nothing but ridicule, and there is the established scientific and informed opinion, which is that there are many many factors that go into climate change, and one of the most significant right now is human driven.

There isn't any debate. Just a lot of idiots shouting at science.

The last two contributions sound just like those climategate emails in tone. i have to say that perhaps for some unquestioning towing the line appears to be the option which they pick. It is almost like they feel it their duty to accept the null rather than go where the data takes them. A pity.

By all means, have an open mind. But not so open that your brains have fallen out. There really is no debate on this issue in the science world.

And believe me, if there were, it would be bleedingly obvious. Scientists don't like to agree on hardly bloody anything. They're an ornery lot.

Well as you appear to prefer to talk in generalities rather than debate actual points of science, I will indulge myself in some History of Science. Your starter for ten is which embarking PhD student was told this by his supervisor:

"in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."

The point is beware of a consensus (aka appeal to authority), it can acquire a momentum of itself without much regard to the evidence. I believe that Kuhn had something to say on that too.

Letho Thank you for adding some facts to the discussion. " and there are a billion complicating factors I haven't addressed, so I won't bother taking a strong AGW stance one way or the other. But I hope this discussion at least addresses some of the basic issues like why burning coal can influence, not the amount of solar energy we *get*, but the amount of solar energy we *keep*.

You point out the complexities of trying to determine the impact of man's contribution to climate change, like what happens to the CO2 produced. CO2 is plant food. Man made climate change exists in computer models, which have never correctly predicted climate change, and always predict change happening 50 or 100 years out.

@bog: care to answer me, or dodging again?

Lan " Increasing the amount of any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by even one molecule increases the temperature of that atmosphere, however small that increase may be." The key to understanding is that the atmosphere is not static. It is not as simplistic to suggest that adding one molecule of CO2 will be there in a week, or 100 years. Yes, different greenhouse gasses have different affects on heat. But there are so many more variables that affect weather and climate. Plants take CO2 from the atmosphere. The amount of energy reflected depends on cloud cover. And many others. I have repeatedly said I know climate changes, as demonstrated by ice ages.

Unfortunately, too many religious zealots here claim that every molecule of CO2 a human exhales will lead to catastrophic global calamity. All the claims of climate disaster - going back decades to the coming ice age, all ice will be gone from the Arctic and children will not know snow - have come and gone. The earth is very complex, has survived for billions of years, has changed many times and will continue to change. With or without we humans.

The computer models do not predict reality.

"Unfortunately, too many religious zealots here claim that every molecule of CO2 a human exhales will lead to catastrophic global calamity."

please quote who said that.

Thor "There isn't any debate. Just a lot of idiots shouting at science."

Right. Like in the 70’s when Science was warning about the coming ice age; or warned about the coming population bomb, or the science that warned about us running out of oil and gas, or the science from the UN in in the 1980s that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Yes. I shout at junk science. When they get it right, when their models work, when they don forge the data to fit their projections, I will stop shouting. How many times do those climate scientists have to get it wrong before you true believers realize you have been sold a bunch of rubbish?

BOG the fact that we talk from hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away proves that science gets most things right.

Also understand that the way most people (i.e. journalists) read and interpret science is not accurate. I think if you had a broader understanding and a less zealous approach you wouldn't be so critical.

@ BOG: "The earth is very complex, has survived for billions of years, has changed many times and will continue to change. With or without we humans."

No-one is suggesting that man-made climate change will cause the earth to completely cease to exist.

" blah blah religious zealots blah blah"

I take it from your regular use of religous references as insults that you are an atheist, yes? You believe that religion is always wrong?

"The computer models do not predict reality."

How do you know? How are you able to travel forward in time to the time they are currently predicting, and observe the results? You said yourself that most of today's models look 30 to 100 years into the future. Have you been to that future time and observed the climate?

I called BOG radical before, but that wasn't the right word. Zealous is. BOG's opinion is too strong for a sensible discussion or common sense in general. When I say common sense I'm referring to being aware of the fact that when two people disagree, one of them is wrong and statistically, that's going to be you every now and then. It really helps to humble yourself a little so you become someone people can have a decent discussion with.

Other than that, I'd like you to react to a post I posted a few pages ago, which you conveniently did not react to:

"@BOG: "Step - You are an ignorant fool."

Sadly your best argument so far.

""He can't simply assume that because man didn't warm up earth before (let's call that a negative correlation?), man is not warming up earth now."

look at what you are suggesting. Climate changed without man in the past. But somehow, because of man, climate is changing because of man. "Jane, you ignorant slut""

I did not suggest that. All I said is what you said before in this very thread: correlation =/= causation. Therefore your argument is completely invalid.
There's no need to pull your usual tricks of putting words in my mouth and assuming I have a point of view. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy and logical fallacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

A good reaction to my post would be to try and argue why that is not hypocritical or a logical fallacy. What is not a good reaction, however, is to insult me, put words into my mouth, mock those words and pretend you're mocking anything I said and saying absolutely nothing in response to what I actually said.

"Show how man is causing climate change. A natural process that has been going on for centuries"

I don't think man is causing climate change.
I agree it's a natural process that has been going on for centuries. You see, you're really bad at putting words into my mouth because you are never even close to my actual point of view.

Now before someone puts more words into my mouth, I don't think man causes climate change, but I don't rule out the possibility that man influences climate change in some way. I think it's a *possibility*.

The problem with lots of people, not just BOG but he is the most obvious example in this thread and, atm, on this site, is overconfidence. BOG sees some poor arguments for climate change and that's all it takes to be absolutely certain about the opposite point of view. It would be good for BOG to realize everyone is wrong on occasion, and realize that there's always a chance you're wrong about such a subject, and perhaps use that as a reason to stop acting like a cocky know-it-all all the time.

That is all."

boy "proves that science gets most things right"

Do the research. Match up climate predictions with actual results. Start with the latest 'oops!' that got the Antarctic ice wrong.

Science gets most things right. The fact climate scientists get most things wrong suggests they are not quite the scientist you believe they are. When science continually gets things wrong, they are expressing opinion. Not fact.

Step -. I will refrain from name calling. I shouldn't get down to the tactics of many here who do so.

But to your point"""He can't simply assume that because man didn't warm up earth before (let's call that a negative correlation?), man is not warming up earth now."

No, we can't prove that, except for the fact that there is no evidence for man-caused global warming. Man-caused Global warming is happening only in climate models, that are consistently proved wrong.

So BOG admits he made an assertion for which there is no proof.

"You point out the complexities of trying to determine the impact of man's contribution to climate change, like what happens to the CO2 produced. CO2 is plant food."

It is. Yet for all the plants' best efforts, atmospheric CO2 has gone up by 20% in the last 40 years. (Gosh, could it be that deforestation is also having an effect on atmospheric CO2?) Whatever explanation you propose for what happens to the CO2 once produced has to account for that fact.

"Science gets most things right."

Heh. Science gets most things *wrong*. The best science hopes for is (a) to get things wrong in a useful way, and (b) to become less wrong over time. Newtonian mechanics? Usefully wrong. The Bohr model of the atom? Usefully wrong. Darwin's evolutionary models? Usefully wrong. Theories about dark matter/dark energy? Usefully wrong. We can go on and on.

But it turns out that being usefully wrong is usually closer to being right than anything else. The modern world was built on the knowledge we gained by being usefully wrong.

And can I just call back to your first comment:
"Any opinion expressed without facts proves you are a religious zealot and should be ignored."

BOG, so far I haven't seen you provide data or support for a single claim you've posted.

Jamie - "No-one is suggesting that man-made climate change will cause the earth to completely cease to exist." Well, I have seen people draw parallels to Mars and Venus. Mars somehow lost its atmosphere. Venus is the example of runaway global warming. And because of these two, they make similar changes for the earth. Now that indeed may happen. But did man change Mars and Venus? And with no proof of man caused global warming, they are promoting their religious belief.

"You believe that religion is always wrong?" I am a deeply religious person. But that is not relevant to the discussion. I came up with the religious zealot term to show that people believe in something - than cannot be seen, measured or produces results congruent with their beliefs, as following a religion. They have faith in what they believe.

"How do you know? How are you able to travel forward in time to the time they are currently predicting, and observe the results? You said yourself that most of today's models look 30 to 100 years into the future. Have you been to that future time and observed the climate?"

You don't have to. Just apply the current models to times 100 or 1,000 years ago, and see if what is predicted aligns with reality.

@bog: i asked you three times to answer me on this page alone on two distinct topics. i'm sad at how you seemed so eager a page ago to have a "fact based discussion" with me yet now you refuse to answer two simple questions.

"I will refrain from name calling" "religious zealot"

Kas - I sincerely apologize if I have missed your questions. I thought I answered them all.

So please, cut and paste your unanswered questions and I will address them first thing.

sure thing. all from this page:

1.) @bog: "
"that also means that if there are too many greenhouse gases, the earth will become hotter, correct?" No. That doesn't follow. The temperature follows the amount of energy we get from the sun. Think of it this way - can you change the temperature of your house by changing the amount of gases you have? Can you heat your house by adding CO2? No. You need energy to heat your house."

ah, here lies the problem. you agree that ghg reflect heat, yet you don't think that more ghgs would lead to a temperature increase? if 20% of the earths atmosphere where co2, we'd have the same temperature? (well, we'd be dead, but that's not the point now.)

2.) "Unfortunately, too many religious zealots here claim that every molecule of CO2 a human exhales will lead to catastrophic global calamity."

please quote who said that.