# Credulous "experts" on global warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477 "2015-08-31T05:47:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/121 "2015-09-04T21:27:36Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Then your work is done. Then there is no reason for you to continue to “try” to convince people that global warming is more than one half of the normal temp swing occurring between ice ages. Global warming, global cooling, global warming, global cooling. As usual, even this is very silly, not going to change science that way. The bit you miss about is that in the latest global warming we humans are moving it along, and to places where it should not be. The changes observed currently are not like the normal swing seen before. [http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/climate-has-changed-before.html](http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/climate-has-changed-before.html) > [@](#): > > You can see that the increase in carbon dioxide begins a little before 1800, in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, and climbs rapidly near the end of the 20th century as we burn more and more fossil fuel. The final values on the curve are direct measurements of the carbon dioxide beginning in the middle of the 20th century. For at least 650,000 years, until the 20th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was never higher than 300 ppmv (parts per million by volume which is 0.0300% of the air). By the beginning of the 21st century, about 116 ppmv of new carbon dioxide had been added to the air during the previous 200 years. This is about 925 billion (925 × 109) extra metric tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to the weight of about 2.3 billion fully loaded Boeing 747 airliners). This change is both far outside the range of natural variation for at least the last million years and enormously faster than the natural processes represented in the ice core data. This rapid infusion of carbon dioxide in unprecedented amounts can change the Earth’s climate in ways that are different from the past. > > The temperature of the Earth is shown by the red line on the graph and is scaled to show the close correspondence of increasing Earth temperature to the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Correlations like this are useful to guide investigations to determine if there is any cause-and-effect relationship between the quantities that seem to be correlated. To learn more about the relationship between greenhouse gases and Earth’s temperature, see the narrative, “What Is the Greenhouse Effect”. The narrative, “Can Humans Be Changing the Climate?,” provides one line of evidence that the increasing carbon dioxide is a result of our fossil fuel burning. [http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/can-humans-be-changing-the-climate.html](http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/can-humans-be-changing-the-climate.html) > [@](#): > > The total amount of carbon dioxide released to the air by fossil fuel burning and other human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is estimated to be about 1700 trillion kilograms, so somewhat more than half of this is still present in the air. Most of the rest has either dissolved in the oceans or been used in photosynthesis by green plants and microorganisms (algae). The increased carbon dioxide in the air since humans began burning large amounts of fossil fuels is larger than any change for the past hundreds of thousands of years. Humans can indeed have a large impact on Earth’s composition. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, its increase has a warming effect, see the narrative, [“What Is the Greenhouse Effect?”](http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html) Human activities are very likely to have contributed to the observed warming of the Earth. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/122 "2015-09-04T21:56:41Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > So is there a deniers theory about the icecaps? Ice caps and glaciers are bad things, I’m glad they’re melting away … good ridden to rubbish. 335 kJ/kg is a small price to pay to see them GONE !!! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/123 "2015-09-04T22:14:37Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Ice caps and glaciers are bad things, I’m glad they’re melting away … good ridden to rubbish. 335 kJ/kg is a small price to pay to see them GONE !!! :rolleyes: Besides contributing to the rise of the oceans the melting of the glaciers will not give us riches. [http://na.unep.net/geas/getuneppagewitharticleidscript.php?article\_id=104](http://na.unep.net/geas/getuneppagewitharticleidscript.php?article_id=104) > [@](#): > > Mountain glaciers serve as a crucial buffer as they help to provide water (as melt water) when rainfall is minimal or nonexistent (Vuille et al., 2008), such as during the dry season or during drought conditions. This implies that some melting is necessary to fuel the existing hydrologic processes and fulfil consumption needs. However, an accelerated rate of melting will bring a short-term surge in supply that could create an unsustainable dependency (Vuille, 2013), degrade seasonal capacity (Bury et al. 2011), increase risk of hazards such as landslides, massive flood events referred to as glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) (see Box 2) and avalanches (Chevallier et al., 2011; Chisolm et al., 2012) and alter ecosystems (Rabatel et al., 2013). Reduction in glacier size can and will affect availability of water downstream (Vuille et al., 2008). For example, glacier retreat in the area surrounding the Shallap, Tararhua and Uruashraju glaciers along the Cordillera Blanca could lead to a 30% decrease in average dry season discharge (Baraer et al., 2012). > > Glaciers supply water to the countries of the Tropical Andes in varying quantities, creating an uneven distribution of potential impact and result in an even larger disparity in the distribution of water resources in the region (Chevallier et al., 2011). Currently, the Antisana glaciers (12 and 15) supply approximately 5% of potable water to the capital city of Quito, Ecuador (Moreno, 2010). About 24% of flow source for the Humboldt and Crespo rivers comes from the Antisana 15 glaciers (UNEP, 2011). In Bolivia, glaciers of the southern Cordillera Real supply approximately 15% of potable water for the urban areas of La Paz and El Alto and can increase to approximately 30% during the dry season from May to August (Soruco, 2012). The World Bank (2008) reports that the volume of glaciers that Peru has already experienced is equivalent to about 10 years of water supply for Lima, Peru’s capital of more than 9 million people (UN, 2012), an estimated 7 billion m3 of water. In addition to water supplies for big cities such as Lima and La Paz, glacier melt water also contributes to the water supply for rural settlements (Poveda and Pineda, 2009). For example, melt water from the Coropuna glacier in Peru directly supplies approximately 8,000 people with water and indirectly supports 30,000 people (Peduzzi et al., 2010). Stern (2006) estimates that a 1°C temperature increase could cause smaller glaciers to disappear, affecting the water supply of almost 50 million across the Andes. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/124 "2015-09-04T22:17:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The 2 ppmv number came from you in [post #83](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18653432&postcount=83). The 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tonnes is widely published. The arithmetic gives 10 gigatonnes. Which of the two values are improper? As pointed out to you in [#103](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18656428&postcount=103), your numbers are wrong, your assumptions are wrong, and none of it makes any sense. It’s not even clear if you’re trying to compute the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or the annual emissions. Again, the total annual global CO2 emissions amount to around [33.6 gigatons per year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions). The significant factor is the net radiative forcing due to the present CO2 level of 400 ppm relative to the pre-industrial level of 285 ppm. This is about 1.68 W/m **2 for CO2 and 2.29 W/m** 2 from all anthropogenic factors. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve found [an interesting piece](http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-radforce-0309) that gives the meteorological definition of “radiative forcing”. It’s pretty clear that this definition applies to AGW theory very well. Yes, an excellent article, and I would urge you to read it again carefully until you understand it. I would urge our friend **doorhinge** to read it, too. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > There’s more energy coming in than there’s going out. It’s not hard to think of the energy staying on Earth. Do you see how the author correctly just multiplied the total square meters by the forcing? This gives us total Watts. In every other scientific field, “Watts” has a very specific meaning, that being Joules per second. The word “Joule” also has a very specific meaning, the energy transferred by a 1 Newton of _ **force** _ moving a 1 kilogram mass one meter. _ **Force** _ has the specific meaning of mass times acceleration. You appear to be perennially confused. The fact that “joule” has a mechanical definition doesn’t mean there has to be an associated mechanical action – the joule is a unit of energy, and energy comes in many forms – mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical, etc. My electric meter which measures energy use in kilowatt-hours might just as well be measuring it in joules, but there is no visible force acting on a moving object when it causes a light bulb to emit heat and light! The watt is a measure of energy consumption rate, or power, such as the power supplied by my electic company and consumed by my computer and light bulbs and electric stove. It is thus also the appropriate measure of solar power that is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases. Power over time equals energy, and radiative forcing, measured in watts, acting over time, represents the amount of energy being added to earth’s energy budget. Again, please read the article that you cited and try to understand it. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Since using the word “force” in it’s classical meaning explains AGW theory so completely, why is it important to you that we use some other meaning? As I just explained, your use of the word “force” here is incorrect. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but 2014 was the hottest on record, which part of the greenhouse effect is being obscured by chaos? Daily and monthly weather fluctuations. And the fact that consecutive years are not monotonically increasing in temperature, but over the long term they are. **jshore** does a good job of explaining these concepts in posts [106](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18657378&postcount=106) and [108](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18657449&postcount=108). Chaos theory is fundamental to weather, which is where the idea originated. It becomes less significant as it gets averaged over time. The use of model ensembles, as mentioned, is an important corroborative concept in climatology. [This graph](http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/images/south_temp.jpg) of local climate is a good illustration of some of these concepts. We know that temperature can vary wildly from one day or week to another. Yet annual temperatures are remarkably consistent. At the same time, the graph shows that over a sufficiently long time period, the signature of systematic warming emerges. Another point is that since there are substantial regional variations, not every region will show the same degree of warming, and some may show the opposite. The fact that the warming signature emerges in the global average is statistically very significant. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/125 "2015-09-05T02:10:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As pointed out to you in [#103](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18656428&postcount=103), your numbers are wrong, your assumptions are wrong, and none of it makes any sense. It’s not even clear if you’re trying to compute the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or the annual emissions. Again, the total annual global CO2 emissions amount to around [33.6 gigatons per year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions). The significant factor is the net radiative forcing due to the present CO2 level of 400 ppm relative to the pre-industrial level of 285 ppm. This is about 1.68 W/m **2 for CO2 and 2.29 W/m** 2 from all anthropogenic factors. This is a ratio. I wish to know the ratio of our annual CO[sub]2[/sub] output compared the the total atmosphere. I divide 33.6 x10[sup]9[/sup] tons yr[sup]-1[/sup] by 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tons. This gives me the ratio of 6.7 x10[sup]-6[/sup] yr[sup]-1[/sup]. This gives us 6.7 ppm by mass. We have 2.1 ppm by volume observed. The difference from mass in a half dozen parts per _million_ is negligible, but draw your own conclusions. > [@wolfpup](#): > > You appear to be perennially confused. The fact that “joule” has a mechanical definition doesn’t mean there has to be an associated mechanical action – the joule is a unit of energy, and energy comes in many forms – mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical, etc. My electric meter which measures energy use in kilowatt-hours might just as well be measuring it in joules, but there is no visible force acting on a moving object when it causes a light bulb to emit heat and light! > > The watt is a measure of energy consumption rate, or power, such as the power supplied by my electic company and consumed by my computer and light bulbs and electric stove. It is thus also the appropriate measure of solar power that is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases. Power over time equals energy, and radiative forcing, measured in watts, acting over time, represents the amount of energy being added to earth’s energy budget. Again, please read the article that you cited and try to understand it. I’m just asking if you agree that these words have the same meaning in meteorology and climatology, and they’re used the same way. A Joule is a Joule, and if you’re changing it from electric energy to radiative energy, you’ll need a force. If you think that’s an incorrect use of the word, please state what is correct. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/126 "2015-09-05T02:52:04Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > This is a ratio. I wish to know the ratio of our annual CO[sub]2[/sub] output compared the the total atmosphere. I divide 33.6 x10[sup]9[/sup] tons yr[sup]-1[/sup] by 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tons. This gives me the ratio of 6.7 x10[sup]-6[/sup] yr[sup]-1[/sup]. This gives us 6.7 ppm by mass. We have 2.1 ppm by volume observed. The difference from mass in a half dozen parts per _million_ is negligible, but draw your own conclusions. No, that’s not what you were doing. You weren’t even aware of the 33.6 Gt number until I mentioned it. Here are your own words about what you were doing: “[I’ve got the Earth atmosphere at 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tonnes, so 2 ppmv is 10 x 10[sup]9[/sup] tonnes … perhaps the 500-1300 gigaton number is man’s CO[sub]2[/sub] output … only 10 gigatonnes remain in the atmosphere.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18655310&postcount=97)” Where the hell you got 10 Gt or what it’s supposed to mean is completely inexplicable and complete nonsense, but the only two numbers you mentioned are the mass of the atmosphere and the ppmv – the proportion _by volume_ – of CO2. If you go back to the original discussion prior to that, your objective was to show that the other poster was wrong in referring to “hundreds of gigatons” of carbon having been added to the atmosphere, you claim it’s merely “tens of gigatons”. But the number you produced was meaningless gibberish. And the difference between mass and volume of CO2 is anything but “negligible”. For CO2, the difference is substantial! In fact for CO2 at any given air pressure that assumption alone would be wrong by a factor of 1.519 (the ratio of the molar mass of CO2 vs the mean molar mass of air). Here’s a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation I did which will hopefully put this nonsense to bed once and for all. The present amount of CO2 at 400 ppmv (608 ppm/m) in the air when calculated correctly works out to be around 3.10x10[sup]12[/sup] tonnes, compared to 2.208x10[sup]12[/sup] tonnes before industrialization, where the level was about 285 ppmv (433 ppm/m). The difference is about 892 Gt. According to these calculations that’s roughly how much CO2 has been added to the world’s atmosphere from anthropogenic sources in the post-industrial era. That’s consistent with the 500-1300 Gt number that **marshmallow** mentioned in post #91. Now let’s see if that makes sense. The average emissions over the past 50 years were roughly about 22 Gt per year, obviously ramping up in recent years. This would be a total of about 1,100 Gt emitted in the past 50 years. If one posits that out of that 1,100, 40% (440 Gt) was retained in the atmosphere and the rest taken up by carbon sinks (550 Gt by the oceans and another 110 Gt by other carbon sinks), then that implies that about half of all the net anthropogenic CO2 now in the atmosphere was emitted in the past 50 years, and the rest was a combination of all anthropogenic emissions before that, reduced carbon uptake from deforestation, and other CO2 sources. So the number seems intuitively about right. Now it’s possible that my back-of-the-envelope scratchings were a complete screw-up, but we can do a quick sanity check on the 892 Gt number. We can use this handy rule-of-thumb factoid: [1 ppmv of CO2 amounts to about 2.13 Gt of carbon](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html). Using the [conversion factor of 3.67](https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45), this means 1 ppmv equals 7.817 Gt of CO2. The above calculations were based on a 115 ppmv difference between the pre-industrial CO2 level and the present level, so 115 x 7.817 = 899 Gt – close enough! 🙂 One can also sanity-check that rule of thumb. If we’re adding about 2 ppmv of CO2 to the air roughly every year, then the formula gives a figure of about 15.6 Gt of CO2 every year. Actual emissions are about twice that, but since about half gets re-absorbed by carbon sinks and the equation was derived from net remaining atmospheric CO2, it’s consistent with the facts. In fact the formula suggest that about 46% of current emissions remain in the atmosphere for a prolonged period, which for the result of a simple rule of thumb is remarkably accurate. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m just asking if you agree that these words have the same meaning in meteorology and climatology, and they’re used the same way. A Joule is a Joule, and if you’re changing it from electric energy to radiative energy, you’ll need a force. If you think that’s an incorrect use of the word, please state what is correct. What “force” is involved when an electric current converts electrical energy into radiant energy in a light bulb? (Other than the force of my finger on the light switch, I mean. :D) You’re trying to make some hopelessly obtuse point about weather and climate being the same thing based on some bizarre invocation of forces, acceleration, and the definition of a joule. Please read what I and several others have been very patiently trying to explain. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/127 "2015-09-05T03:43:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > . . . What “force” is involved when an electric current converts electrical energy into radiant energy in a light bulb? . . . There is such a thing as the electromagnetic force. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/128 "2015-09-05T10:27:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Your side, the man-made-CO2-is-evil side, has a huge PR problem. The UN/IPCC man-made-CO2-is-evil claims that the science is settled failed to convince the undecided. Some 40% of Americans are _creationists_. Some 25% are birthers. The fact that a plurality of people with absolutely no formal training or expertise have not accepted a well-established fact or scientific theory says nothing about its validity, _particularly_ when you have such a well-established propaganda mill (including one of the largest news networks in the country) constantly lying to them about it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/129 "2015-09-05T11:56:55Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Some 40% of Americans are _creationists_. Some 25% are birthers. The fact that a plurality of people with absolutely no formal training or expertise have not accepted a well-established fact or scientific theory says nothing about its validity, _particularly_ when you have such a well-established propaganda mill (including one of the largest news networks in the country) constantly lying to them about it. According to [this Gallup poll](http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx), 46% of Americans – _and 58% of Republicans_ – are creationists! And [this one](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/22/republicans-climate-change_n_7119158.html) provides Republican views on climate change. To summarize: [ul] [li]58% of Republicans believe that “God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years”.[/li][li]59% of self-identified conservative Republicans said they don’t believe that climate change is happening[/li][/ul] It’s striking how close those percentages are. I’d be willing to bet that for the most part the same individuals hold both beliefs. And that these individuals never went to college. And gave up trying to understand science somewhere between elementary and middle school. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/130 "2015-09-05T13:27:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There is such a thing as the electromagnetic force. Yup, with only two natural forces at play here, any energy transfer has to be caused by one or the other. I’m generally surprised at how many otherwise intelligent people seem to forget that, if the effect isn’t caused by gravity, then it must be caused by the electromagnetic force. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/131 "2015-09-05T14:30:01Z")
I’m surprised at how many otherwise intelligent people seem to forget what the original question was. 😉 You informed us in [post #97](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18655310&postcount=97) – in the process of trying to explain that weather was somehow the same as climate – that: … if we’re using “force” in the classical sense, then it is equal to mass times acceleration. I’m sure you’ve seen it expressed **F** = _m (d_ **v** /_dt)_. So it wouldn’t be a force that only acts in ten year intervals, it would have to be something else. A force is visible at _dt_ time intervals. You then doubled down on it in [post #114](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18658722&postcount=114): In every other scientific field, “Watts” has a very specific meaning, that being Joules per second. The word “Joule” also has a very specific meaning, the energy transferred by a 1 Newton of force moving a 1 kilogram mass one meter. Force has the specific meaning of mass times acceleration. Since using the word “force” in it’s classical meaning explains AGW theory so completely, why is it important to you that we use some other meaning? So I’ll ask again. Since you tell us that the watt is defined in terms of the joule and the joule in terms of force and that “force has the specific meaning of mass times acceleration”, **please tell us, in terms of classical physics, what force is applying what precise acceleration to what mass when I turn on a 100-watt light bulb**. I explained [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18660883&postcount=124) that power and energy take many different forms even though they’re all measured in the same units, but clearly you have your own unique understanding of the physical world. You might also want to explain how you concluded up there in post #97 that there was only 10 Gt of anthropogenic CO2 in the air [when the numbers actually work out to 892 Gt](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18661481&postcount=126). ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/132 "2015-09-06T02:47:55Z")
Yes, I came to the same conclusion, half the CO[sub]2[/sub] human’s belch out is being removed from the atmosphere. I find that curious, and interesting what a little math will say. Anyone have any idea where 16 Gigatons of CO[sub]2[/sub] per year is going? > [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m surprised at how many otherwise intelligent people seem to forget what the original question was. 😉 That would be whether meteorology and climatology are the same. I hold the position that meteorology is the basic science that climatology is built on. Force, Joules, flux … these are all meteorology concepts, not exclusive to climatology. > [@wolfpup](#): > > So I’ll ask again. Since you tell us that the watt is defined in terms of the joule and the joule in terms of force and that “force has the specific meaning of mass times acceleration”, **please tell us, in terms of classical physics, what force is applying what precise acceleration to what mass when I turn on a 100-watt light bulb**. You’ve asked twice now … so here it is … there is an amount of water at the top of a penstock of a hydroelectric dam. This water contains one Joule of potential energy. As it falls down the penstock, the force of gravity changes this Joule of potential energy into kinetic energy. Our Joule of energy enters an [alternator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator) and is converted to one Joule of electric energy. That joule is then converted by the electromagnetic force to radiative energy by the light bulb. The light shines on the bottom of your car’s engine, which absorbs the Joule of radiative energy and converts it to kinetic energy … making the engine warmer and easier to start on a -40ºC morning. At least that’s what happens here. It takes a force to transfer energy, forcing is just one way to measure the rate of energy transfer. So it’s pretty much dependent on the force behind it. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/133 "2015-09-06T02:53:31Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Some 40% of Americans are _creationists_. Some 25% are birthers. The fact that a plurality of people with absolutely no formal training or expertise have not accepted a well-established fact or scientific theory says nothing about its validity, _particularly_ when you have such a well-established propaganda mill (including one of the largest news networks in the country) constantly lying to them about it. The theory of evolution is counter Church doctrine, and the Catholic Church is a mighty enemy. The good news is that Pope Francis is on-board with AGW theory, and the Catholic Church is a mighty friend too. I’m up-beat about the progress we’re making, we’ve got God on our side !!! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/134 "2015-09-06T03:10:01Z")
Counter to the doctrine of which church? The Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution for a long time now. The only proviso the Church has with the theory is that at some point in the process, God added souls to creatures, but since souls are entirely outside the purview of science, this is no conflict. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/135 "2015-09-06T03:13:49Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The theory of evolution is counter Church doctrine, and the Catholic Church is a mighty enemy. 😕 > **[The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/#jmlyBGTSe1MMvpsy.99)** > > The Roman Catholic Church is pro-evolution and Big Bang, but with a twist > [@](#): > > Yesterday, Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang, according to the Telegraph. Elsewhere in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences The Catholic Church has largely sat out the cultural battle over the teaching of evolution, Pope Francis shows that there is no big conflict with Darwin. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/136 "2015-09-06T03:44:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The theory of evolution is counter Church doctrine, and the Catholic Church is a mighty enemy. This level of demonstrable ignorance is appalling. The Catholic Church has never opposed the Theory of Natural Selection/Evolution. In the late 19th century, when Huxley and associated pundits were proclaiming that evolution “proved” that there was no god, (something that Darwin never said, regardless of his personal beliefs or lack), the church challenged the expression that that particular science “proved” the “truth” of atheism. By the early 20th century, (even before Dobzhansky’s synthesis of Darwin and Mendel set evolution beyond early challenges), the RCC had already acknowledged the basic evidence and logic of Darwin’s theory, holding only that it occurred within God’s plan, but making no claims of specific divine interference. (You can look this up on the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia written between 1908 and 1919.) By 1950, Pope Pius XII had already noted that nothing in Scripture or Tradition contradicted the Theory of Evolution. Pope John Paul II further declared, in 1996, that Doctrine and the Theory of Evolution were compatible. Claiming that evolution is “against church doctrine” in direct contradiction to over 100 years of actual statements from the church is just silly and demonstrates a serious lack of investigation or study of the topic. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/137 "2015-09-06T15:49:08Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > That would be whether meteorology and climatology are the same. I hold the position that meteorology is the basic science that climatology is built on. Force, Joules, flux … these are all meteorology concepts, not exclusive to climatology. You can hold whatever position you like, it’s still wrong. Any resemblance is largely superficial. They study entirely different things. Climate science is interested in studying influences like radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, surface albedo changes, the carbon cycle and carbon cycle feedbacks, ocean heat uptake, polar ice reductions and ice-albedo feedback, lapse-rate feedback, and the earth’s total energy budget as a balance between total solar irradiation and the earth’s blackbody radiation. None of that is of interest in telling you whether it’s going to be a nice day tomorrow or if it’s going to rain on your picnic. And you’re still hung up on this business of “force”. I think possibly you have it confused with radiative climate forcing. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > That joule is then converted by the electromagnetic force to radiative energy by the light bulb. Thanks for the child’s primer on “where electricity comes from”, but that doesn’t answer the question. You just avoided the question instead of answering it, in that sentence which makes very little sense and is, at best, very badly worded. And joules are a unit of energy – they aren’t “converted” to anything. The question, again, is where your mechanical notion of force as F = ma comes in to the picture when I turn on a light bulb. For a 100-watt bulb, what is the mass and what exactly is being accelerated when electrical energy is converted to heat and light? How is this a useful concept? There’s actually a theoretical answer to that and you’re not getting it, but it isnt a useful concept in helping our understanding of how a light bulb works. My point was to show that any such perspective, should you be able to come up with one, is completely irrelevant to understanding radiative forcing and climate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477.md?page=6)