where is the anthropogenic influence??

Tell, me, paso:

Is CO2 a gas? And is gas normally considered one of the three states of matter? And finally, do you maintain that the CO2 that is in our climate now has always been in our climate system? Or was it introduced from outside of that system, in the same way that many other things have been introduced over time, either by man or by natural processes, such as giant asteroids or meteors, or particles from comets, or space dust, or ash from volcanoes, or other such things?
 
I think in thermodynamics a closed system is one that allows the transfer of energy( as eat or work) but not matter. An open system allows the transfer of both. For climate science the earth's climate would be a closed system. Gas and such are not escaping and being introduce to the climate. I suppose matter is introduced in the form of meteorites and such, but that would obviously be negligible for this analysis.
 
Also, I think ya'll are arguing semantics...though one definition is correct and appropriate. You're both talking about a system that is influenced by the sun.
 
Perham and HornCyclist are correct. The earth's climate is a closed system because the amount of matter remains constant. The energy varies (although this is fairly constant over time as well within some cycles).

Global warming is caused by various greenhouse gasses retaining more heat than normal and causes a thermodynamic imbalance over time. The overwhelming majority of this heat is retained by the ocean.

Do we really need to get into the carbon cycle with CO2? Carbon and oxygen do not escape into space. They do cycle through various forms though.
 
I thin that depends on the time period you're looking at. Mop's original question was about why the solar variation could explain the early century warming but not this most recent warming. I think wikipedia has the answer, or refrences the answer --
The Link

I don't have the expertise or experience with the subject to understand all of that, but it seems that the sun is not going through the same variation right now, though some of the warming in teh 20th century can be accounted for by solar variation. Since 1980, not so much.
 
This might hijack the thread a little bit but is anyone else frightened by the catastrophic possibilities of global warming? I don't want to get into all of the conjectures an inconvenient truth spat out but from my layman perspective, it seems like the effects of global warming will significant alter our lives over the rest of the century. It's hard for me to fully comprehend. I know we as humans have a remarkably ability to adapt and most of the effects will come gradually allow that to happen, but I have trouble conceiving of such a dramatic altering of the world I live in.

I have trouble finding instances in history of this type of change. Most change on this scale was political or in isolated regions. I don't think anyone saw them coming that far off. We're anticipating this, and I don't know what it means for me, a guy in his late 20s, looking forward to building life and starting a family.
 
The atmosphere was created, in large part, through the volcanic discharge of H2O, CO2, ammonias, and other things. This discharge brought things (matter) from inside the Earth and introduced them into the atmosphere. In other words, things that were not a part of the climate were introduced into what became the climate system. The climate system is not only open, but it could never have existed in the first place apart from this openness, at least not in any form we could recognize.

Volcanic processes and other mechanisms continue to release matter into our atmosphere in unpredictable ways.

Example #1

Example #2

Are you really arguing that this matter has always been a part of the climate system, even when it was trapped inside the Earth?
 
Carbon_cycle.jpg
 
Coel, you're right the climate has not always been a closed system. As I mentioned earlier, the atmosphere is constantly bombarded with meteoroids, which I suppose have some very negligible effect on the temperature from the heat generated as they burn up. True also for active lava flows in parts of the world but for the purpose of a climate investigation, it is presently a closed system, and that's how it's examined.
 
The earth is part of the closed system. The boundary is space.

We can have an interesting discussion on whether the ocean is a boundary (although I do not think it is).
 
So wait: Is the CO2 being released, emitted, or otherwise discharged into the climate, or is it not?

I'm not sure the phrase "into the climate" can have any real meaning unless we're assuming that it was not a part of the climate prior to that release.

I understand the concept of cycling. But clearly parts of the cycle are dormant insofar as they effect the climate. That's the only way to even begin to conceive of an AGW theory in the first place.

You can't have it both ways, and insist on one hand that CO2 is being released "into the climate" when that suits your argument, and then turn around and insist on the other hand that we are dealing with a closed system when that suits your argument.

Your argument depends upon an open system, and you can't just shut it down as soon as it starts to complicate that argument.
 
It's a perfect example of people using a conceptual double standard to further their sentimentality. The open system is fundamental to AGW theory, and yet it makes the task of proving that theory problematic. And therefore it is embraced when it serves our interest, and it is repudiated when it does not.
 
I think it's just alien to you, and others, in many ways. It's not a method you're used to dealing with. It's like a boxer trying to fight an expert in Krav Maga.

Look, the very claim that CO2 is being released "into the climate" implies an open system. There is no way to even understand the phrase "into the climate" unless we accept the premise that it was not "in the climate" prior to the release. And if it was not in the climate, then it was out of the climate. And if it was out of the climate, then clearly it must be introduced into the climate in order to be a part of the climate. And if it was introduced into the climate, thus becoming a part of the climate, then we are dealing with an open system.

That's not science. But it is a more exacting account of the logical bedrock upon which any science must rest if it is to deliver us from our present or future troubles.

Rational thought comes prior to all science. It's my habit to drag you boxers out of the ring and into the street, where the more practical and ultimately more meaningful Krav Maga of rational thought will prevail.
 
You misunderstand the entire thermodynamic concept of closed versus open. Carbon and oxygen are not being introduced into the system. They already exist in the system. The level of CO2 is increasing because we are imbalancing the system.

Matter (ie carbon and oxygen) amounts remain unchanged. The level of CO2 (along with several other gasses) in the atmosphere is increasing. They are not, however, coming from outer space but rather are being released from a stored form (petroleum primarily) to an atmospheric form. This is just altering the location and form of the elements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top